View Full Version : Socialist Health Care
t-money
Oct28-07, 03:46 PM
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
Post some links to prove that it doesn't work anywhere else. Post some links to prove that the US's infant mortality rate, life expectancy, detection and treatment of preventable diseases, etc, are superior to countries that have universal health care coverage. You're going to have a hard time supporting your opinions because you are dead wrong.
t-money
Oct28-07, 04:42 PM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172
http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/
Here are some good videos, definitely check out "Dead Meat"
http://www.freemarketcure.com/
Here is a Good little video about the uninsured in America myth
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/03/infant_mortality.cfm
This one pertains directly to infant mortality
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world/europe/07teeth.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1147060800&en=1e35898e2680d22b&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Just a few that came to mind
You have posted links to right-wing sites that support your skewed view with no reliable statistics. Post some links to independent comparative reviews of the parameters that I suggested, including reviews of the total cost of health care in universal-coverage scenarios and the US system.
Among developed countries, where does the US rank in infant mortality, longevity, incidence of preventable disease, and cost of health-care? You seem not to care for facts, just rhetoric.
t-money
Oct28-07, 05:26 PM
Did you look at any of the videos, or read the articles? Because I used to be in favor of universal health care until I read the opposing views. For example how do you define the cause of infant mortality. Over 50% of the deaths are from premature births in the U.S., not infections or bad care, you can only do so much to help a premature baby. Death rate statistics dont control for murders (includes suicide), car accidents and accidental deaths, which have nothing to do with health care.
Besides one of my source is the New York Times, they are as left wing as you can get.
Yes, I did look at some of the videos. And if you think the New York Times is left-wing and that everything printed in it is left-wing, you have some learning to do. Have you ever heard of Judith Miller (apologist for Bush's attack on Iraq)?
Moridin
Oct28-07, 05:36 PM
'Socialist' Health Care actually works. Sweden has been ruled by social democracy for the majority of the last 100 years and it is in the top of the UN Human Development Report 2005. What doesn't work is the current US health care system.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/
An interesting look at the history of the US health care system and what is actually wrong with it, I recommend the book The Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health by Laurie Garrett. Basically, it is underfunded and they have wrong priorities. Their focus should be public health.
Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
It works pretty well here (Sweden).
(And now I see that this was what Moridin wrote above.)
Just another comment: You are so biased over there.
Greg Bernhardt
Oct28-07, 06:18 PM
What is the tax rate in sweden?
There are good arguements on both ends of the issue. There will be no fantastic solution either way. My girlfriend is living in London for 6 months for work. She mentioned that she wanted to get some dental work done but that she'd most likely wait to get back in the states because there is a 3+ month wait.
I also visited Vancouver over the summer and met with some relatives living there who are older and they have nothing but negative things to say about the system. Long waits and poor service.
Oh, by the way, the US has had 'socialist' health care for the past 30 years or more. Ever heard of medicaid and medicare?
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.
Overall though I dunno, I'm still on the edge either way.
btw turbo, NY times is definately not right wing ;)
What is the tax rate in sweden?
About 30%.
On top of that the employer has to pay a similar amount named "social fees" which for example goes to your own pension.
So effectively that will be something like 45% of what the employer pays which goes into taxes and fees (but you'll get some of it back as pension).
Moridin
Oct28-07, 06:28 PM
Swedish Taxes (http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/30215;jsessionid=alEtytpI1O_5)
The public sector has responsibility for many services in Sweden, including education, labor market and industrial policies, health care, pensions and other social security, as well as environmental protection. Swedish taxes are relatively high, the revenue however goes back to the taxpayers in the form of public service. It is not like in the US where tax dollars just go missing =P
Personally, I do not think that I agree fully with either the current republican and democrat suggestions / strategies.
Sweden and the US cannot really be compared, not now at least. Sweden has not spent trillions of $$ on war. That makes politics a lot harder in the US, for obvious reasons.
Greg Bernhardt
Oct28-07, 06:30 PM
and cost of health-care?
But ultimately, lowering price does not lower cost. Why should pharmaceutical companies continue to pump what has been said 900 million per drug in research and development. You lower insurance and medical care prices, but that drug development cost does not change. What also won't change is the cost to goto medical school. Doctors will make less, and maybe new students will not think it's a good idea anymore and become lawyers. After all, britian outsources nearly 60% of their doctors now :wink:
Moridin
Oct28-07, 06:31 PM
yeah and those programs have been complete disasters.
Perhaps, but it is important to remember that those programs have saved millions of people and limited the scale of epidemic outbreaks that would have effected the rest of the population (TB, AIDS etc.). I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.
Greg Bernhardt
Oct28-07, 06:32 PM
I agree that they could have been handled much, much better and gotten their priorities straight.
Indeed but problem is that thought has been uttered throughout US history and it never magically comes true. I am very skeptical that congress and the white house will suddendly get their act together and make something actually work.
Every time there is a transfer of money, there is "friction" that bleeds money off to others. The more steps there are between the payment of insurance money to the final payment to suppliers of medical services, the more layers of denial of coverage, profit-taking, and other black holes that suck up the money, the greater the loss. Universal health care is not socialism/communism as the right-wingers assert. It is a basic, fundamental service that improves the productivity of a nation's work-force and protects our productivity. I live in Maine (surrounded by Canadian provinces)- a state in which the inability of businesses to supply cheap, decent, insurance lets businesses in our Canadian neighbors kick our collective butts.
gravenewworld
Oct28-07, 07:41 PM
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
Hint: See health care in Japan
What is the tax rate in sweden?
There are good arguements on both ends of the issue. There will be no fantastic solution either way. My girlfriend is living in London for 6 months for work. She mentioned that she wanted to get some dental work done but that she'd most likely wait to get back in the states because there is a 3+ month wait.
I also visited Vancouver over the summer and met with some relatives living there who are older and they have nothing but negative things to say about the system. Long waits and poor service.
Hint: See health care in Japan
Japanese pay a similar amount of % wage tax as Americans do ( I think it is less), have universal health care, and have the same amount of waiting times as Americans do for health care.
See page 3 of an OECD study
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/27/26781192.pdf
Japanese health care is easily one of THE best in the world, why not steal some ideas from them? Japan only spends 6.6% of their entire GDP on health care while Americans spend almost 14% of their entire GDP on health care.
fourier jr
Oct28-07, 07:42 PM
It doesn't work in Europe and Canada, what makes U.S politicians think that it will work here?
it does work in Canada
Skyhunter
Oct28-07, 07:56 PM
About 30%.
On top of that the employer has to pay a similar amount named "social fees" which for example goes to your own pension.
So effectively that will be something like 45% of what the employer pays which goes into taxes and fees (but you'll get some of it back as pension).
Median American household income which is a better representation than mean or average income is $48,201 (http://http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new01_001.htm).
Average American household health insurance policy is $10,880 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-09-14-family-health-policy_x.htm), or 23% of income.
I think the Swedes are getting a better deal. Especially if you consider the fact that if you actually need health care in the US you will pay more. Add to this the taxes already paid for medicare and medicaid and there is little doubt that the Swedes are much better off.
And just because there are flaws in the Canadian and British systems, is in no way evidence that single-payer health care does not work. In fact Sweden is an example that disproves such a conclusion.
gravenewworld
Oct28-07, 07:58 PM
Median American household income which is a better representation than mean or average income is $48,201 (http://http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new01_001.htm).
Average American household health insurance policy is $10,880 (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2005-09-14-family-health-policy_x.htm), or 23% of income.
I think the Swedes are getting a better deal. Especially if you consider the fact that if you actually need health care in the US you will pay more. Add to this the taxes already paid for medicare and medicaid and there is little doubt that the Swedes are much better off.
And just because there are flaws in the Canadian and British systems, is in no way evidence that single-payer health care does not work. In fact Sweden is an example that disproves such a conclusion.
That is skewing the facts. The $10K is the average premium for a family. Employers pay most of that 10 grand. Families aren't spending 23% of their income on health insurance.
$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.
Skyhunter
Oct28-07, 08:39 PM
I am self employed, so I have to pay all of it.
I agree that Japans system is better.
Greg Bernhardt
Oct28-07, 09:09 PM
Ok I think we can all agree having everyone insured is a good idea even if under a universal government system. But here is the problem, there are many proposals. How many of the democrats and pushing for a system like Japan?
gravenewworld
Oct28-07, 09:16 PM
Ok I think we can all agree having everyone insured is a good idea even if under a universal government system. But here is the problem, there are many proposals. How many of the democrats and pushing for a system like Japan?
How many dems or repubs are pushing for a system like Japan? few probably. The insurance companies are a powerful lobby. Nothing significant in American politics will get done until campaign finance reform is enacted, but when will that ever happen?
Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrQNgA8k2g
Greg Bernhardt
Oct28-07, 10:20 PM
Pharmaceutical companies are spending 25% of their yearly budgets on commercials like this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbrQNgA8k2g
I think it's pretty funny. I have a hunch most commercial companies spend nearly as much on marketing.
$ for $ Japan still has a much better health care system than Sweden.
Interesting, I don't know much about Japanese health care. What are the main differenses between the systems? I mean, what is it that makes the Japanese system better?
I think it can be pretty hard to compare different kind of systems. For example, the US health care can be really great, for those who can afford it that is. The Swedish system is good in the way it automatically includes everyone. If you are rich, you're probably slightly better off in US though. It all comes down to what you mean by "better".
gravenewworld
Oct29-07, 06:38 AM
Interesting, I don't know much about Japanese health care. What are the main differenses between the systems? I mean, what is it that makes the Japanese system better?
I think it can be pretty hard to compare different kind of systems. For example, the US health care can be really great, for those who can afford it that is. The Swedish system is good in the way it automatically includes everyone. If you are rich, you're probably slightly better off in US though. It all comes down to what you mean by "better".
Well before I go to work I will list several quick reasons:
1.) Japanese don't pay any where near the amount of taxes like other countries with UH do. They pay less or just about the same as Americans do in income tax.
2.) Everyone has access to health care
3.) there really doesn't exist incredible waiting times for health care like there are in Canada and England (see OECD report)
4.) There is a lower hospital death rate in Japan due to mistakes by doctors than in the US
5.) Better equipped ( this is arguable). In the US, advanced technology is spotty in hospitals throughout the country. For example, Japan has 20+ MRI scanners per 10,000 people while in the US it is something around 10-15 MRI scanners per 10,0000 if I remember correctly.
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
No time for listing sources. Time to go to work. Too Da Loo
Jimmy Snyder
Oct29-07, 06:47 AM
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
And this is the problem. Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
1.) Japanese don't pay any where near the amount of taxes like other countries with UH do. They pay less or just about the same as Americans do in income tax.
Sounds nice. But could it be that a larger fraction of the taxes goes into health care in Japan compared to other countries with UH? Maybe the the total amount of money put specifically into the health system isn't that much smaller in Japan? (I'm just speculating.)
Moridin
Oct29-07, 10:08 AM
6.) Japan spends only 6.6% of their GDP on health care. The US 14.6%.
Actually, the US is more like 16%. For comparison, Sweden is 9.2% of GDP.
Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
The US health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care or treatment. They spend $6,697 per person in 2005. Sweden has $2594 per capital spending.
About 50 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. People do not have the money for insurance. Naturally, the US could get a lot of better health care for the privileged if they just ignored care of those 50 million.
Individualism in all honor, but to get the goods, you pay the price. But why should privileged people pay for the underprivileged when it comes to health care? Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.
Globalization has pushed communities against one and other when it comes to health care. I think it is time for public health to find a way to bridge the gaps and bring the US towards a rational and singular public health community because the health of one individual rises or falls with the health of all others. How to do this is another question.
http://www.health.state.ny.us/diseases/communicable/tuberculosis/fact_sheet.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=7993412&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/opinion/14thu2.html
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2005.pdf
http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st286/images/table-3.gif
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/25/34970222.pdf
Jimmy Snyder
Oct29-07, 02:56 PM
Outbreaks do not discriminate between classes in society. The TB outbreaks in New York is a case-in-point.
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
Moridin
Oct29-07, 03:43 PM
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment.
Actually, the US is more like 16%. For comparison, Sweden is 9.2% of GDP.
Offcourse the downside with healthcare in sweden is that the waiting time for some routine surgery can be well over a year. Not to mention the entire system is a bit unflexible and to bureaucratic.
The avarage american probably has acess to better healthcare than the avarage swede.
Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment.All true. And the lack of on-going screening and regular checkups for uninsured people can ensure that people who are vectors (highly contagious, but mobile) will continue to infect others. Denial of health-care for one class of a society has some serious potential risks for the rest of society. Let's say that you've got a migrant farm worker with no credentials and he or she is infected with a contagious disease, and follows hand-tending and harvest seasons from coast to coast, cutting lettuce in CA, digging onions in GA, picking apples in NY, harvesting and packing broccoli in northern ME, then back to CA to harvest grapes... This person has no access to health care, and unless they are much too sick to work, they will continue to work and infect others as they are transported around in vans and buses by the brokers that supply migrant labor. Homeless people are in the same boat regarding access to preventive health care, though they are less mobile. Here in the US, we often take a parochial "it can't happen here" attitude and point out Equatorial Africa, China and SE Asia as problematic places that might be the source of the next killer pandemic, but our own house is not in order. We have a very large segment of our population with little or no access to preventive health care and much of our population is highly mobile, unlike people in rural communities in other countries so some really deadly stuff could race through our country much faster than medical professionals can respond to it.
Offcourse the downside with healthcare in sweden is that the waiting time for some routine surgery can be well over a year.
Really? I know it could be like that some years ago, but thought it had shaped up a bit since then.
gravenewworld
Oct29-07, 06:00 PM
The American system is not that insane. If someone has a disease of this nature, they will be treated regardless of insurance.
of course someone would get treated in America if they had something wrong with them, irregardless if they had insurance or not. However, this doesn't mean that that person isn't going to pay! Hospitals hire collection agencies all the time to collect on bills, file lawsuits against uninsured patients, and in some states can even go into patients' bank accounts without written patient authorization in order to collect on unpaid bills. Sure a hospital will treat you for your broken leg if you are uninsured, but the hard question is how are you going to afford to pay $30,0000 in order for that surgery to fix your broken leg if you are uninsured?
And this is the problem. Socializing the American system won't fix it. We pay for overtreatment and for malpractice insurance. Take these two down if you want to fix it.
This is the typical argument that insurance companies use in order to justify their existence. While it is true that we must all pay for malpractice and overtreatment, the amount is no where near a significant % of the amount of the total overall spending on healthcare.
Evidence from states indicates that premiums for malpractice insurance are lower when tort liability is restricted than they would be otherwise. But even large savings in premiums can have only a small direct impact on health care spending--private or governmental--because malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of that spending.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4968&type=0
Even if you look at states with caps on tort liability, malpractice insurance/overall spending on health care hasn't really gone down. Sorry but the "over treatment/malpractice" is one of the weakest excuses to explain why America spends so much on health care. Americans spend a disgusting amount on health care because of overhead costs associated with insurance companies. Another huge factor is the fact that preventative medicine is poorly practiced in America once again due to insurance complications and lack of access to adequate health care for millions of Americans. When preventative health care is not practiced, patients with poor access to preventative measures (like the uninsured) end up in the ER which is the most expensive and least effective form of treatment available.
The avarage american probably has acess to better healthcare than the avarage swede.
Do you honestly believe that? 1 million+ children in this country do not receive all of the recommended vaccinations by physicians solely because of insurance reasons/affordability issues. This was even after they were referred to public clinics! Children who don't receive all of their vaccinations are not only a threat to themselves, but to the public in general. Yes, that's right, Insurance BS puts the general public health at risk in some cases.
"Gaps in Vaccine Financing for Underinsured Children in the United States"-JAMA
Despite high vaccination coverage
and low incidence rates of most vaccinepreventable
diseases,3,4 anecdotal reports
from state policy makers and clinicians
suggest that the US vaccine
financing system is under increasing
strain. Childhood vaccines in the United
States are financed by a patchwork of
public and private sources.5 Children
who are privately insured often have insurance
coverage for vaccines (BOX).
However, some children are enrolled in
private health insurance plans that do
not cover the cost of vaccines and they
are considered underinsured for immunization.
In 2000, it was estimated
that 14% of children aged 0 to 17 years
were underinsured in the United States,
requiring families to either pay out-ofpocket
for the cost of vaccines not covered
or forgo receiving vaccines.
Among clinical preventive services,
childhood immunization has been
ranked at the top in terms of health impact
and cost-effectiveness by the National
Commission of Prevention Priorities.
15 Despite the benefits of
childhood vaccination and the high coverage
rates achieved with older childhood
vaccines,3 our study demonstrated
gaps in the financing of new
vaccines for children who are underinsured
with respect to vaccination. Assuming
14% of children are underinsured
in the United States, we estimate
that 2.3 million children are unable to
receive state-purchased meningococcal
conjugate vaccine in the private sector,
and 1.2 million children are unable
to receive this vaccine even if they
are referred to the public sector. Due
to lack of funds to purchase newer vaccines
for children who are not VFC eligible,
many states have adopted more
restrictive policies for provision of publicly
purchased vaccines since 2004.
The lack of sufficient section 317 funding
and state funding for vaccine purchase
has led some states to provide vaccine
to VFC-eligible children but not
to underinsured children. Disparities
among states are worse for the most expensive
and newest vaccines, including
pneumococcal conjugate, meningococcal
conjugate, and hepatitis A
vaccines.
The public sector safety net for offering
vaccine to underinsured children
seems to be under considerable
strain. Past studies have suggested that
many private clinicians refer underinsured
children to public health clinics
for vaccination.16,17 Unfortunately, a
growing number of states are no longer
able to provide expensive vaccines, such
as the meningococcal conjugate vaccine,
to underinsured children in the
public sector. Furthermore, the proportion
of vulnerable US children
whose insurance plans either do not
cover vaccines or require families to pay
out-of-pocket for preventive care is
likely to grow. A recent article by the
American Academy of Pediatrics found
that 20% of employers are offering catastrophic
health insurance plans (highdeductible
health plans), up from only
5% in 2003, and only 30% of these plans
covered preventive care before the deductible
was met.18,19 These trends are
of concern because inadequate insurance
coverage has been associated with
forgone health care among families who
lack resources.20
Take a look at the article in JAMA. The older vaccines may be inexpensive, but the newer ones that insurance companies won't cover are still very expensive. The cost of vaccines has increased from $155 in 1995 to $1170 in 2007.
Uninsurance poses a threat to the control of communicable disease by delaying the detection, treatment, and reporting of infectious disease outbreaks, which may include emerging infectious agents such as SARS and perhaps someday those linked to bioterrorism. Hospital emergency departments and health departments play critical roles both in infectious disease surveillance and in caring for low-income populations, who are more likely to be uninsured. When high rates of uninsurance make emergency department crowding worse, the capacity of the emergency care system to handle a sudden influx of patients from a natural disaster or terrorist strike is compromised. To meet the burden of caring for the uninsured, health departments may be forced to shift scarce resources from traditional population-based public health activities, such as monitoring water quality and restaurant inspections to the delivery of personal health services to uninsured persons. This can weaken the ability of local health departments to contain outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats.
-Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., M.P.H.
Chair of the Dept. of Emergency Medicine at Emory Univ. (one of the best medical schools in this entire country)
in front of the US Senate.
drankin
Oct29-07, 08:26 PM
Why should people pay for the health care of others? That's what it comes down to. I pay a lot for health insurance for my family. I absolutely do not want to (hell, I can't if I did want to) pay even more for everyone elses families. If I want to see a doctor, I don't want to wait in line for 3mo. I have no problem "firing" a doctor because he left me in a waiting room for too long. I've done it a few times. I pay for a service, I'm a customer, I'll go where a customer is treated right. If the government is paying for my health, I'm going to get crappy/minimal care, miles of paper work, and feel like I'm in the freakin DMV every time my family or myself is need of care. Hell no. The government can stay out of my health plan.
gravenewworld
Oct29-07, 09:01 PM
Why should people pay for the health care of others? That's what it comes down to. I pay a lot for health insurance for my family. I absolutely do not want to (hell, I can't if I did want to) pay even more for everyone elses families. If I want to see a doctor, I don't want to wait in line for 3mo. I have no problem "firing" a doctor because he left me in a waiting room for too long. I've done it a few times. I pay for a service, I'm a customer, I'll go where a customer is treated right. If the government is paying for my health, I'm going to get crappy/minimal care, miles of paper work, and feel like I'm in the freakin DMV every time my family or myself is need of care. Hell no. The government can stay out of my health plan.
You don't think you are paying for the health care of others already? Why do you think medical bills are so expensive? Because insurance companies try to play every game possible with physicians in order to not have to pay them. Insurance companies make filing claims for procedures done by physicians extremely complicated and then have special people who look through the claims to find minute mistakes in the claim. If there are any mistakes the insurance company will reject them. Sometimes physicians don't get paid by insurance companies for over 10 months to a year for services rendered because of all the BS they have to go through with insurance companies. The end results are higher prices for everyone.
When the uninsured have to go to the ER but then have to file bankruptcy because they received treatment to save their lives but can't afford to pay, who do you think the hospital spreads the cost onto? YOU.
drankin
Oct29-07, 09:29 PM
Well then. Seems to be working just fine the way it is. Don't make a hard working person pay more because someone else won't! If you are uninsured, get insured. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of government hand outs.
Don't give me the bankruptcy sob story. Bankruptcy isn't the end of your life for crying out loud! If that's what it took for me to pay for services that saved my life then so be it! At least you can in this country. In some countries you can't get out of debt so easy. Make it sound like a damn horror story.
Well then. Seems to be working just fine the way it is. Don't make a hard working person pay more because someone else won't! If you are uninsured, get insured. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of government hand outs.
Don't give me the bankruptcy sob story. Bankruptcy isn't the end of your life for crying out loud! If that's what it took for me to pay for services that saved my life then so be it! At least you can in this country. In some countries you can't get out of debt so easy. Make it sound like a damn horror story.
you are doing OK, because you are one of the "better off" ppl.... for some they don't have a choice even if they work hard. the system is slightly skewed towards the rich and powerful and so government hand-outs can also be seen as a way to balance that a bit...
drankin
Oct29-07, 09:46 PM
you are doing OK, because you are one of the "better off" ppl.... for some they don't have a choice even if they work hard. the system is slightly skewed towards the rich and powerful and so government hand-outs can also be seen as a way to balance that a bit...
You want to know where I come from?? I grew up dirt poor, broken home, about as dysfunctional a life one could have, lived on the streets and homeless shelters as a young adult and one day decided to take care of myself. Noone owes me a damn thing because of my situation. It's all me, I own it. I learned how to work, something I was never actually taught never having a father around, put myself thru school when I figured out flipping burgers, moving furniture, and whatever else I subjected myself too wasn't making the best use of my time. And damn it, I'm not well off, but I'm solid middle class now and I live in a country where anyone can do what I did if they get off there butt and quit whining about how aweful their situation is.
Tell me, what do you do when some homeless guy comes up to you asks you for money on the street?
t-money
Oct29-07, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=Moridin;1485470]
About 50 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens. People do not have the money for insurance. Naturally, the US could get a lot of better health care for the privileged if they just ignored care of those 50 million. [QUOTE]
Did you watch the video entitled "Uninsured in America" I put above? That statistic is so misleading. Something like 30% of those people make over $50,000 a year, and another 10% make over $75,000 a year. Another large percentage are people of the ages 18 - 30 who spend 3 times as much on entertainment (eating out, movies, alcohol, etc.) than health care, because health care is not a good buy for them. Another significant percentage is illegal aliens, and another significant percentage are people who qualify for health care through there employer or through the government, but they don't feel out the paper work.
The "50 million uninsured in America" is a misleading statistic, that is used by politicians to overstate the problem. Many researchers have assessed the real number at about 10 million. Oh and by the way, the stats they are analyzing are government statistics.
gravenewworld
Oct29-07, 09:55 PM
Well then. Seems to be working just fine the way it is. Don't make a hard working person pay more because someone else won't! If you are uninsured, get insured. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of government hand outs.
.
LOL, I wish it were that simple. Ever heard of the phrase "pre-existing condition"? Apparently not. Even if someone with a "pre-existing condition" wanted health care through a job, they would be hard pressed to get it.
Since you seem to rely on anecdotal evidence I will give you some of my own:
Before my boss worked at our place he was at a place where they brought in a candidate who was well qualified for a position and they wanted to hire him. However, during the routine pre-employment health screening that was required by the insurance company that the placed used, the doctor found that the guy had cancer. As a result, the insurance company refused to insure him because he had a "pre-existing condition". The company's policy was that it was mandatory for all employees to be insured under the company's health insurance, thus as a result, the guy didn't get the job because he couldn't get insurance because of his "pre-existing" condition. Image getting the double whammy of finding out that you have cancer and then getting rejected for a job that you were qualified for.
wildman
Oct29-07, 10:00 PM
Actually the US has socialized medicine. Insane socialized medicine. If you turn up at an emergency room, the hospital has to serve you regardless of the ability to pay. It is insane because this system does not pay for preventive care but it does pay for gold plated emergency care when things get out of hand.
Maybe someone can confirm this, but I heard the US pays as much per capita for Government subsidized medicine as Canada does while covering only a fraction of the population. Is this true? If so, then our system truly is insane.
wildman
Oct29-07, 10:03 PM
My wife's sister in law is a doctor who practices in the EU. She recently spent a year in New York and she agrees that the medical system in the US is (to put it in her words): loco, crazy, insane.
drankin
Oct29-07, 10:04 PM
Yep, lifes tough. My good friend has had brain cancer several times, scars on his head, his teeth are ruined from chemo, but you know what? He has changed jobs several times and does just fine. Luckily his cancer is in submission but he has been close to dying many times. It sucks that your boss couldn't get that job. Bummer. Get another one.
You should really learn to play the violin.
t-money
Oct29-07, 10:30 PM
Let me be clear I am neither a Republican or Dem, what I am for is a free market system. Universal health care is the anti-market, why is this bad. The concept of universal health care limits peoples choices, it creates a lack of incentive for people to do work. DO you think you get your steak because of the benevolence of the cattle rancher or the butcher. I don't think so, same reason why individuals don't work for free you need to paid. Besides if you make Health care Universal, and don't attribute a cost to every visit to the doctor, what do you think the end result would be? Well I can tell you a lot of people will start going in for paper cuts just they can.
gravenewworld
Oct29-07, 10:58 PM
Let me be clear I am neither a Republican or Dem, what I am for is a free market system. Universal health care is the anti-market, why is this bad. The concept of universal health care limits peoples choices, it creates a lack of incentive for people to do work. DO you think you get your steak because of the benevolence of the cattle rancher or the butcher. I don't think so, same reason why individuals don't work for free you need to paid. Besides if you make Health care Universal, and don't attribute a cost to every visit to the doctor, what do you think the end result would be? Well I can tell you a lot of people will start going in for paper cuts just they can.
and since when are oligopolies a free market system? a few huge insurance firms controlling the majority of how this nation's health care is run doesn't really foster a free market system either. demand for health care is also likely to be very inelastic and therefore not really subject to a lot of market forces that change price. you can charge someone $10 for a MRI or $1000, they are still going to need it. demand for a lot of types of health services would most likely remain constant no matter what the price is due to the inelasticity of demand for health care. So you think people would run to the ER if they had a paper cut if there was universal health? Do you think people would over consume gas excessively if the price of gas were suddenly $.50? Most likely not, since after a certain point, the law of diminishing marginal utility takes over.
Also, I don't think you have really thought out the social consequences of free market system for something like health care. Health care isn't like the market for clothing, CDs, coffee, etc. you are dealing with lives. Even if health care were run at equilibrium in a perfectly free market system there would be people left who would have no access to health care since they would lie below the equilibrium. So are you saying that you would find it perfectly socially acceptable that millions of people in your country might not have access to health care, even if the health care market was run freely, due to the fact that they might not be included within the equilibrium? Pareto optimal efficiency in a market doesn't require or imply an equitable distribution of wealth (in this case health care) at all.
t-money
Oct29-07, 11:47 PM
and since when are oligopolies a free market system? a few huge insurance firms controlling the majority of how this nation's health care is run doesn't really foster a free market system either. demand for health care is also likely to be very inelastic and therefore not really subject to a lot of market forces that change price. you can charge someone $10 for a MRI or $1000, they are still going to need it. demand for a lot of types of health services would most likely remain constant no matter what the price is due to the inelasticity of demand for health care. So you think people would run to the ER if they had a paper cut if there was universal health? Do you think people would over consume gas excessively if the price of gas were suddenly $.50? Most likely not, since after a certain point, the law of diminishing marginal utility takes over.
Also, I don't think you have really thought out the social consequences of free market system for something like health care. Health care isn't like the market for clothing, CDs, coffee, etc. you are dealing with lives. Even if health care were run at equilibrium in a perfectly free market system there would be people left who would have no access to health care since they would lie below the equilibrium. So are you saying that you would find it perfectly socially acceptable that millions of people in your country might not have access to health care, even if the health care market was run freely, due to the fact that they might not be included within the equilibrium? Pareto optimal efficiency in a market doesn't require or imply an equitable distribution of wealth (in this case health care) at all.
First off, if it's true that a few firms are controlling all of the nations health care, then this should offer a great profit incentive for additional firms to enter the market, and try to bid away their customers by decreasing prices. I agree that the way our nations health care is run does not foster the free-market, but that's only because government is already too involved, and increasing their role will probably not be very beneficial.
Sounds like you know a little bit about economics. If this is the case then you should know there is no such thing as a completely inelastic demand curve. Furthermore, if MRIs are really needed this bad then explain to me why they only charge $1000? Why not $2000? Why not $10,000? Why even stop there? If people are really "overcharging" others for MRIs, then why don't some people cut the cost a little bit and steal all the customers? In fact, you could probably make a killing by going in the business, if we are really as far off of equilibrium as you are claiming.
Yes, people would over consume gas if the price was 50 cents. You should know about that actually happening in the US during the 1980s. The government put a price ceiling on gasoline, and there were rediculously long waiting lines. Many people didn't even get gas after waiting in line for hours, because by the time they got to the front of the line it was gone. Prices play a very important role, and if you don't ration goods and services with prices, then you'll be forced to do it some other way (like in the gasoline example above, or the waiting lines for doctors or dentists in Canada and Britain). Furthermore, this gives both suppliers and consumers proper incentives (like carpooling, or searching for additional oil reserves). The law of diminishing marginal utilities is not all to be considered in this example, considering that decreases in gas prices will cause people to alter other decisions which revolve around the price of gas. For example, why not get a house a little farther from work if gas is cheaper, or why carpool, or why ride you bike, or why ride metro, or buy a fuel efficient car (or make a fuel efficient car for that matter)? I'm not saying everyone will make these decisions, but a significant enough amount will in order to make a big difference in the aggregate. In fact, the laws that make it so that cars must get more miles to the gallon, have actually not decreased the amount of gas that people consume. Essentially these laws just make gas cheaper, and this has been a very heavily researched topic in the econometrics literature.
Well you say health care is different because it is so important. Well why not get the government involved in food too, because that is even more important than health care? A market could never be expected to handle something as important to daily life as food. In my opinion, it is the exact opposite. The more important something is, the more you want the market handling it. By the way, some of the issues/problems with current "markets" are not market failures at all. In fact, many people argue that the current health care problems in the US arose because of government involvement in the first place. I am just trying to point out that what is sometimes referred to as "market failures" is sometimes no such thing. For example, I imagine that if there are some oligopolies in the health care industry, it probably comes from government involvement. This has been studying before in regards to the FDA, AMA, etc.
I am a little confused about the pareto optimality argument here? Isn't pareto optimality the idea that you could make someone better off without making someone else worse off. Markets do not always lead to these solutions. However, who should decide the correct amount of wealth distribution? Furthermore, even trying to redistribute wealth always has unintended consequences, which can often lead to even worse problems than the original one you are trying to solve. For example, lowering the wages of doctors may allow them to leave the country as well as lead to fewer med school students in the future. I am not trying to say that the market is perfect, because it sure isn't. People generally like to compare the failures of the market to their utopia ideas of government. In actuality, it seems to me that when you compare the way in which markets actually work and governments actually work, you'll find that markets work pretty well. Do you really want DMV or Post Office quality in something as important as health care?
Do you honestly believe that? 1 million+ children in this country do not receive all of the recommended vaccinations by physicians solely because of insurance reasons/affordability issues. This was even after they were referred to public clinics! Children who don't receive all of their vaccinations are not only a threat to themselves, but to the public in general. Yes, that's right, Insurance BS puts the general public health at risk in some cases.
Well the poorest one million children is not representative of the avarage american.
No doubt the poor swedes get better healthcare than the poor americans. But the avarage american probably has better healthcare than the avarage swede. Not to mention the avarage american is richer than the avarage swede.
Really? I know it could be like that some years ago, but thought it had shaped up a bit since then.
Depends on what municipality you live in. Some have very long waiting lines, some have alot shorter. A old buddy of mine had to wait 14 months for a hernia surgery.
Moridin
Oct30-07, 05:26 AM
Why should people pay for the health care of others? That's what it comes down to. I pay a lot for health insurance for my family. I absolutely do not want to (hell, I can't if I did want to) pay even more for everyone elses families. If I want to see a doctor, I don't want to wait in line for 3mo. I have no problem "firing" a doctor because he left me in a waiting room for too long. I've done it a few times. I pay for a service, I'm a customer, I'll go where a customer is treated right. If the government is paying for my health, I'm going to get crappy/minimal care, miles of paper work, and feel like I'm in the freakin DMV every time my family or myself is need of care. Hell no. The government can stay out of my health plan.
You do understand that your health depends on the health of the people around you, yes?
drankin
Oct30-07, 10:39 AM
You do understand that your health depends on the health of the people around you, yes?
Not entirely, that wouldn't make much sense. Explain your point, I'm getting bored.
Moridin
Oct30-07, 10:53 AM
Not entirely, that wouldn't make much sense. Explain your point, I'm getting bored.
From a global perspective, it is easy to see. Your health depends on the health of people in the city of Guangzhou in the Guangdong provice in China. This is basically where we get and will probably get all seasonal and pandemic avian influenza during the 20th and 21th centuries. Or on the tuberculosis epidemic spreading among the uninsured poor people in New York or LA. Or the Ebola epidemics in Zaire or Sudan in Africa. The health of the world, the continent or a country rises or falls with the health of those that are underprivileged, as they are the biggest vectors for infection.
Disease does not recognize social classes or lines of poverty. It is not about taking care of the poor, but about making sure to award the microbial threat few opportunities to spread.
It is not about taking care of the poor
It is not only about taking care of the poor, I would add. Now we have two good reasons.
Moridin
Oct30-07, 01:24 PM
It is not only about taking care of the poor, I would add. Now we have two good reasons.
True, although people generally have a hard time seeing the benefits of something if part of the benefit does not fall directly on themselves.
Moridin
Oct30-07, 05:15 PM
Universal health care is the anti-market, why is this bad. The concept of universal health care limits peoples choices, it creates a lack of incentive for people to do work. DO you think you get your steak because of the benevolence of the cattle rancher or the butcher. I don't think so, same reason why individuals don't work for free you need to paid. Besides if you make Health care Universal, and don't attribute a cost to every visit to the doctor, what do you think the end result would be? Well I can tell you a lot of people will start going in for paper cuts just they can.
The thing is that a free market works excellent for goods and general services because if people selling the goods / service do a poor job or sell a bad product they will be out of customers after a while. That model works great. Unfortunately, this game cannot be afforded to play with human life as it can with bread and butter. It is the same reason why the US do not allow for anyone to sell prescription drugs (I hope?) because those who came into contact with a bad provider doesn't just get a bad product or service, they risk their health or worse. After time, people with a high income get the best health care as the capital is centralized. This is where social justice comes in.
I doubt the factualness of your claim for paper cuts or abuse of public health. If there is an informed public with perfect information (the job of public health) no abuse need to occur of that sort.
I do not think that create a lack of incentive for people to do work when it comes to public health (together with education, this is the only exception) because a good public health would be funded by the government and through the media, public opinion and independent scientists any discrepancies can be investigated.
gravenewworld
Oct30-07, 07:21 PM
First off, if it's true that a few firms are controlling all of the nations health care, then this should offer a great profit incentive for additional firms to enter the market, and try to bid away their customers by decreasing prices. I agree that the way our nations health care is run does not foster the free-market, but that's only because government is already too involved, and increasing their role will probably not be very beneficial.
No. One of the reasons monopolies/oligopolies exist is because of high costs to entry into the market for a firm. There are natural barriers to entry in some markets (like astronomically high costs of getting started) that limit the amount of firms that can enter the market. Economists define an oligopolist market by the 4 firm ratio--the amount of the market that the largest 4 firms in the industry have a share of. If it is above 40% of the market then the market is considered oligopolist. Examine the market for health care. According to the GAO (govt accountability office)
-Blue Cross and Blue shield had over 50% of the market in 9 states (THAT IS JUST 1 FIRM!!!!!)
-In almost every state, the largest insurer in that state had an average of 43% of the market (again only 1 firm!!)
You preach freedom of choice and free markets for health care, but in reality WE ALREADY DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET FOR HEALTH CARE! The insurance industry sure as hell is an oligopolist market! In almost every state 1 firm owns 40+% of the health insurance market! That completely blows out the 4-firm ratio litmus test that economists use to determine whether or not a market is run by an oligopoly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/us/30insure.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Federal investigators have found that a handful of companies account for a growing share of the health insurance policies sold to small businesses in most states, leaving consumers with fewer options and higher costs.
Sounds like you know a little bit about economics. If this is the case then you should know there is no such thing as a completely inelastic demand curve. Furthermore, if MRIs are really needed this bad then explain to me why they only charge $1000? Why not $2000? Why not $10,000? Why even stop there? If people are really "overcharging" others for MRIs, then why don't some people cut the cost a little bit and steal all the customers? In fact, you could probably make a killing by going in the business, if we are really as far off of equilibrium as you are claiming.
You've answered your own question. Of course a perfectly inelastic demand doesn't exist. Even health care demand is not perfectly inelastic, however it is pretty damn inelastic. Once you go beyond a certain point for charging for a MRI, no one will demand it.
Yes, people would over consume gas if the price was 50 cents. You should know about that actually happening in the US during the 1980s. The government put a price ceiling on gasoline, and there were rediculously long waiting lines. Many people didn't even get gas after waiting in line for hours, because by the time they got to the front of the line it was gone. Prices play a very important role, and if you don't ration goods and services with prices, then you'll be forced to do it some other way (like in the gasoline example above, or the waiting lines for doctors or dentists in Canada and Britain). Furthermore, this gives both suppliers and consumers proper incentives (like carpooling, or searching for additional oil reserves). The law of diminishing marginal utilities is not all to be considered in this example, considering that decreases in gas prices will cause people to alter other decisions which revolve around the price of gas. For example, why not get a house a little farther from work if gas is cheaper, or why carpool, or why ride you bike, or why ride metro, or buy a fuel efficient car (or make a fuel efficient car for that matter)? I'm not saying everyone will make these decisions, but a significant enough amount will in order to make a big difference in the aggregate. In fact, the laws that make it so that cars must get more miles to the gallon, have actually not decreased the amount of gas that people consume. Essentially these laws just make gas cheaper, and this has been a very heavily researched topic in the econometrics literature.
So you claim the law of diminishing utility is not all to be considered here, but then go on to talk about consumer demand behaviors? That doesn't make sense, seeing as demand is defined by marginal utility! This website actually explains how demand is derived through marginal utility pretty well:
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=marginal+utility+and+demand
Well you say health care is different because it is so important. Well why not get the government involved in food too, because that is even more important than health care? A market could never be expected to handle something as important to daily life as food. In my opinion, it is the exact opposite. The more important something is, the more you want the market handling it. By the way, some of the issues/problems with current "markets" are not market failures at all. In fact, many people argue that the current health care problems in the US arose because of government involvement in the first place. I am just trying to point out that what is sometimes referred to as "market failures" is sometimes no such thing. For example, I imagine that if there are some oligopolies in the health care industry, it probably comes from government involvement. This has been studying before in regards to the FDA, AMA, etc.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The food market is not an oligopolist market! In fact, many times in basic econ the food market is used as an example of a type of market that is almost perfect competition! So according to you " the most important things" should be handled by the free market? Okay so how about national defense? Would you want private companies in charge of all of our nuclear weapons, tanks, and stealth bombers? The problem with health care in America is the fact that it is run by an oligopoly. Oligopolies and monopolies ALWAYS lead to inefficiencies, i.e. market faliures.
I am a little confused about the pareto optimality argument here? Isn't pareto optimality the idea that you could make someone better off without making someone else worse off. Markets do not always lead to these solutions. However, who should decide the correct amount of wealth distribution? Furthermore, even trying to redistribute wealth always has unintended consequences, which can often lead to even worse problems than the original one you are trying to solve. For example, lowering the wages of doctors may allow them to leave the country as well as lead to fewer med school students in the future. I am not trying to say that the market is perfect, because it sure isn't. People generally like to compare the failures of the market to their utopia ideas of government. In actuality, it seems to me that when you compare the way in which markets actually work and governments actually work, you'll find that markets work pretty well. Do you really want DMV or Post Office quality in something as important as health care?
What is there to be confused about? You are the competitive market guy for health care. A competitive market tends toward equilibrium, this is one of the fundamental laws of economics. But a competitive equilibrium leads to Pareto Optimal efficiency. This however, does not imply at all that the most efficient allocations of resources are the most equitable. You still haven't answered my question. With a free market system for health care is it socially acceptable that thousands and even millions of people may be left without proper access to health care or insurance? A free market type of system for health care inherently leads to some people who will be shut out from health care even when resources are allocated most efficiently (i.e. equilibrium). So once again is this acceptable to you? If you still find this acceptable then tell me this, would you want someone who falls between the cracks in a competitive health care market and is uninsured running around with one of these diseases (see below) and avoiding hospitals and doctors because they had no insurance or couldn't afford it?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_mrsa.html
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35815
http://www.cdc.gov/NCIDOD/SARS/
The uninsured put the general public (insured and uninsured) at huge risk. All its takes is one uninsured person going around with a multi resistant strain of TB to spread it to 100's of people because they didn't have access to a doctor or couldn't afford to seek medical care. But this is the risk you run with a free market system of health care.
gravenewworld
Oct30-07, 07:26 PM
Well the poorest one million children is not representative of the avarage american.
I guess you didn't bother reading the JAMA article I posted. Read it again before you make any conclusions. The 1 million+ children in the US who are unvaccinated against all recommended diseases aren't solely the poorest ones. Children who are not being vaccinated are ones that have health care but have plans that don't cover the costs of vaccinations! Hence they are labeled as being "underinsured". You don't have to be poor at all to be underinsured. The problem with health care in America isn't just solely the uninsured. Even for people with insurance, many times they have restricted access to health care or receive extremely poor care.
I guess you didn't bother reading the JAMA article I posted. Read it again before you make any conclusions. The 1 million+ children in the US who are unvaccinated against all recommended diseases aren't solely the poorest ones. Children who are not being vaccinated are ones that have health care but have plans that don't cover the costs of vaccinations! Hence they are labeled as being "underinsured". You don't have to be poor at all to be underinsured. The problem with health care in America isn't just solely the uninsured. Even for people with insurance, many times they have restricted access to health care or receive extremely poor care.It can be infuriatingly difficult to explain to idiots that while well-to-do people's children are vaccinated and very poor people's children can be vaccinated with the help of government programs, many children of working-class people are NOT vaccinated. In fact, some people have resorted to claiming religious arguments against vaccinations to justify why their kids are not vaccinated and should be allowed in schools, when in fact the real reason is that the parent's couldn't pay for it.
Putting health care into the same free market basket as automobile and beer factories makes no sense.
Many CEOS are now pulling the same cost cutting tactics with health care as with other businesses. They are cutting services and terminating employees to increase profits. In a health care situation this borders on being criminal.
This is how we got ourselves into the: "push the button and no one comes situation."
Even terminating housekeeping employees is dangerous in a medical facility. We have a whole new surge of antibiotic resistant bugs floating around.
A gov'ts first duty is to look after the welfare of it's citizens. All of them, not just the wealthy ones. To not have a public health service predicated on need rather than ability to pay is a derogation of this primary duty.
Citizens of countries such as the UK which have had a free public health service for decades would never dream of giving it up. There are issues but Many of the problems in the NHS in Britain are a direct result of the availability of private medical services running side by side with the public service.
For example consultants work for the NHS but also have private practices with the result patients who offer to go private buy themselves a higher place on the consultant's waiting list. This means a public patient gets pushed down a notch seeing as how the time of the consultant is finite and his/her private patients get priority.
The ensuing longer public waiting lists leads to more patients going private and so the problem escalates. This practice was particularly prevalent under the last Tory gov't who are ideologically opposed to the NHS and so were happy to adopt policies and support practices which would lead to it's disintegration.
In Ireland too consultants have not been slow to grasp the opportunities afforded by a dual health care system and are not shy about using blackmail to bend the gov't to their will. Not only do they only work 3 days a week for the NHS which pays them an annual salary of ~€245,000 p.a. ($350,000) which btw a spokesman of theirs recently described as a 'mickey mouse' salary, they also insisted on having free use of public equipment and facilities in public hospitals to treat their private patients. They 'won' this concession by refusing to allow a new major hospital built in Dublin to open until eventually after 2 years of the hospital sitting idle the gov't gave in.
You will find many of the problems oft cited in relation to public health service are not because of flaws in the concept of free universal health care but because of damage inflicted on the service by allowing a private service to operate side by side, the resultant conflict of interests and the archaic protectionism surrounding the medical profession.
Economist
Nov3-07, 06:29 PM
No. One of the reasons monopolies/oligopolies exist is because of high costs to entry into the market for a firm. There are natural barriers to entry in some markets (like astronomically high costs of getting started) that limit the amount of firms that can enter the market. Economists define an oligopolist market by the 4 firm ratio--the amount of the market that the largest 4 firms in the industry have a share of. If it is above 40% of the market then the market is considered oligopolist. Examine the market for health care. According to the GAO (govt accountability office)
-Blue Cross and Blue shield had over 50% of the market in 9 states (THAT IS JUST 1 FIRM!!!!!)
-In almost every state, the largest insurer in that state had an average of 43% of the market (again only 1 firm!!)
It is true that some markets have high costs to entry, which produces less than perfect competition. However, there is a lot of debate in the economic community about whether government intervention can help in such markets. I bet if I researched some other industries which have high costs to entry, you may not be crying for government intervention in that particular industry. Competing with Boeing is also an industry which has high costs to entry. Maybe you think the US gov't should start making airplanes?
Economists might define an oligopoly by the 4 firm ratio, however, this tells you nothing about the welfare effects of such a firm. For example, you could have what economists call a natural monopoly, which means that you are a monopoly, but only because other firms can't compete with you. Such as, a firm who's prices are so low (because of low costs of production) that when additional firms enter the market, consumers choose to buy from the monopoly, which is actually beneficial to consumers. This is why economists use the Lerner Index (instead of the 4 firm ratio). The Lerner Index tells you how much a frim marks-up it's prices. You need to realize that being the only firm in a market does not mean you are bad for consumers. Monopolies and oligopolies can and do arise because they are really good at what they do.
You should also ask yourself how monopolies and oligopolies happen in the first place? Often times, market power is a result of government intervention. Part of the reason doctors have market power in the first place, is because the AMA severly limits the number of doctors. You might think that the AMA does this to keep you "safe" from "bad" doctors, but the truth is that the AMA does this precisely to gain market power so that current doctors will have higher salaries. There is also a large amount of market power in the pharmaceutical industry. Again, this happens because of regulation. The FDA makes it so that the average drug requires $1 billion just to get it approved. The result is that, small firms cannot compete because they can't afford this $1 billion, and now you've created oligopolies. You pointed out that high costs to entry result in monopolies/oligopolies. Often times, government regulation is the exact thing which increases costs of entry, which decreases market competition.
You preach freedom of choice and free markets for health care, but in reality WE ALREADY DON'T HAVE A FREE MARKET FOR HEALTH CARE! The insurance industry sure as hell is an oligopolist market! In almost every state 1 firm owns 40+% of the health insurance market! That completely blows out the 4-firm ratio litmus test that economists use to determine whether or not a market is run by an oligopoly.
Again, the 4 firm ration is not a litmus test when it comes to the effects oligopolies have on consumers. I agree that we already don't have a free market for health care. I think many of the current problems are probably a result of this government intervention, which is why I don't want us to make it even worse by getting government more involved.
If you really want to know why health care insurance is not a free market, then I suggest you listen to the podcast below:
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2006/05/the_economics_o_3.html
You've answered your own question. Of course a perfectly inelastic demand doesn't exist. Even health care demand is not perfectly inelastic, however it is pretty damn inelastic. Once you go beyond a certain point for charging for a MRI, no one will demand it.
Listen, elasticity of demand is not the only thing you must consider. Yes, it is true that MRIs might be fairly inelastic. However, so are many other things that do not have extremely high prices. Food and cigarettes are not that high priced even though they are fairly inelastic. On the other hand, many things have high prices even though they are fairly elastic, such as cars. One thing I think you're forgetting to bring into your analysis, is the supply side of things. The point is, firms compete for costumers by lowering their prices. Therefore, MRI prices may not have much to do with the elasticity of demand.
So you claim the law of diminishing utility is not all to be considered here, but then go on to talk about consumer demand behaviors? That doesn't make sense, seeing as demand is defined by marginal utility! This website actually explains how demand is derived through marginal utility pretty well:
I was trying to point out that just because people have diminishing marginal utility, does not mean that they won't consume more than is available. Economists assume that people have diminishing marginal utility for all goods. However, economists also know that people will often overconsume when prices are artificially low, just as many economists have pointed out even in health care and gasoline consumption.
Do you really think that just because people have diminishing marginal utility, means they won't consume a lot of something? For example, if steak dinners and BMWs were free, I wouldn't consume infinity of them, but I would consume a lot more than I currently am. I'd probably have like 5 BMWs and eat steak 2 - 3 times a week. People rarely stop consuming something because of diminishing marginal utility, rather, their budget constraint usually kicks in way before that which is why they tend to limit their consumption.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The food market is not an oligopolist market! In fact, many times in basic econ the food market is used as an example of a type of market that is almost perfect competition! So according to you " the most important things" should be handled by the free market? Okay so how about national defense? Would you want private companies in charge of all of our nuclear weapons, tanks, and stealth bombers? The problem with health care in America is the fact that it is run by an oligopoly. Oligopolies and monopolies ALWAYS lead to inefficiencies, i.e. market faliures.
You're right that the food market is fairly free market, however in economics classes it is also used as a great example of an industry that has many-free trade barriers because of subsidies. Imagine how good it could be if we made it even more free market by eliminating government intervention?
In my opinion, national defense is a trickier issue than health care when it comes to government intervention. Maybe this is something that cannot be handled by markets, and therefore maybe we need government running it. However, maybe we don't need government as much as previously thought. Even the current US military relies heavily on private industries. Many private industries are hired by the government to build tanks, weapons, and stealth bombers. There are even a large number of private military companies that provide military services (as I'm sure most people are aware given the recent media attention given to Blackwater). Furthermore, the elimination of the draft was hugely studied by economists (in fact, the elimination of the draft happened largely because of these economists). Their solution was that the US government should have to increase pay if they want more soldiers, which essentially made this industry function like a private labor market.
Again, monopolies and ologopolies do not always lead to market failures (see my first couple paragraphs). But you're right that they probably usually do lead to inefficiencies (i.e. market failures). However, once again we need to understand how monopolies and oligopolies often form, which is precisely because of regulation and government intervention. And even more importantly, what can government do about these market failures? You're forgetting that often times, government does not improve the problem, and usually just exaggerates it or has other harmful unintended consequences. You want to talk about market failures, well, what about government failures? You're also forgetting that these market failures can often be solved by markets. These inefficiencies are often tackled by other companies in their quest to make a profit.
What is there to be confused about? You are the competitive market guy for health care. A competitive market tends toward equilibrium, this is one of the fundamental laws of economics. But a competitive equilibrium leads to Pareto Optimal efficiency. This however, does not imply at all that the most efficient allocations of resources are the most equitable. You still haven't answered my question. With a free market system for health care is it socially acceptable that thousands and even millions of people may be left without proper access to health care or insurance? A free market type of system for health care inherently leads to some people who will be shut out from health care even when resources are allocated most efficiently (i.e. equilibrium). So once again is this acceptable to you? If you still find this acceptable then tell me this, would you want someone who falls between the cracks in a competitive health care market and is uninsured running around with one of these diseases (see below) and avoiding hospitals and doctors because they had no insurance or couldn't afford it?
I think you're the one who is actually forgetting the fundamental laws of economics. All societies have to allocate scarce resources. In fact, this is exactly what socialism and capitalism are, different ways for society to solve the economic problem (meaning that people have unlimited wants and needs, but limited resources). Let me throw some of the same questions back at you. Is it fair that some people need to wait for 1 year to get a very important medical procedure? Is it fair that some people die waiting for these procedures? Is it fair that some people cannot pay a doctor for his/her services because it is illegal? Is it fair that some people live in countries in which they cannot get private health insurance because it is illegal?
You mentioned that " a free market type of system for health care inherently leads to some people who will be shut out from health care even when resources are allocated most efficiently (i.e. equilibrium)." Socialism does not solve this problem. The problem which I pointed out above is that there are a limited amount of resources to go around, which is why we try to allocate them most efficiently (this is what the study of economics is all about). So which way allocates these resources best? In my opinion, that's capitalism.
Besides, many people are not dying because they can't afford health care in the US. People still go to the hospital and get treated, even in this "greedy, evil system." Hospitals have to treat them, even if they can't pay the bills. And yeah, some people do go bankrupt because of health care reasons. However, I still think it's better than a socialist approach.
The uninsured put the general public (insured and uninsured) at huge risk. All its takes is one uninsured person going around with a multi resistant strain of TB to spread it to 100's of people because they didn't have access to a doctor or couldn't afford to seek medical care. But this is the risk you run with a free market system of health care.
Again, see my comments above.
Here's another interesting article written in New York times by a prominent Harvard economist: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?ref=business
If you're interested in why capitalism works pretty well, be sure to check out these educational links below:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html
http://www.econlib.org/
I think you're the one who is actually forgetting the fundamental laws of economics. All societies have to allocate scarce resources. In fact, this is exactly what socialism and capitalism are, different ways for society to solve the economic problem
When it comes to health care, capitalism rewards the privileged and punishes the poor.
Is it fair that some people need to wait for 1 year to get a very important medical procedure? Is it fair that some people die waiting for these procedures? Is it fair that some people cannot pay a doctor for his/her services because it is illegal? Is it fair that some people live in countries in which they cannot get private health insurance because it is illegal?
Actually, the US health care system has long waiting periods as well, mostly due to being understaffed and having too few resources. Since the rich can afford expensive private health care, why shouldn't the public hospitals be restricted to underprivileged only? Then rich people can give some back to society and poor people can get help.
Besides, many people are not dying because they can't afford health care in the US. People still go to the hospital and get treated, even in this "greedy, evil system." Hospitals have to treat them, even if they can't pay the bills. And yeah, some people do go bankrupt because of health care reasons. However, I still think it's better than a socialist approach.
With the public health system being so desperately underfunded (which can be solved by allocating funds away from war and weapon industry, so all the arguments from limited funds are pure nonsense. The US has spent so much money on irrelevant things that could have been spent of health care.), underprivileged people do not know this. They have been badly treated by capitalist public health for decades. "Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment." (earlier post on the same subject).
Economist
Nov4-07, 01:27 PM
Actually, the US health care system has long waiting periods as well, mostly due to being understaffed and having too few resources.
So you think the waiting times are comparable huh?
"Provided that a person with poor health, lack of education and lack of insurance understands that. Provided that the person understands that it is crucial to take the medication for years. Provided that the person is not being forced to sell the medicine for cash to buy food or rent to survive instead of taking them. I think that it takes public health imperatives both in education and a less hostile environment." (earlier post on the same subject).
How insulting that you seem to think being poor means your stupid. By the way, if poor people didn't know this, then hospitals wouldn't spend billions of dollars a year treating people who can't afford to pay them.
So you think the waiting times are comparable huh?
Waiting times and information beats no health care at all. Also, more money and resources means less waiting time. If the US focuses more on preventative health, it wouldn't need to spend trillions of dollars on late-age cancer and heart/lung-operations.
How insulting that you seem to think being poor means your stupid. By the way, if poor people didn't know this, then hospitals wouldn't spend billions of dollars a year treating people who can't afford to pay them.
No, but underprivileged means lack of information and a lack of access to public health. It has been empirically shown that those money is clearly not enough.
Economist
Nov5-07, 03:48 PM
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/11/arnold_kling_on.html
Iteresting podcast on the topic of health care. I just started listening as I am posting this.
The poor in this country have many forms of health care available to them. I know, I've had to use it for my family when I was a young adult. It worked, and when my son needed to see a doctor in an emergency, we didn't have to wait in line.
I think health care will always be an "issue" for Americans but I really don't see it as a "problem" for Americans. Unless, of course, we get the government more and more involved.
If health care became free, who would be our doctors? Why would someone go to school for 8-12 years if he were just to get a low paying government job. Those who did, would less likely be quality physicians. The quality guys would end up going to law school instead. Like we need more lawyers in this country.
huckmank
Nov7-07, 08:26 AM
You want to know where I come from?? I grew up dirt poor, broken home, about as dysfunctional a life one could have, lived on the streets and homeless shelters as a young adult and one day decided to take care of myself. Noone owes me a damn thing because of my situation. It's all me, I own it. I learned how to work, something I was never actually taught never having a father around, put myself thru school when I figured out flipping burgers, moving furniture, and whatever else I subjected myself too wasn't making the best use of my time. And damn it, I'm not well off, but I'm solid middle class now and I live in a country where anyone can do what I did if they get off there butt and quit whining about how aweful their situation is.
Tell me, what do you do when some homeless guy comes up to you asks you for money on the street?
If you went to a public university, took out subsidized loans or accepted grants or scholarships then no, you absolutely did not get where you are on your own.
I have a similar story to yours. I came from a poor household, worked service industry directly after high school and into my 20s and have lived in my car. But I decided to change all that one day and enrolled in a local community college. I busted my *** to do 60 credits in a year and a half with a 3.95 gpa and transfered into a top 10 engineering school where my GPA is a 4.0. So if I wanted to think I was hot **** and owed nothing to no-one, maybe I could.
Then I remember that 80% of the cost of CC is payed for by taxpayers, not me. And that I was given $5,000 in grants, fully paying for my portion of tuition plus some. In addition, the government gave me loans which I don't have to pay interest on until I'm employed. My engineering department payed for my tuition the first semester and grants payed for half the second.
So I hope you went to a private university (hell, private education all your life) and payed cash or took out standard loans to pay for you tuition. Otherwise you're full of **** and you owe your accomplishments in part to a society that helps its underprivileged.
Economist
Nov7-07, 10:00 AM
If you went to a public university, took out subsidized loans or accepted grants or scholarships then no, you absolutely did not get where you are on your own.
I have a similar story to yours. I came from a poor household, worked service industry directly after high school and into my 20s and have lived in my car. But I decided to change all that one day and enrolled in a local community college. I busted my *** to do 60 credits in a year and a half with a 3.95 gpa and transfered into a top 10 engineering school where my GPA is a 4.0. So if I wanted to think I was hot **** and owed nothing to no-one, maybe I could.
Then I remember that 80% of the cost of CC is payed for by taxpayers, not me. And that I was given $5,000 in grants, fully paying for my portion of tuition plus some. In addition, the government gave me loans which I don't have to pay interest on until I'm employed. My engineering department payed for my tuition the first semester and grants payed for half the second.
So I hope you went to a private university (hell, private education all your life) and payed cash or took out standard loans to pay for you tuition. Otherwise you're full of **** and you owe your accomplishments in part to a society that helps its underprivileged.
Well, you can benefit from something and still criticize and/or disagree with it.
One thing you might be interested to know, is that higher education in the US tends to redistribute wealth from poor to rich (so does social security but that's another story). If you are a little confused about how this could be, just like I was when I first heard this, then think about it this way. Many low income people pay taxes that contribute to higher education in the US, however, the people who's children are most likely to get into and go to college are not low income people, in fact wealthy people send their children to college at much higher rates.
huckmank
Nov7-07, 01:16 PM
Well, you can benefit from something and still criticize and/or disagree with it.
Sure can, but if you take free money from the government and then ***** about others doing the same, you're what we call a hypocrite.
One thing you might be interested to know, is that higher education in the US tends to redistribute wealth from poor to rich (so does social security but that's another story). If you are a little confused about how this could be, just like I was when I first heard this, then think about it this way. Many low income people pay taxes that contribute to higher education in the US, however, the people who's children are most likely to get into and go to college are not low income people, in fact wealthy people send their children to college at much higher rates.
Back up your statement with figures, not just a priori arguments. The poor also pay a lower tax rate. I'd be interested to see if the ratio of taxes paid by the wealthy vs. the poor outstrips the ratio of state university enrollment of the wealthy vs. poor. I doubt very highly that it does.
Regardless, federal grants are need-based and many scholarships are more easily obtained by minorities or those of limited means.
If you went to a public university, took out subsidized loans or accepted grants or scholarships then no, you absolutely did not get where you are on your own.
I have a similar story to yours. I came from a poor household, worked service industry directly after high school and into my 20s and have lived in my car. But I decided to change all that one day and enrolled in a local community college. I busted my *** to do 60 credits in a year and a half with a 3.95 gpa and transfered into a top 10 engineering school where my GPA is a 4.0. So if I wanted to think I was hot **** and owed nothing to no-one, maybe I could.
Then I remember that 80% of the cost of CC is payed for by taxpayers, not me. And that I was given $5,000 in grants, fully paying for my portion of tuition plus some. In addition, the government gave me loans which I don't have to pay interest on until I'm employed. My engineering department payed for my tuition the first semester and grants payed for half the second.
So I hope you went to a private university (hell, private education all your life) and payed cash or took out standard loans to pay for you tuition. Otherwise you're full of **** and you owe your accomplishments in part to a society that helps its underprivileged.
Of course I relied on the "society" to go to school and to get on my feet. I don't know what you are arguing. My point is anyone "underprivilaged" can, the means to do it is available. For someone not to take advantage of what is available is a waste. The deeper reason as to why many do not is not because they don't know it's availabe, it's because they don't to put forward the effort and do it. You don't get an education for free even if you don't pay a dime for it, you work for it. IMO, most people who complain about how unfair it is that they are poor and underprivilaged are the same people that think society owes them sustenence because they are breathing.
Economist
Nov8-07, 04:33 PM
Sure can, but if you take free money from the government and then ***** about others doing the same, you're what we call a hypocrite.
I'm just saying, if someone is offered something cheap/free, then they're probably going to take it. Besides, if someone is a taxpayer, they might disagree with the tax, but since they're paying for it anyone, they might as well use the resource. Or sometimes they don't have much of the choice, like maybe someone can't afford to send their kid to a private school after taxes, but they would prefer a system in which they were taxed less and public schools were not available.
Back up your statement with figures, not just a priori arguments. The poor also pay a lower tax rate. I'd be interested to see if the ratio of taxes paid by the wealthy vs. the poor outstrips the ratio of state university enrollment of the wealthy vs. poor. I doubt very highly that it does.
Regardless, federal grants are need-based and many scholarships are more easily obtained by minorities or those of limited means.
http://www.amazon.com/Education-equality-income-redistribution-education/dp/B0006C0DBI/ref=sr_1_1/103-0420039-5623038?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194559686&sr=8-1
I've heard difference people making this claim at different times, and I'm not trying to say it's absolutely true (although I currently believe it). One of the main reasons I wanted to bring it up, was not because I expected people to agree with me (as I realize it'd take more pursuasion them some guy you don't know on a forum). But rather to show people that their preconceived notions about various gov't programs may be incorrect. It's not completely clear cut that public higher education benefits the poor more than it benefits the rich (it may even work in the opposite direction). Furthermore, other programs (like Social Security) tend to redistribute wealth from poor to rich, although this is not what these programs were set up to do.
By the way, I realize that federal grants are often need based, but that doesn't completely matter in the argument I was making. The actual cost of sending a kid to a public university is still fairly high (I've heard that it maybe as high as $40K - $50K a year at some schools). The reason it only costs a student a small fraction of that is because the tax payers foot the bill on the rest. So when you go to public universities which are fairly highly ranked, you will notice that many students come from rich families and pay in state tuition (which is really a bargain). On average, who do you think has an easier time getting into a strong public school? Someone who comes from a rich family or a poor family?
Also, the poor probably pay more taxes than you think. When you take into account all taxes (not just income taxes) you'll find that taxes are fairly substantial for the poor. Things like sales taxes have been said to harm the poor much more than the rich. Furthermore, marginal tax rates can be very high for poor people in some cases.
Also, the poor probably pay more taxes than you think. When you take into account all taxes (not just income taxes) you'll find that taxes are fairly substantial for the poor. Things like sales taxes have been said to harm the poor much more than the rich. Furthermore, marginal tax rates can be very high for poor people in some cases.This is a point that many people miss. Sales taxes, taxes on gasoline, diesel, heating oil, clothing and non-food essentials like toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc simply cannot be escaped. People with substantial incomes often don't have to pay more taxes for these essentials than poor people. The impact of regressive taxation is felt keenly here in Maine, where our northern climate and rural-type population densities make any increase in the prices (or taxes) on fuel oil (for heat) or gasoline and diesel (for commutes, or for forestry/agriculture) very painful. These increases cannot easily be evaded and they hit the bottom line directly.
Economist
Nov8-07, 06:29 PM
This is a point that many people miss. Sales taxes, taxes on gasoline, diesel, heating oil, clothing and non-food essentials like toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc simply cannot be escaped. People with substantial incomes often don't have to pay more taxes for these essentials than poor people. The impact of regressive taxation is felt keenly here in Maine, where our northern climate and rural-type population densities make any increase in the prices (or taxes) on fuel oil (for heat) or gasoline and diesel (for commutes, or for forestry/agriculture) very painful. These increases cannot easily be evaded and they hit the bottom line directly.
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say, that many taxes hit the poor a lot harder than the rich. This is why I've heard economists say, "People think we have a progressive tax system, but when you look at ALL taxes, you'll find that we actually have a regressive tax system."
You have posted links to right-wing sites that support your skewed view with no reliable statistics.
Right-wing sites? The NY Times? The Economist? :rofl:
Things like sales taxes have been said to harm the poor much more than the rich. Furthermore, marginal tax rates can be very high for poor people in some cases...
This is a point that many people miss. Sales taxes, taxes on gasoline, diesel, heating oil, clothing and non-food essentials like toilet paper, cleaning supplies, etc simply cannot be escaped...
Guys - don't forget: Its the lotteries, the lotteries, the lotteries which are overwhelmingly paid by the poor.
Economist
Nov9-07, 04:33 PM
Right-wing sites? The NY Times? The Economist? :rofl:
For real, how can someone say these are right-wing? Especially the NY Times.
Guys - don't forget: Its the lotteries, the lotteries, the lotteries which are overwhelmingly paid by the poor.
LOL. Yeah, that's true too
Also, the poor probably pay more taxes than you think. When you take into account all taxes (not just income taxes) you'll find that taxes are fairly substantial for the poor. Things like sales taxes have been said to harm the poor much more than the rich. Furthermore, marginal tax rates can be very high for poor people in some cases.
In the US, the poor have to pay a 15% payroll tax off the top even if a person only makes a few dollars. This is an atrocious tax on the poor especially since it is only on the first $100,000 a person makes.
drankin
Nov10-07, 12:13 AM
In the US, the poor have to pay a 15% payroll tax off the top even if a person only makes a few dollars. This is an atrocious tax on the poor especially since it is only on the first $100,000 a person makes.
I don't like paying taxes anymore than the next guy but to what country might you comparing our 15% tax to?
I don't like paying taxes anymore than the next guy but to what country might you comparing our 15% tax to?
Canada might be a good comparison.
USA tax from $0 - $7,825 is 10%
Canada tax from $0 - $9,600 is 0%
USA tax from $7,551 – $30,650 is 15%
Canada from $9,600 - $37,178 is 15%
USA from $30,651 – $74,200 is 25%
Canada from $37,178 - $74,357 is 22%
USA from $74,201 – $154,800 is 28%
Canada from $74,357 - $120,887 is 26%
USA from $154,801 – $336,550 is 33%
Canada at "over $120,887" is 29%
USA highest bracket (over 336k) is 35%
Canada highest bracket (over 120k) is 29%
USA tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
Canada Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_taxes_in_Canada)
edit: don't worry about adjusting for currency either. For the past month or so, Canadian dollars are worth more than American dollars.
edit again: I also found this article comparing the two countries. I haven't read it yet, but it looks interesting Canadian and American economies compared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_economies_compared)
edit: another link from that comparison article: Canadian and American health care compared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared )
In the US, the poor have to pay a 15% payroll tax off the top even if a person only makes a few dollars. This is an atrocious tax on the poor especially since it is only on the first $100,000 a person makes.
Fine. Let's eliminate Social Security.
This post is incorrect for many reasons. First, the employees only pay half of the tax. The employer pays the other half. Suppose the tax were eliminated. Most employers would not give their employees a 7.65% pay raise as a result. Calling the tax a 15% tax on the employees is a misdirection at best. Another misdirection: The Medicare part of the tax (1.45%) has no upper limit.
Social security is supposedly similar to a retirement account. At least that is what the silly annual letter than I get from the SSA implies. In actuality it is a pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme. Let's call it what it is: a wasteful, regressive welfare program that transfers wealth from the working middle class to the elderly who didn't have the wherewithall to save while they were working.
mheslep
Nov11-07, 10:10 PM
Canada might be a good comparison.
Doesn't Canada have a big VAT on top of that income tax?
I'm not familiar with that term. Can you define it?
mheslep
Nov12-07, 11:23 AM
i.e. a sales tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Added_Tax
6%
It will be 5% on January 1.
mheslep
Nov12-07, 11:32 AM
Ok, since the US has no federal VAT, then for your comparisons posted above you should add 6% (5%) to all the Canadian figures?
...
USA tax from $7,551 – $30,650 is 15%
Canada from $9,600 - $37,178 is 21%(20%)
and so on
In the US, the poor have to pay a 15% payroll tax off the top even if a person only makes a few dollars. This is an atrocious tax on the poor especially since it is only on the first $100,000 a person makes.I have never seen this and I am looking at a paystub. What exactly are you referring to?
Ah, I see from DH's post it's Social Security. Social Security is 6.2%
In the US, the poor have to pay a 15% payroll tax off the top even if a person only makes a few dollars. This is an atrocious tax on the poor especially since it is only on the first $100,000 a person makes.
I have never seen this and I am looking at a paystub. What exactly are you referring to?
Ah, I see from DH's post it's Social Security. Social Security is 6.2%
I think he's referring to the combination of SS tax, Medicare, and income tax or the entire SS tax including the part employers pay (a self-employed person has to pay the entire SS tax, although half is deducted from your income as an employment expense). A single non-self employed person might come close to 15%, but I think the end tax after deductions would be quite a bit less.
Fine. Let's eliminate Social Security.
This post is incorrect for many reasons. First, the employees only pay half of the tax. The employer pays the other half. Suppose the tax were eliminated. Most employers would not give their employees a 7.65% pay raise as a result. Calling the tax a 15% tax on the employees is a misdirection at best. Another misdirection: The Medicare part of the tax (1.45%) has no upper limit.
Social security is supposedly similar to a retirement account. At least that is what the silly annual letter than I get from the SSA implies. In actuality it is a pay-as-you-go Ponzi scheme. Let's call it what it is: a wasteful, regressive welfare program that transfers wealth from the working middle class to the elderly who didn't have the wherewithall to save while they were working.
I can't say that's a totally inaccurate statement, but part of the issue is that the 'victims' forced by law to pay into the scheme aren't willing to write off everything they've paid into Social Security as an expensive lesson learned. If the government isn't going to fulfill its promises to its citizens, then every Congressman from the 30's to the present should lose their Congressional pension plus spend at least a few months in prison. There's probably not much hope that Congress would vote for that solution.
Ok, since the US has no federal VAT, then for your comparisons posted above you should add 6% (5%) to all the Canadian figures?
...
USA tax from $7,551 – $30,650 is 15%
Canada from $9,600 - $37,178 is 21%(20%)
and so on
I don't think you could directly apply a sales tax to income unless all workers are spending 100% of their income. Unless buying on credit is as common in Canada as it is in the US, in which case maybe you're not adding enough to the tax.
Ok, since the US has no federal VAT, then for your comparisons posted above you should add 6% (5%) to all the Canadian figures?
...
USA tax from $7,551 – $30,650 is 15%
Canada from $9,600 - $37,178 is 21%(20%)
and so on
Sort of yes and sort of no. Sales tax does not apply to rent, medical, dental, food, lawyer fees, or financial services. These are what make up the bulk of peoples' expenses.
Example:
I start with 100% income
20% taken in taxes
35% goes to rent
5% for food (I don't eat much)
7% for insurance (financial service, no tax)
33% left over for spending (or saving, which will be spent eventually)
0.33 * 6% tax = ~2% tax (on total income)
Due to the exemptions, GST is a progressive tax. Yes poor people spend a greater percentage of their pay checks, but they spend a much greater percentage of it on things that are tax-exempt (rent, food, dental, etc).
mheslep
Nov12-07, 03:39 PM
0.33 * 6% tax = ~2% tax (on total income)
Fair enough for the daily expenses. However, Id say that changes if you include the major purchases of a car (lots of poor as we're defining them here still can buy a cheap car) and possibly even a low cost home / condo / duplex.
Economist
Nov12-07, 04:01 PM
Check this short blog article out. Seriously, it probably takes like 1 minute to read.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/11/where-would-you-rather-be-sick.html
mheslep
Nov12-07, 04:06 PM
Also see this Fraser Institute sourced report for for a total tax bill in Canada (http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=591038).
In 2005, the average Canadian family earned an income of $60,903 and paid total taxes equaling $28,467 (46.7 percent).
Im not familiar with the source nor the methods used
drankin
Nov13-07, 12:15 AM
So, I think that it is fair to say that the current tax on Americans (including deductions) is at least as good as any other developed country. It would seem to me that we treat our poor relatively well. Again, if you have to declare bankruptcy to pay for expenses that saved your life, you were at least able to do so and continue living... in the USA.
Also see this Fraser Institute sourced report for for a total tax bill in Canada (http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=591038).
Im not familiar with the source nor the methods used
Keep in mind that the Frasier institution is a bunch of retarded lolbertarians. That number of ~$60,000 (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a.htm) is family income, meaning 2 people, meaning 2 separate tax filings, and completely separate tax brackets from a single person making 60k. If you take a leap and just assume husband and wife make the same income, that goes to 30k per person. I make just a bit more than that right now, and my income tax is about 20% of gross income.
I have no idea how they come up with 46% tax. My first guess would be that they add up all the taxes that are applied on every money transaction. Let me give an example of how this works. Let's say I make $1000 and pay $200 in income tax. That's 20%. Then I buy $800 in alcohol, which is about 99% tax (feel free to google search what tax-free ethanol is actually worth). So that's another $792 in tax. Add that to the original $200 income tax to get $992 of tax paid on $1000 of income. OMG T4X RATES ARE 99.2%!
They can make up any stats they want if they tried hard enough.
Stats Canada has a much different story. link (http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060330/d060330a.htm)
Median family gross income for 2004: $55,800
Median family income tax for 2004: $8,600
55800 - 8600 = $47,200 net
(55800 - 47200) / 55800 * 100 = 15.4% tax.
Remember that this include all write offs. Your children are huge tax writeoffs, education is written off, interest on loans for investment purposes is written off (bussiness loans, margin calls, etc). One big difference between Canada and the US is that interest on a mortgage for your primary residence is tax-free in the US, but not in Canada, so Canada's tax rate is a bit higher.
Anyway, the whole point was to show that you don't need to tax people up the *** to pay for socialized medicine. Canada probably does have higher taxes in a lot of cases, but it's very managable. This isn't france where there's no reason to actually work for anything.
Economist
Nov16-07, 01:29 PM
I have no idea how they come up with 46% tax. My first guess would be that they add up all the taxes that are applied on every money transaction. Let me give an example of how this works. Let's say I make $1000 and pay $200 in income tax. That's 20%. Then I buy $800 in alcohol, which is about 99% tax (feel free to google search what tax-free ethanol is actually worth). So that's another $792 in tax. Add that to the original $200 income tax to get $992 of tax paid on $1000 of income. OMG T4X RATES ARE 99.2%!
They can make up any stats they want if they tried hard enough.
Well, methodologically you are supposed to account for all taxes. If someone only makes $10,000 a year, but doesn't pay any income taxes it is not correct to say they pay 0% taxes. Especially considering that they probably still paid a substantial amount of their income on some forms of taxes (I wouldn't be suprised if someone in this boat still would up paying around $1500 - $2000 in taxes for the entire year). I'm not sure how they calculated the tax rate, but I imagine they used the standard economic way, which is to figure how many dollars went to taxes and divide it by the salary or something similar.
If they're accounting for total taxes taken, then it should be easy to start removing the ones that don't apply to me.
20% (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/research-recherche/stat/ctums-esutc/2004/summarya-sommairea_e.html) of Canadians smoke (in that same link, it says 26% of people smoked marijuana in the past 12 months :tongue:). A pack of cigarettes was about $10 a few months ago. I think it's up to $12 per pack since the massive tax hike, but I'll use $10 because I'm not sure about that 12. Average is 15.2 cigarettes per day. Each pack contains 25 cigarettes, so the daily cost would be 10*15.2/25 = $6.08 per day. This (http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/index.cfm?group_id=1199) site lists all the prices of tobacco in 1997. Highest one, as expected, is Newfoundland (the overall tax rate in that crap-hole is easily twice that of Alberta). I'm in Alberta so the taxed amount of those daily cigarettes is 6.08*[(41.02-9.96)/41.02] = $4.60
That's per day, so multiply by 365 = $1,680
There's a lot of voluntary tax out there, and most of it doesn't apply to most people. Most people don't smoke, most people don't binge drink, and most people don't buy lottery tickets. Aside from income tax and the 5% sales tax, the biggest taxes I can think of are gasoline and property tax. Tax on gasoline is about half the purchase price, so that's about 50 cents per litre ($1.90 per gallon). Property tax is about 1% of property value, so that's maybe $4,000 per year if you live in a city with an ok or better economy. Scale up or down as needed.
mheslep
Nov16-07, 05:44 PM
If they're accounting for total taxes taken, then it should be easy to start removing the ones that don't apply to me.
I don't think thats useful either. The thread is about nationalized health care so by virtue of the topic we're only interested in average information. The idea is to weigh the costs vs the benefit, that is, how much total revenue a country using nationalized health care takes from its citizens vs what you get for it medically, so you need typical information. Then, theoretically, you have some predictive power. So in this case, how much total tax does the Canadian government take from a guy making an average salary? Well you go out and (do what Fraser Inst. did) pole a bunch of people and average income tax, all the lottery tickets, the smokes, the telephone taxes(check your bill), the airline ticket taxes, the social security (US name) taxes, the sales tax (did you buy a car?, a condo?), etc., everything the federal government takes in as revenue since it all goes into one pot in effect. In this case looks to me like its 46%.
BTW, $10 for smokes!
I don't think thats useful either. The thread is about nationalized health care so by virtue of the topic we're only interested in average information.
I was thinking more in terms of median and mode because each of them are not as strongly affected by outliers, so they give a better representation of distribution.
Let me give you an example. Numbers 1,2,3,4,5,100,100.
The median is 4, so if you divided it at 4 you could say "half of the people are below this point, half the people are above this point". Looking at the median, or quintiles, or percentile, gives a good idea of where things are. If you said "20% of people are below the poverty line" it actually means something; 2/10 randomly chosen people are poor. If you said something like "the poverty line is at $20,000 and the average income is $30,000" what exactly does that mean? How are the numbers distributed? How many people are poor? Unless you include a standard deviation, the mean is useless. The median is useful because it doesn't need a standard deviation.
In the above example, the mean is 30.7. This number means nothing. The number 30 is not part of that set, nor is anything even close to 30. Outliers such as bums and rich people can have a strong effect on the mean. They generally have less of an effect on the median since they just cancel each other out, so it's like you're not even including the outliers, assuming you have an equal number of outliers on each end.
Real world data relating to this: PPP by average (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita), PPP by median (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)
Averages:
USA ~$43,000 on both lists
Canada ~$35,000 on both lists
Medians:
USA ~ $48,000
Canada ~ $43,000
As you can see, the numbers change quite a bit when you look at the median instead of the average. It's also good to see that the median is higher than the average. This would indicate that the mean is low because of unemployed people; not because the bulk of the population is poor (this is good because we have low unemployment rates. If the unemployment was 50%, the median would be really screwed up, in which case the mode would be the best indicator, and it would say that unemployment was rampant). If the opposite were true, and each country had 100% employment with mostly low paying jobs and a few Warren Buffet jobs, the mean would be higher than the median. As always, correct me if these assumptions are wrong.
In my previous post, I excluded the tax on cigarettes and alcohol because 1) they don't apply to most people and 2) they are voluntary. You are forced to pay income tax, but nobody forces you to smoke. You are forced to pay property tax (it's included in your rent if you're a renter), but nobody forces you to drink. A person representing the mean, median, and mode would be a nonsmoker who has a beer or glass of wine on rare occasions. If you're a smoker or an alcoholic, the statistics don't apply at all, so you have to include the full cost. I assume it sucks to be a smoking alcoholic in Canada.
The idea is to weigh the costs vs the benefit, that is, how much total revenue a country using nationalized health care takes from its citizens vs what you get for it medically, so you need typical information. Then, theoretically, you have some predictive power. So in this case, how much total tax does the Canadian government take from a guy making an average salary? Well you go out and (do what Fraser Inst. did) pole a bunch of people and average income tax, all the lottery tickets, the smokes, the telephone taxes(check your bill), the airline ticket taxes, the social security (US name) taxes, the sales tax (did you buy a car?, a condo?), etc., everything the federal government takes in as revenue since it all goes into one pot in effect. In this case looks to me like its 46%.
Yes, the average is 46% (the way they calculated it). What is the median? If you pointed at somebody who represents the bulk of the population, such as the middle 80% (exclude the top and bottom 10%), how much would that guy be paying? It's probably not 46%.
BTW, $10 for smokes!
Yeah, it sucks hard. This week it was also announced that there is a smoking ban in the entire province of Alberta. This officially makes smoking more illegal than drinking. You can drink at the bar until you pass out, but you better not light a cigarette! Those things kill you! :rolleyes:
What's funny about this is that the city of Edmonton, Alberta passed a smoking ban about 1 year ago. Take a guess where all the smokers went. They started going to the River Cree Casino which is located on native reserve land just west of the city. City laws don't apply to reserve land, so you could smoke as much as you wanted. My friends and I would go there all the time just to smoke, hang out, watch TV at the bar, and eat somewhat nice food. I don't even like smoking, so it was really more of a protest than anything else. Methinks the provincial ban is due to businesses complaining that indians are stealing all their business.
gsingh1015
Nov16-07, 07:16 PM
Universal health care is a basic human right - enshrined in most european countries. There are different models but most of them are successful. OK the taxes are higher in Europe but at the end of the day taxes belong to the people and not governments and if they are ploughed back into the public in the form of better public services, social security and pensions then the vast majority of people don't mind paying higher taxes. I work as a doctor in the UK and have on many occassions treated US visitors who absolutely marvel at our system! Most of it is evidenced based and is one of the most cost effective systems in the world! We may not be as good as Sweden, France or Germany but when it comes to the crunch - when it really matters - no system in the world can beat our National Health Service.
t-money
Nov16-07, 07:32 PM
Universal health care is a basic human right - enshrined in most european countries. There are different models but most of them are successful. OK the taxes are higher in Europe but at the end of the day taxes belong to the people and not governments and if they are ploughed back into the public in the form of better public services, social security and pensions then the vast majority of people don't mind paying higher taxes. I work as a doctor in the UK and have on many occassions treated US visitors who absolutely marvel at our system! Most of it is evidenced based and is one of the most cost effective systems in the world! We may not be as good as Sweden, France or Germany but when it comes to the crunch - when it really matters - no system in the world can beat our National Health Service.
What was the primary reason patients from the U.S came in to be treated. I say this because a lot of Brits come to the U.S for Dental work, because their universal healthcare system does not do teeth very well.
What was the primary reason patients from the U.S came in to be treated. I say this because a lot of Brits come to the U.S for Dental work, because their universal healthcare system does not do teeth very well.
They were probably tourists.
mheslep
Nov16-07, 08:16 PM
Universal health care is a basic human right - enshrined in most european countries.
Any argument for this or do you assert as an article of faith? What then are the basic human rights? How about food, education? University education? Employment? Housing? Telephone? Internet access? Transportation? I'll stick with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, thank you.
There are different models but most of them are successful. OK the taxes are higher in Europe but at the end of the day taxes belong to the people and not governments and if they are ploughed back into the public in the form of better public services, social security and pensions then the vast majority of people don't mind paying higher taxes. I work as a doctor in the UK and have on many occassions treated US visitors who absolutely marvel at our system! Most of it is evidenced based and is one of the most cost effective systems in the world! We may not be as good as Sweden, France or Germany but when it comes to the crunch - when it really matters - no system in the world can beat our National Health Service.
By what standard or metric to you assert? To what degree do you credit pharmaceutical advances for NHS success? Care to express an opinion on these figures showing the US has the highest life expectancy in the world?
Mean Life Expectancy at Birth (http://bp0.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/Rzmah0RKkiI/AAAAAAAACxM/_yTMErbhbmE/s1600-h/le1.bmp)
Background. (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/11/beyond-those-health-care-numbers-us.html)
Numbers on the right are corrected to remove homicides and accidents, i.e. non health care related deaths. US 76.9yrs
NY Times piece background piece by N. GREGORY MANKIW (http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/mankiw.html)
Beyond Those Health Care Numbers (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html?ex=1351828800&en=7ebf86b6773f35bd&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
mheslep
Nov16-07, 08:18 PM
They were probably tourists.
Maybe, but a lot of Brits are voting with their feet and coming to the US to stay. The flow is definitely from the UK to the US.
gsingh1015
Nov16-07, 08:25 PM
Why do Americans come here! Tourists? Visiting family? or may be just so that people can ask silly questions!
As to basic human rights - health has the same place as life and liberty along with education and a clean water supply. As to happiness - there can be no happiness if your child is dying in front of your eyes and you have no medical access because you can't pay the bills. But then you cannot explain such simple concepts to people who think a right to carry arms is more important than universal health care!
gsingh1015
Nov16-07, 08:28 PM
Oh and by the way the British dental system is the one of the worse in the developed world - you know why? Because it largely private and not adequately supported by the health service! No wonder some people have to pull their own rotting teeth out because the dentists are too busy doing dental implants! May be its time to nationalise the dental services!
mheslep
Nov16-07, 08:41 PM
Oh and by the way the British dental system is the one of the worse in the developed world - you know why? Because it largely private and not adequately supported by the health service! No wonder some people have to pull their own rotting teeth out because the dentists are too busy doing dental implants! May be its time to nationalise the dental services!
Why not nationalise everything?
Economist
Nov16-07, 08:45 PM
There's a lot of voluntary tax out there, and most of it doesn't apply to most people. Most people don't smoke, most people don't binge drink, and most people don't buy lottery tickets.
I agree. My point though, is that people generally pay a lot more in taxes than others think when you take into account all taxes. There's a large number of taxes that people can't get away from.
See the article I posted below. It's short (2 pages) and be sure to read the whole thing.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/misc/Hogberg.pdf
drankin
Nov17-07, 01:41 PM
Why do Americans come here! Tourists? Visiting family? or may be just so that people can ask silly questions!
As to basic human rights - health has the same place as life and liberty along with education and a clean water supply. As to happiness - there can be no happiness if your child is dying in front of your eyes and you have no medical access because you can't pay the bills. But then you cannot explain such simple concepts to people who think a right to carry arms is more important than universal health care!
Basically, in this situation, a parent probably qualifies for medical welfare and doesn't have to watch his child "die in front of your eyes" as you so dramatically put it. This is just emotionally based bologne. There is a system to help the poor in Americans in this situation.
Bills are just bills, when your childs life is on the line, bills don't have priority. Sell your assets, if you don't have any then you qualify for medical assistance. If you have to declare bankruptcy then cry me a river. Life goes on.
Economist
Nov17-07, 02:30 PM
Bills are just bills, when your childs life is on the line, bills don't have priority. Sell your assets, if you don't have any then you qualify for medical assistance. If you have to declare bankruptcy then cry me a river. Life goes on.
I know, as if bankrupcy was the worst thing in the world. Sometimes I don't think we realize how good we got it.
I know, as if bankrupcy was the worst thing in the world. Sometimes I don't think we realize how good we got it.
IMHO a modern society should not allow its members to resort to declare bankruptcy if they are hit by accidents or illnesses that arise from factors which they can not control. As for those controllable factors, the government will have a better incentive to regulate those in the best interests of its citizens.
Over here social security levies a progressive health tax, and the citizen chooses a fund which will be paid that tax. The funds are NFPOs, and they offer unregulated added coverage at unregulated prices. The government regulates the basic coverage completely. It's not a perfect system though: the appointed committee that controlls what treatments are covered by the basic coverage is a subject of much heated discussions, but I suppose there has to be a place for the opposing forces of public interest in welfare and the free market to battle it out.
mheslep
Nov18-07, 03:54 PM
There are some examples that may be instructive regarding free market medicine vs 3rd party payer plans (either nationalized or insured)
The LASIK eye procedure is not covered by 3rd party insurers in the US. Since 1999 its price has gone down ~23%. In the same period the average cost of medicine (mostly insured) has increased ~35%. General price inflation over the same period ~20%. Source. (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba572/)
Plastic Photon
Nov18-07, 09:18 PM
Many good reasons to think things in europe can't work in America: euro cars suck, men do not wear purses, i have a baseball cap on my head not a fruit basket, guns are not illegal here, american beer is the best in the world and baseball.
You try telling me that some hunky-dory system of what nots and want nots is gonna improve something and i'll show you the image of the christ child on the side of a roadside mile marker. These things take time and euro qualities, which we do not have. We have hundreds of thousands of thousands of sqaure MILES, not km, of land. Everything here is bigger, like Texas. We do not have to give up our dreams of manifest destiny, the euro man's expidition into the wild ended at coming down from the tree, he has yet to take the next step into the land of greatness.
Many good reasons ....to take the next step into the land of greatness.
You're one of the guys in this video, aren't you.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1508076&postcount=353
WheelsRCool
Nov20-07, 11:58 PM
Why do Americans come here! Tourists? Visiting family? or may be just so that people can ask silly questions!
As to basic human rights - health has the same place as life and liberty along with education and a clean water supply. As to happiness - there can be no happiness if your child is dying in front of your eyes and you have no medical access because you can't pay the bills. But then you cannot explain such simple concepts to people who think a right to carry arms is more important than universal health care!
Healthcare is not a right. It is a service. It is something that requires the skills of other people to provide. As such, it cannot ever be a right. If you make healthcare a "right," you are essentially infringing on the rights of the people who study hard for years to acquire the skills to be able to provide healthcare. No one is entitled to those services.
Education is the same. And food. And housing. All are services. Not rights. If you want those services, you have to pay for them.
Rights are things like the 2nd Amendment, which states you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. It doesn't at all say the government is supposed to supply you with a weapon. That's on you to acquire it. Or the freedom to practice whatever religion you want. The government is not obligated to build you a church/mosque/temple, etc...things like healthcare, education, food, housing, etc...cannot be rights, because they require the skills of others.
Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.
Regarding the drug and insurance companies, there is a huge misconception that these are oligopolies because of the free market, which is blantantly not true. The reason they are oligopolies is BECAUSE of government intervention, not the lack of it.
For example, the drug industry. You know what the requirement is to start a drug company? You'd need to create a new drug which is an effort unto itself, then it would have to pass through the FDA, thus costing you a couple of hundred million dollars and a ten to fifteen year wait.
Well obviously that kind of cuts out 99.99999999999999999999% of the population from starting any new drug companies. Thus the drug companies gain an oligopoly, and become very large and powerful. The barrier to entry in the drug industry regarding starting your own drug company is thus a good deal caused by government.
Contrast this with the computer/software industry which is incredibly free and unregulate, with very low barriers to entry. Thus you have constant startups forming in the industry, and incredible growth in the industry.
The FDA itself through it's stringent regulation also seriously hamstrings our drug industry because of that ten to fifteen year wait. We would be much better with an abolished FDA and having competing private agencies that could do the testing, and drugs available to people who want to use them before the testing if they want to run that risk.
More people die each year from drugs that don't make it to the market than are saved from ones that do. If these drugs could come to market, and then were undergoing testing by competing private agencies, then people could wait for them to be certified safe, but people more desperate (say going to die soon if they don't try something) could try the drug. It would be their choice.
Sort of like when the FDA announces a new drug that they estimate will save 14,000 people a year, well no one thinks that means 14,000 people died for each of the ten to fifteen years the drug had to go through FDA testing. That number could've been greatly reduced had the drug been released.
The drug companies, the insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...all are stringently regulated. And now individual doctor's practices are being taken over by government as well or regulated out of existence. Medicare alone has like 133,000 pages of regulation.
All this regulation of the industry was originally meant to "protect" us consumers, but it does exactly the opposite.
I don't trust my healthcare to a big corporation with little competition or the government, I trust my own private doctors with it. For over 100 years in America, our medical care system was simple: if you needed a doctor, you went to one and paid for their services. But somewhere along the line government had to step in and complicate things greatly.
The U.S. healthcare system is messed-up because of the intervention of government, not because of free-market policies.
drankin
Nov21-07, 12:34 AM
Healthcare is not a right. It is a service. It is something that requires the skills of other people to provide. As such, it cannot ever be a right. If you make healthcare a "right," you are essentially infringing on the rights of the people who study hard for years to acquire the skills to be able to provide healthcare. No one is entitled to those services.
Education is the same. And food. And housing. All are services. Not rights. If you want those services, you have to pay for them.
Rights are things like the 2nd Amendment, which states you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. It doesn't at all say the government is supposed to supply you with a weapon. That's on you to acquire it. Or the freedom to practice whatever religion you want. The government is not obligated to build you a church/mosque/temple, etc...things like healthcare, education, food, housing, etc...cannot be rights, because they require the skills of others.
Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.
Regarding the drug and insurance companies, there is a huge misconception that these are oligopolies because of the free market, which is blantantly not true. The reason they are oligopolies is BECAUSE of government intervention, not the lack of it.
For example, the drug industry. You know what the requirement is to start a drug company? You'd need to create a new drug which is an effort unto itself, then it would have to pass through the FDA, thus costing you a couple of hundred million dollars and a ten to fifteen year wait.
Well obviously that kind of cuts out 99.99999999999999999999% of the population from starting any new drug companies. Thus the drug companies gain an oligopoly, and become very large and powerful. The barrier to entry in the drug industry regarding starting your own drug company is thus a good deal caused by government.
Contrast this with the computer/software industry which is incredibly free and unregulate, with very low barriers to entry. Thus you have constant startups forming in the industry, and incredible growth in the industry.
The FDA itself through it's stringent regulation also seriously hamstrings our drug industry because of that ten to fifteen year wait. We would be much better with an abolished FDA and having competing private agencies that could do the testing, and drugs available to people who want to use them before the testing if they want to run that risk.
More people die each year from drugs that don't make it to the market than are saved from ones that do. If these drugs could come to market, and then were undergoing testing by competing private agencies, then people could wait for them to be certified safe, but people more desperate (say going to die soon if they don't try something) could try the drug. It would be their choice.
Sort of like when the FDA announces a new drug that they estimate will save 14,000 people a year, well no one thinks that means 14,000 people died for each of the ten to fifteen years the drug had to go through FDA testing. That number could've been greatly reduced had the drug been released.
The drug companies, the insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc...all are stringently regulated. And now individual doctor's practices are being taken over by government as well or regulated out of existence. Medicare alone has like 133,000 pages of regulation.
All this regulation of the industry was originally meant to "protect" us consumers, but it does exactly the opposite.
I don't trust my healthcare to a big corporation with little competition or the government, I trust my own private doctors with it. For over 100 years in America, our medical care system was simple: if you needed a doctor, you went to one and paid for their services. But somewhere along the line government had to step in and complicate things greatly.
The U.S. healthcare system is messed-up because of the intervention of government, not because of free-market policies.
Excellent examples.
Economist
Nov21-07, 02:03 PM
Great points WheelsRCool! I especially like the part about rights, because I totally agree. I always get so frustrated when I hear people through the term "right" around. They don't understand that a right is something that all people can have simultaneously, without it infringing upon the rights of someone else. For example, we can all have the right to free speech simultaneously, however, that doesn't mean anyone else has to listen or provide me with a mic and a podium. Also, when you talked about starting up a pharmaceutical company, I actually heard that it takes the average drug $1 billion and ten years of testing to get it passed (which (just like you said) CREATES AN OLIGOPOLY!)
I just wanted to add a few more short interesting articles for the debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112007D
wildman
Nov22-07, 02:45 PM
american beer is the best in the world
Well, the rest may be true, but the beer is better in Germany.
Societies that consider these things rights are always less prosperous than more free-market systems, which is why countries like America and Switzerland have the highest standard of living in the world.
You may not want to group America and Switzerland together. They're so drastically different that it's like comparing China to Nigeria (except China and Nigeria both suck).
Here is an example: Switzerland taxes the hell out of immigrants (http://www.taxation.ch/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/temp/default/path/1-534.htm)
Higher up on the page you see this:
The maximum federal income tax rate is 11.5% :biggrin:
Lower down you see this
Lump-sum taxation ("forfait tax") of resident aliens
....
"Ordinary Swiss income taxes per year CHF 300’000 (40%)
Alright so pure-blood Swiss people pay 11.5% while the scum from other countries pay 40%. I'm pretty sure America doesn't do that.
Switzerland is also listed as a country that has universal health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care)
Then there's 20% of switzerland is immigrants (http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/about/swissinfo.html) (they pay 40%, remember).
On that same page, the one that really strikes me as odd is where it says "Some of my clients have been surprised to find that children in Switzerland are openly friendly towards adults" which is the exact opposite of the American/Canadian teaching of "everybody older than you is automatically evil and you should not talk to them, ever"
It's an interesting country, and I think we can all learn a lot from it, but it's hard to make direct comparison. Everything seems different, so it's hard to pick the ones that are good and the ones that are bad, if any of them are bad, which I don't even know.
I agree on your FDA rant though. There's a theory out there that collusion is more likely to happen when the cost to get into an industry is high, so oil companies are pharm companies can pretty much do whatever the hell they want and nobody can stop them. Jon Stossel gave a really good speech about this at the Frasier Institue. It's on google video if you care to search for it.
mheslep
Nov22-07, 05:38 PM
It's an interesting country, and I think we can all learn a lot from it, but it's hard to make direct comparison. Everything seems different, so it's hard to pick the ones that are good and the ones that are bad, if any of them are bad, which I don't even know.
Yes interesting gun laws in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)where every citizen owns a gun and, if the authorities come to your house and demand to see your gun and you do NOT have it, they arrest you.:approve:
WheelsRCool
Nov22-07, 05:58 PM
ShawnD, thanks for the info. I don't know the full details, but I think that, with regards to the other European nations that are known for high taxation though, that the Swiss still tax far less. I have read that France for example has had a lot of its celebrities moving to Switzerland to avoid paying French taxes, which has caused France to actually go so far as to threaten Switzerland (economically, not militarily :) ) to which the Swiss have essentially told them to get lost, this is like an on-going thing I believe.
Regarding Swiss healthcare, it is universal I believe, but it isn't for the most part publicly-funded, it is a combination of a publicly-funded system (University of Geneva), subsized private, and totally private systems (private doctors and medical practices). I think though that it is law that all citizens have to buy insurance.
Regarding guns in Switzerland, I think America has those same kinds of laws if you own fully automatic belt-fed machine guns :) you have to keep them in a secured spot and the authorities will tend to check on you and them constantly, and if they demand to see them and you don't have them, not good!
Overall, regarding Switzerland and the U.S., I meant the two are similar in that the central governments both have little power in their economies in comparison to the governments of other countries, both have high gun ownership, and both have the best healthcare in the world, and both tend to be very free-market friendly.
Regarding guns in Switzerland, I think America has those same kinds of laws if you own fully automatic belt-fed machine guns :) you have to keep them in a secured spot and the authorities will tend to check on you and them constantly, and if they demand to see them and you don't have them, not good!You are badly misinformed. In the US, if you own a firearm that can fire continuously while the trigger is depressed, you have to have purchased a class 3 license before taking possession of it, and you have to keep that permit current and pay fees, and you have to notify the ATF when you want to transport that gun to a location not specified on your permit. Practically identical weapons which have to be fired with individual trigger-pulls used to be exempted until a bunch of nuts pushed through laws forbidding things like flash-suppressors, folding stocks, and other features that might might make the semi-automatic rifles "look" like the full-auto military guns.
Switzerland's laws are structured more toward the maintenance of a citizen militia, in which an invasion/incursion can be countered with well-armed quick-reaction forces. I would NOT want to attempt a home invasion of a Swiss home for any reason.
Yes interesting gun laws in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)where every citizen owns a gun and, if the authorities come to your house and demand to see your gun and you do NOT have it, they arrest you.:approve:
I'm not sure if they've repealed this yet, but they used to require that every building, including houses, have bomb shelters. Most people put a bar and a pool table or hot tub in them :biggrin:
Regarding Swiss healthcare, it is universal I believe, but it isn't for the most part publicly-funded, it is a combination of a publicly-funded system (University of Geneva), subsized private, and totally private systems (private doctors and medical practices). I think though that it is law that all citizens have to buy insurance.
I can't vouch for other countries, but this is pretty much what Canada has too. I don't know the details of the Swiss system, but maybe somebody on this forum is from that country and can compare:
-all family doctors are private
-all specialists not located in a hospital are private
-all dental is private
-all eye care is private
-all blood testing, urine testing, x-ray, mri, cardiogram, ekg, and other things of this nature that are not in a hospital are private
-doctors who have private practices are not allowed to work in hospitals
-doctors who work in hospitals are not allowed to work in their own practice
-doctors can switch between hospital or private any time they want, but they can't work in both at the same time (conflict of interest apparently)
-most private health procedures are paid for by showing your health care card; I can't think of anything that isn't covered, but I know they exist
-everybody is (somewhat) required to buy government insurance. I wasn't even asked if I wanted health care, they just started sending me a bill for $120 every 3 months. You can opt out if you want, but that seems like a really bad idea.
-everybody has the option of getting extra government subsidized insurance (blue cross) to help pay for dental, eye, and drugs. It's not required, but it's a good idea. In Alberta it's $41/month for a family, or I think $20 for an individual.
Where's Monique from? Doesn't she live pretty close to Switzerland?
WheelsRCool
Nov24-07, 03:27 PM
You are badly misinformed. In the US, if you own a firearm that can fire continuously while the trigger is depressed, you have to have purchased a class 3 license before taking possession of it, and you have to keep that permit current and pay fees, and you have to notify the ATF when you want to transport that gun to a location not specified on your permit. Practically identical weapons which have to be fired with individual trigger-pulls used to be exempted until a bunch of nuts pushed through laws forbidding things like flash-suppressors, folding stocks, and other features that might might make the semi-automatic rifles "look" like the full-auto military guns.
Switzerland's laws are structured more toward the maintenance of a citizen militia, in which an invasion/incursion can be countered with well-armed quick-reaction forces. I would NOT want to attempt a home invasion of a Swiss home for any reason.
Yeah, Switzerland seems more "American" than America itself in some ways it seems.
But yeah those laws you said I think were in line with what I was thinking, point is, if you own such firearms in America, the government keeps an eye on you.
All my brothers and sisters live in Holland, are married with kids and their social healthcare system is awesome. They have no complaints whatsoever. hg
devil-fire
Feb2-08, 09:36 AM
I can't vouch for other countries, but this is pretty much what Canada has too. I don't know the details of the Swiss system, but maybe somebody on this forum is from that country and can compare:
-doctors who have private practices are not allowed to work in hospitals
-doctors who work in hospitals are not allowed to work in their own practice
-most private health procedures are paid for by showing your health care card; I can't think of anything that isn't covered, but I know they exist
i think it changes between provinces also. i live in ontario and my family doctor is at the hospital almost every night checking on patients (i think the people she checks on might just be patients from her family practice though). also i know that ambulance, air lifting and some rehabilitation programs are not covered entirely by the ontario health insurance plan. im fairly sure a ride in an ambulance is $100, i don't know about the air lifting but a 2 month stay at a hospital's brain injury rehabilitation facility is about $5,000. all 3 are covered totally by blue cross
All my brothers and sisters live in Holland, are married with kids and their social healthcare system is awesome. They have no complaints whatsoever. hgIn 2003 Holland instituted some major reforms of its health care system so its not clear what it means to say the care there is 'awesome'. It use to be awesome but not now? It use to be terrible but now its awesome? They use a private insurance plan to bypass the waiting lists and that is awesome?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.