News What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?

[WhoWee]

It doesn't need any force, only leadership.

Here's a deal: you have 3 choices.

1. You can pay $100 to "share", and what you get back is determined by what you need.
2. You can pay $200 protection money. Half of that goes straight into the pockets of the racketeers (sorry, the health insurance administrators etc) and you will only get the other $100 back if the racketeers can't find a reason to stop the payments.
3. You can pay nothing, and take your chance on being able to afford a $100,000 bill arriving at random.

Oh, and once option 1 is actually up and running, anybody bone headed enough to choose options 2 and 3 gets no bail out from option 1. Let them die in the streets and bury them in a mass grave, if they can't afford anything better.

Of course the problem in getting from here to there is obvious: the racketeers don't like the idea of being put out of business by option 1. Oh dear, what a pity, never mind, stay as you are then. The rest of the world doesn't care that your life expectancy is going down while theirs is going up.

Again - no evidence this would boost economic growth on par with China (OP).

 

[Al68]

It doesn't need any force, only leadership.

Here's a deal: you have 3 choices.

1. You can pay a fixed rate of $100 a year to "share", and what you get back is determined by what you need, not what you pay in.
2. You can pay protection money. This starts at $200 a year. Half of that goes straight into the pockets of the racketeers (sorry, the health insurance administrators etc) and you will only get anything back if the racketeers can't find a reason to stop the payments. Note, if you DO get some money back, your protection payments will be increased to make sure the nice racketeers don't lose any more money in the long term.
3. You can pay nothing, and take your chance on being able to afford any bills as they arise.

Oh, and once option 1 is actually up and running, anybody bone headed enough to choose options 2 and 3 gets no bail out from option 1. Let them die in the streets and bury them in a mass grave, if they can't afford anything better.

In the absence of force, I could reject all three in favor of obtaining whatever insurance and health care I choose privately. Call it option 4: the no force option.

 

[Al68]

Liberty and peaceful co-existance are great ideas, and great ideals for a society, but there's a reason Anarchy hasn't become a wide-spread thing in society, and it's the same reason why I advocate government getting its grubby hands in companies/economics - people get greedy and, face it, **** happens.

Nobody's talking about anarchy. Government protecting liberty instead of infringing on it isn't anarchy, it's classical liberalism.

The previous system with the insurance companies and healthcare industry running things hasn't seemed to keep the cost down at all, and kept people with "Pre-existing conditions" with their feet to the fire so to speak, so maybe it's time for a new idea.

Nobody is talking about insurance companies and the healthcare industry "running" anything, except their own respective businesses. Again, equating individual liberty with being "run" by government ignores the concept of liberty. You just can't refer to people "not being managed" as if it were a just another form of being managed, ignoring the concept of human liberty.

As far as pre-existing conditions, the purpose of insurance is to protect against future conditions, not pre-existing ones. By definition, covering pre-existing conditions isn't "insurance". And free people choosing which transactions to engage in, or not, isn't keeping peoples' "feet to the fire".

That's the thing about metaphors, they can be used to misrepresent reality without actually making false statements about reality.

 

[WhoWee]

Nobody's talking about anarchy. Government protecting liberty instead of infringing on it isn't anarchy, it's classical liberalism.Nobody is talking about insurance companies and the healthcare industry "running" anything, except their own respective businesses. Again, equating individual liberty with being "run" by government ignores the concept of liberty. You just can't refer to people "not being managed" as if it were a just another form of being managed, ignoring the concept of human liberty.

As far as pre-existing conditions, the purpose of insurance is to protect against future conditions, not pre-existing ones. By definition, covering pre-existing conditions isn't "insurance". And free people choosing which transactions to engage in, or not, isn't keeping peoples' "feet to the fire".

That's the thing about metaphors, they can be used to misrepresent reality without actually making false statements about reality.

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

 

[Al68]

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

Good point. Why not ask my car mechanic to pay my medical bills for a pre-existing condition? He's just as responsible for it as an insurance company. Oh, wait, that is exactly what Obamacare does. Never mind.

 

[turbo]

Since nobody else wants to stay on topic - I'll chime in here too.

WHY does the argument always circle back to the insurance companies covering pre-existing conditions - why not ask the doctors and hospitals to cover these excess charges? If you are objective in your analysis - the insurance companies were not involved in a pre-existing situation - but the doctor MIGHT have treated the patient BEFORE the condition began - just saying.

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

Once again, there are a LOT of things that we really cannot to finance piece-meal. We need to source and finance some things collectively in order to foster efficiency and control costs. Roads, bridges, defense (Please! no more wars of aggression!), public education, public water systems, public safety (fire police, rescue), sanitation, etc. Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism. "I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

 

[WhoWee]

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

Once again, there are a LOT of things that we really cannot to finance piece-meal. We need to source and finance some things collectively in order to foster efficiency and control costs. Roads, bridges, defense (Please! no more wars of aggression!), public education, public water systems, public safety (fire police, rescue), sanitation, etc. Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism. "I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

Did you respond to MY post?

I'm talking about responsibility - if the patient isn't responsible - maybe the doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinics, hospitals and any other healthcare providers in the life of the patient have responsibility?

Asking the insurance company to cover a pre-existing condition is comparable to asking them to cover a house that has already been damaged by fire - it's neither fair nor correct.

 

[Al68]

Why, oh why, cannot the people on the right wrap their heads around the concept that we might be able to reduce our health-care expenditures by including a public option that covers all people? I can't understand the mind-set, apart from attributing it to an Ayn Rand-like aversion to egalitarianism and altruism.

The real question is: why do left-wingers pretend to be so incapable of understanding basic libertarianism? Why do you ask the same questions that have been asked and answered repeatedly for centuries?

"I've got mine" is not a rational argument against making improvements in a health-insurance/health-supply system that is broken with rocketing costs.

Why do you feign such an inability to comprehend the obvious, in favor of such contorted strawmen?

The arguments of the right must be pretty damned good for so many people to engage in such tactics to avoid addressing them.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I might be a lot more inclined to consider a unversal healthcare program when:

1. The federal budget is at least balanced, or has a surplus capable of funding such a program.
2. Everyone in the country pays at least some amount of money towards the programs they consume. Almost 50% of people currently pay no federal income tax... How would that count as "paying into the system" for the purposes of a federal insurance program? And would at-risk individuals (such as drug users) be forced to pay more into the system?
3. Since when does ANY federal mandate or program make a product cheaper?

I mentioned in another thread talking about American taxation I think a great option would be a flat tax of around 15% (no deductions, no exceptions) if only to change the political climate from "putting money in people's pockets" back to "leaving money in people's pockets." People who are dependent on government programs will tend to want to maximize their payouts through the system, where as people who earn their money and pay taxes will tend to want to minimize what they pay into the system.

 

[WhoWee]

If all Americans had access to basic preventative-care, you might have a point. If you expect doctors to provide free preventative care to uninsured patients, I fear that you will be sorely disappointed. Preventative care is a whole lot cheaper and more effective than Emergency Room interventions after criticality. Our system is designed to funnel uninsured people into ERs, driving up the costs passed on to all of us who actually have insurance.

I have specifically called for tax credits for doctors that do provide free care to uninsured and Medicaid eligible folks in several threads - to ELIMINATE (outlaw/forbid/stop/halt/prohibit) ultra-expensive emergency room visits for colds and other routine care.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Another point- any "universal healthcare initiative" should require proof of citizenship to allow particicpation (e.g. you should prove you're actually paying your premiums, not mooching the system). I think you know what I'm getting at there...

 

[WhoWee]

Another point- any "universal healthcare initiative" should require proof of citizenship to allow particicpation (e.g. you should prove you're actually paying your premiums, not mooching the system). I think you know what I'm getting at there...

Hold on a minute Mech - as per the OP - you might have identified the China's secret to success - MAYBE they allow people to sneak across their borders to gain free healthcare, food stamps, free education, and subsidized housing?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Hold on a minute Mech - as per the OP - you might have identified the China's secret to success - MAYBE they allow people to sneak across their borders to gain free healthcare, food stamps, free education, and subsidized housing?

China's immigration laws (and Mexico's for that matter) are far more strict than the United States. I think we should adopt immigration laws that mirror Mexico's; after all, the Mexican president claims our immigration laws are racist and discriminatory, maybe he thinks his own country's laws are more just?

EDIT: Linky: http://www.as-coa.org/articles/3446/Latin_American_Countries_Protest_U.S._States_Tough_Immigration_Laws_/

In a speech delivered in San José, California, earlier this month, Mexican President Felipe Calderón implored U.S. policymakers to view immigration as a natural social and economic phenomenon that cannot be stopped with “discriminatory anti-immigrant laws that have so ferociously erupted in some U.S. states.”

EDIT EDIT: Summary of Mexican imimgration law: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632

 

[WhoWee]

China's immigration laws (and Mexico's for that matter) are far more strict than the United States. I think we should adopt immigration laws that mirror Mexico's; after all, the Mexican president claims our immigration laws are racist and biased, maybe he thinks his own country's laws are more just?

The Mexican president seems to talk out of both sides of his mouth - IMO.

I'm trying to stay on topic as per OP and this healthcare debate was injected. Accordingly, (tongue in cheek) I guess we concur the secret to China's economic success probably isn't an open border/free healthcare strategy?

I wonder - does anyone think a policy whereby 10 to 30 million people entered China illegally and were given healthcare, food, education, and housing welfare programs as a reward would HURT China economically?

 

[Ryumast3r]

As far as I'm aware, illegals do not receive Social Security, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. If they are, they aren't supposed to (by law, as far as I'm aware). The only treatment they receive is emergency medical care if they are brought to a hospital (though it seems like we're trying to avoid healthcare now).

Ok, just looked up more sources and found one that says the total net federal spending on illegal households is approx. 10.4 Billion, whereas others say 1.- billion, and the CBO saying: "that impact is most likely modest" and "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."

One thing they all seem to agree on though is this: most of the money that is going to "illegals" is going to the benefits of their legal children in the form of medicare/etc (since the children are born in the US and therefore citizens).

 

[vici10]

Regarding health care, there is an interesting article in msnbc.
Man robbed the bank in order to get an access to health care in jail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479572/ns/health-health_care/"

"(This is the) first time I've ever been in trouble with the law,” James Verone said from the Gaston County Jail on Friday. “I'm sort of a logical person and that was my logic. (That was) what I came up with.”

That is how Verone said he came to the decision to rob the RBC bank on New Hope Road on Thursday, June 9.

He didn’t have a gun and he handed the teller a rather unusual note.

"The note said ‘This is a bank robbery. Please only give me one dollar,’" Verone said.

Then he did the strangest thing of all.

"I started to walk away from the teller, then I went back and said, 'I'll be sitting right over there in the chair waiting for the police," Verone said.
...
Verone said he doesn’t have medical insurance. He has a growth of some sort on his chest, two ruptured disks and a problem with his left foot. He is 59-years-old and with no job and a depleted bank account, he thought jail was the best place he could go for medical care and a roof over his head.

This article reminded me a story of O'Henry when an unemployed and homeless person tries to get into a jail to survive winter.

 

[mege]

Regarding health care, there is an interesting article in msnbc.
Man robbed the bank in order to get an access to health care in jail.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43479572/ns/health-health_care/"



This article reminded me a story of O'Henry when an unemployed and homeless person tries to get into a jail to survive winter.

I think this just means we need to be jailing criminals more prudently and making jails less desirable to live in (I do NOT mean removing health care from jails, but if this guy had to wear a pink jump suit and live outside in the desert, he probably wouldn't have pulled this stunt - also note that he isn't being sent to jail because of the circumstances).

I agree with Mech_Engineer, esspecially his third point - I believe part of the reason that we're having issues with our health care system is BECAUSE of government involvement via medicare/aid. They disrupt the market by being a major pay source and unnaturally manipulating the prices of services and goods. Why are the insurance and pharm companies FOR obama care? Because they just got 50million new customers. This hasn't done anything to reevaluate the prices or cause insurance companies to be liable for their insured's claims.

To pull this back full circle and relate to the OP - this is just one more hurdle the US has which other countries do not in implementing a single payer health system. I still stand by that the US is in a unique position and we definitely need to treat it as such. The US has a developed health care economy, many of the other countries with nationalized health care implemented them before they were totally privatized as an industry.


Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

The military hates this, and actually, when asked, declines any offer for a requirement to serve (except in draft situations). The volunteer force wastes less money (doesn't purposely miss shots, doesn't excessively shoot, doesn't go *as* mentally insane, etc), is more "professional" in how it operates, meaning that they shoot to kill, they are better with the tactics/coming up with their own. They volunteer, so training isn't spent forcing them to accept the chain of command, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.

 

[mege]

The military hates this, and actually, when asked, declines any offer for a requirement to serve (except in draft situations). The volunteer force wastes less money (doesn't purposely miss shots, doesn't excessively shoot, doesn't go *as* mentally insane, etc), is more "professional" in how it operates, meaning that they shoot to kill, they are better with the tactics/coming up with their own. They volunteer, so training isn't spent forcing them to accept the chain of command, etc etc etc. The list goes on and on.

Also why I included civic service in there as well. In an american implementation expand it to include the Peace Corp, Law Enforcement, etc. I know it's not feasable, but it's something that I do admire in other countries on principle.

 

[vici10]

Something that I wish the US would do that is somewhat common in other countries: mandatory military and/or civic service of some sort. I know it will probably never happen in the US except in draft-situations, but there is something to be said about actually having to GIVE something to your country before you live your life taking.

I agree with you. In this case US Army would be more people's army. And may be then we would see less wars of "bringing democracy" to other countries, since people would not want to die in pointless war. One can see such resistance during Vietnam war when there was a draft.

 

[Zarqon]

I think this just means we need to be jailing criminals more prudently and making jails less desirable to live in (I do NOT mean removing health care from jails, but if this guy had to wear a pink jump suit and live outside in the desert, he probably wouldn't have pulled this stunt - also note that he isn't being sent to jail because of the circumstances).

I'm a bit amazed (and almost scared) by some of the posts in this thread. Making jail even worse than it is would basically just mean that the man could chose between dying in the streets and dying in jail. Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me. I would rather prefer that the system was changed/improved such that it was possible to get proper health care without needing to go to jail (and I think this man would prefer that too).


OT: I also think the reason why it's so hard for people to get back on topic is that the topic is rather oxymoronic. The title states "What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?" and getting universal health care, as has been discussed in the thread, is in my opinion a very good answer to this question.

The OP then states an emphasis on getting the economic growth to match that of china or similar countries. But in my opinion, this is something the US should NOT be aiming for, because first of all, I don't think it's a realistic goal given that the US already left the stage of development that china is currently in, and secondly because I believe there are far more pressing things to do in the US in order to create a nice place to live for everyone, which includes fixing the health care system.

 

[mege]

I'm a bit amazed (and almost scared) by some of the posts in this thread. Making jail even worse than it is would basically just mean that the man could chose between dying in the streets and dying in jail. Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me. I would rather prefer that the system was changed/improved such that it was possible to get proper health care without needing to go to jail (and I think this man would prefer that too).


OT: I also think the reason why it's so hard for people to get back on topic is that the topic is rather oxymoronic. The title states "What are other countries doing that the U.S. should be doing?" and getting universal health care, as has been discussed in the thread, is in my opinion a very good answer to this question.

The OP then states an emphasis on getting the economic growth to match that of china or similar countries. But in my opinion, this is something the US should NOT be aiming for, because first of all, I don't think it's a realistic goal given that the US already left the stage of development that china is currently in, and secondly because I believe there are far more pressing things to do in the US in order to create a nice place to live for everyone, which includes fixing the health care system.

Making everyone buy health care to 'solve' health care is like solving the homeless issue by making everyone buy a home. It's just going to entrench an already poor system. Making the US a single-payer system (or the voucher/exchange Obamacare system) still has the same flaws. The US is fundamentally different than other countries to the point that it has to solve it's problems differently. Those european countries wouldn't be able to support their socialized health care systems without the US's innovations in technology and support. Access to health care is assuridly an intrinsic right that Americans have, and it's the government's job to protect that right - not hand the service over on a silver platter shouldered by 1/2 of potential taxpaers in the country.

Noone wants this guy to die or suffer, but we're looking at his situation in a vacuum and not taking into account everything he's done in his life to leech off of the system already. The article doesn't say why he doesn't have a job any more - maybe he was fired for a reason? He seems awfully willing to go to jail, has he been there before? Maybe he is a model citizen, and if that's the case then there needs to be a safety net in place for him that works - not just one that makes a politician and his lawyer buddies think they're doing good.


Edit: I found this article which is illustrating a good American innovation. Health care coverage (yes, coverage) without traditional insurance. While the system described in the article has it's own faults, it's an example of how we can change things for the better, ourselves.

 

[Al68]

Is this the choice you envision the "greatest nation on earth" to give its citizens? Doesn't sound all that great to me.

The U.S. has historically been the "greatest nation on earth" for those who love liberty, not for those who demand the involuntary servitude of others. The U.S. was chartered to be a bastion of liberty, a place to escape from the type of government you advocate.

The U.S. was created specifically to be the worst place on the planet to be for advocates of government controlling society by force (and conversely the best for libertarians), and it was for most of its history.

 

[Al68]

Access to health care is assuridly an intrinsic right that Americans have, and it's the government's job to protect that right - not hand the service over on a silver platter shouldered by 1/2 of potential taxpaers in the country.

Have you forgotten that the left doesn't use the word "right" to refer to intrinsic, or natural, rights? They use it to mean "a legal entitlement to the involuntary servitude of others".

And as has been evidenced in past threads, many are seemingly unable to comprehend the obvious conceptual difference between the two. I'll even go so far as to predict the same in this thread.

 

[daveb]

I'm constantly amazed by the use of the word "liberty" coming from the right when referring to America exclusive of all other words.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, liberty is in there, as is the common defense (and I for one do not believe in nation building unless it is for the common defense), and I am a huge proponent of it. But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

We are a Union, but at the same time, a nation of individuals. This requires a balance as well.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm constantly amazed by the use of the word "liberty" coming from the right when referring to America exclusive of all other words.



Yes, liberty is in there, as is the common defense (and I for one do not believe in nation building unless it is for the common defense), and I am a huge proponent of it. But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

We are a Union, but at the same time, a nation of individuals. This requires a balance as well.

What do you think "promote the general Welfare" means?

 

[daveb]

In the context of constitutional law, it means health and general well being (see Ellis v City of Grand Rapids). This was an eminent domain case (which the Consitution expressly allows). In this ruling, the court pointed to the Preamble's reference to "promoting the general Welfare" as evidence that "health of the people was in the minds of our forefathers", and that the "public use" of eminent domain was within the scope of the Constitution.

"The concerted effort for renewal and expansion of hospital and medical care centers, as a part of our nation's system of hospitals, is as a public service and use within the highest meaning of such terms. Surely this is in accord with an objective of the United States Constitution: '* * * promote the general Welfare.'"

However, in another case (United States v Kinnebrew Motor Co.) the court held the preamble alone is not enough to give the government powers not delineated elsewhere in the Constitution. In this case, the government argued that the Commerce Clause gave it authority to set car prices during the depression, and that the Preamble meant controlling prices to aid the economy was within the context of the Preamble. The court held, however, that the only relevant issue was whether this was a case of Interstate Commerce.

This is the crux of the debate on Health Care reform - does it fall under the Commerce Clause? There are valid arguments on both sides. I personally believe it does, but I can see the other side. As for the mandate, the government mandates a lot of things - who does/does not pay taxes, voting rights of ex-convicts, etc.

In my opinion, the only valid debate about the reform bill is if it is within the cope of the Commerce Clause.

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me the "framers" did not address healthcare or welfare in the manner it's attempted today. Apparently, those ideas were popularized in the 1800's?

http://www.naph.org/Homepage-Sections/Explore/History.aspx

http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/

 

[daveb]

Well, Hamilton for one didn't even want a Bill of Rights, claiming that by putting one in there, it gave the impression that there were no other rights (I believe Federalist 84), so the framers didn't address a lot of things, but because of the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, they did try to address everything they could think of (that would actually pass - slavery was off the table since including that would have meant the Constitution would never have been ratified).

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

 

[Al68]

But there are other words in the preamble that are important as well. It calls for a balance between liberty and government control of those thins necessary for the general Welfare.

No, the preamble doesn't "call for" anything. It describes the purpose(s) of the constitution.

The constitution does, elsewhere, delegate certain powers to the federal government (for those purposes), and prohibit the exercise of any power by government not delegated to it. That's the balance "called for", or specified by the constitution.