The Wrong Rx

[TXNavy]

The wrong Rx

Jeff Jacoby

There is a bumper sticker on the car ahead of me as I drive down Interstate 93. In white letters on a navy background, it proclaims: ''Single-Payer Health Care!'' That's it. There is no argument, no attempt at logic or emotion or humor -- just an impatient demand for the drastic transformation of one-seventh of the US economy. And note the exclamation point. That is to communicate earnestness, certitude, and indignation -- classic elements of the liberal approach to policymaking: When promoting radical change, passion and good intentions are what matter most. Real-world consequences count for far less.

As it happens, the real-world consequences of single-payer healthcare -- also known as socialized medicine or national health insurance -- are well-documented. Single-payer care exists in Canada, New Zealand, Great Britain, and much of Western Europe. And wherever it has been tried, writes John C. Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, ''rationing by waiting is pervasive, putting patients at risk and keeping them in pain.''

Full article here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20050328.shtml

[curious]

Yep, a well rounded reasoned argument. No selective presentation of reality there.

He conveniently ignores the fact that although Canadians, for example, gripe about their healthcare system and want reforms, a large majority still prefer it over what we've got, and they want to keep the basic framework they have.

And for millions of people without health coverage the length of time between a diagnosis and operation is irrelevant BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A DIAGNOSIS.

Sure, a "best health care that money can buy" system is superior in terms of quality of care. But only for those who can afford that care.

With all its' inefficiencies, public health care at least doesn't systemically exclude millions of people becauase they can't afford it.

The fact is that in terms of access and affordability, America's health care system is in trouble. 45 million uninsured and growing. And countless millions of otehrs whose budgets are being busted by the cost of their insurance....Not to mention the burden being placed businesses who provide health benefits.

A "more of the same" approach and making medicine totally a commodity isn't going to solve that. More of that will only make it worse, except for the very affluent.

A universal single payer system may not be the answer. But neither is a totally free market "You survive only if you got the bucks and mortgage your future" approach.

There are many alternative mixes of public and private health care that would at least open up the system, and alleviate the human and economic burden of the present health care system. But as long as conservatives are determined to block anything that is not pure Health Inc. we'll never be able to even start to look for ways to try and improve the system.

[Buckley]

With all its' inefficiencies, public health care at least doesn't systemically exclude millions of people becauase they can't afford it.

No, it systematically excludes people via inefficiency, long waiting periods, and overtaxed doctors. Hmmm...

The fact is that in terms of access and affordability, America's health care system is in trouble. 45 million uninsured and growing. And countless millions of otehrs whose budgets are being busted by the cost of their insurance....Not to mention the burden being placed businesses who provide health benefits.

C'mon curious, we all know how inflated that number is. Tell me how many are perpetually uninsured, not how many spent some period of time last year uninsured.

A "more of the same" approach and making medicine totally a commodity isn't going to solve that. More of that will only make it worse, except for the very affluent.

How did Henry Ford get rich?

There are many alternative mixes of public and private health care that would at least open up the system, and alleviate the human and economic burden of the present health care system. But as long as conservatives are determined to block anything that is not pure Health Inc. we'll never be able to even start to look for ways to try and improve the system.

And as long as liberals make purely ad hominem attacks and fail to introduce any real discussion, there will be no serious discussion about health care. Oh, and heaven forbid we on the right actually talk about the things we support, eh? That's just regurgitating right wing talking points, eh?

[curious]

Buckley,
Here's what I believe we should have. No talking point, my own basic view.

I believe there ought to be a quasi-public equivalent of the US Postal Service for basic health care, that is available to everyone on a sliding scale based on income.

This would be voluntatry but make available health plans that would be guaranteed that everyone could afford, if they choose to use it. Not fancy care, but basic care that ensures everyone has the opportunity to get treatment from ongoing preventative care to more serious diseases.

How exactly it would be structured is open to possibilities. It could be fully or partially farmed out to private companies, or be subsidized publicly. But the basic principle would be some government-backed plan that would be oriented to accessibility, rather than profits.

And before you say how inefficient the Post Office is, for all its faults basic postal service is a reliable and universal way of delivering mail.

This would also not preclude market oriented care. Just as Fedeal Express offers premium delivery from the private sector, insurers could still provide either alternative or supplemental plans.

Like I said, the specifics could be open to a variety of specific variations. But something based on that would IMO be a good compromise that would alleviate the burdens of the present system.

[Buckley]

The problem is that what you are talking about is robbery. Redistribution is nothing more than robbery. Moreover, where is the constitutional authority for such a program?

Here is the Buckley plan: states can provide plans for people unable to get insurance. Here in Wisconsin we have BadgerCare and a prescription plan for seniors that seems to work better than the federal plan just passed last year (was it last year? Relatively not that long ago anyway).

What about the rest of us? For years my wife and I had major medical with a large deductable and kept money in savings to cover said deductable. We have never been anything close to rich, yet we got by until my wife got a job with the state. It wasn't perfect, and I am sure there were cases where we would have had to make some tough decisions, but it was far better than a public plan, mainly because we were in control of it and like it or not, the free market responds much more quickly to public sentiment than do government officials. Getting some kind of health care is not that difficult-having cradle to grave security is difficult, inefficient, and not a place for the federal government to get involved, IMHO.

[RandomNY]

Ny has Headstart which is "FREE HEALTH CARE" for all children under 18. No matter if they are ILLEGAL ALIENS or naturalized citizens..

Well that plan along with MEDICARE are the 2 main reasons NY STATE is close to $10 BILLION in the red...

My property taxes will double in the next couple of years to pay for STATE MANDATED Medicare and a new jail..

Whoo Hoo to LIBERALISM(Eventhough PATAKI is supposed to be REPUBLICAN...)

But then I'm just supposed to just shut up and take it.

[curious]

Originally posted by Buckley:
The problem is that what you are talking about is robbery. Redistribution is nothing more than robbery. Moreover, where is the constitutional authority for such a program?

Here is the Buckley plan: states can provide plans for people unable to get insurance. Here in Wisconsin we have BadgerCare and a prescription plan for seniors that seems to work better than the federal plan just passed last year (was it last year? Relatively not that long ago anyway).

What about the rest of us? For years my wife and I had major medical with a large deductable and kept money in savings to cover said deductable. We have never been anything close to rich, yet we got by until my wife got a job with the state. It wasn't perfect, and I am sure there were cases where we would have had to make some tough decisions, but it was far better than a public plan, mainly because we were in control of it and like it or not, the free market responds much more quickly to public sentiment than do government officials. Getting some kind of health care is not that difficult-having cradle to grave security is difficult, inefficient, and not a place for the federal government to get involved, IMHO.

I'm nopt averse to the states doing it, but most of them can't afford to do it on their own. Here in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Massachusetts there was a voluntary plan set up for the self-employed and working poor. It was a success in terms of response, but the state's larger fiscal problems caused it to be tightened up and enrollment very difficult.

Getting some kind of health care is next to impossible for a lot of people -- a lot of working people. It's true that if one if poor, they can qualify for a program like Medicaid. But there's a lot of people in the large netherworld between that and having an income where the cost of health insurasnce is not a huge burden. Or people whose employers don't provide it. Or people with health problems or whose age precludes them from qualifying for private insurance. (The very people who need it most.)

You call it robbery, but do you think postal service is robbery? Or public highways?

And redistribution? When you have insurers gouging the public, that's redistribution. It might not be the government doing the redistributing, but it's robbery in another guise.

health Insurance Costs contunue to Rise

While Profits also Go Up

I also said it could be a voluntary plan. Real simple. You buy it if you want it, you do'nt if you don't want it. Nor was I suggesting taking away the right of people to choose or preventing the free market to operate. If private insurers are willing to offer better plans and better deals, they'd still be free to do so. The major difference is that the public would not be held hostage by them, as is the case today.

I also was not suggesting Free Care for All, or rob Peter to pay Paul. People would have to pay to participate, even though it would be based on income. Without getting all actuarial, it ought to be set up so it's a good deal for everyone, including those at the upper end.

Frankly, there should be a cradle to grave safety net. That's not saying it should be a free lunch, but in my own moral sense of things, no one should be prevented from being able to receive health care because of their income or status.

[Buckley]

I'm nopt averse to the states doing it, but most of them can't afford to do it on their own.

If most of the states can't do it on their own, how can the federal government do it?

Getting some kind of health care is next to impossible for a lot of people -- a lot of working people.

No matter what system you devise, somebody, somewhere will fall through the cracks.

You call it robbery, but do you think postal service is robbery? Or public highways?

Yes, the postal service is robbery. The price we pay for stamps doesn't cover the costs of that organization. And if it did, the postal service should not be a public enterprise.

As for highways, since the early republic infrastructure has been considered a legitimate government expense. Not so the post office, social security, medicare, etc...

And redistribution? When you have insurers gouging the public, that's redistribution. It might not be the government doing the redistributing, but it's robbery in another guise.

Nope. Wrong. Insurers aren't forceably taking money and doling it out as they see fit. In other words, they are not using the coercive power of the government to force people to give them money. Try not paying your taxes once and see what happens.

I also said it could be a voluntary plan. Real simple. You buy it if you want it, you do'nt if you don't want it.

Here's the rub-if this program fails to break even, would you suggest that revenue be diverted from other areas to subsidize your plan?

Frankly, there should be a cradle to grave safety net. That's not saying it should be a free lunch, but in my own moral sense of things, no one should be prevented from being able to receive health care because of their income or status.

Unfortunately, reality has to be part of our discussion. No matter where you are, what type of government you live under, or what time period you live in, income and status will always play a part in health care, and everything else too.


Moreover, where is the Constitutional authority to create this national plan?

[curious]

Originally posted by Buckley:
If most of the states can't do it on their own, how can the federal government do it?

That's one reason we're a nation. States can't afford their own military either. That's why there's the "common defense."

Moreover, where is the Constitutional authority to create this national plan?

Provide for the general welfare.....I know, I know. But the "common defense" did not speciofically mention defense from the air either, so technically one could call the air force and other branches' air corps and NASA could be unconstitutional if you want to split hairs.

I believe in following thr Constitution. But it's also important to remember that they lived in a completely different time. I don't think we should be totally hamstrung by a bunch of long-dead guys in addressing the world of the 21st Century....They didn't think so either. That's why they included phrases that are open to interpretation.

No matter what system you devise, somebody, somewhere will fall through the cracks.

True, and health care will always be a cumbersome mess, no matter whether it is public or private. But that's a lame excuse to condone a system that has let 45 million people fall through the cracks, without trying to think in new ways to improve that.

You call it robbery, but do you think postal service is robbery? Or public highways? Yes, the postal service is robbery. The price we pay for stamps doesn't cover the costs of that organization. And if it did, the postal service should not be a public enterprise.As for highways, since the early republic infrastructure has been considered a legitimate government expense. Not so the post office, social security, medicare, etc...

That's quite a Catch 22 you have there. If it can pay for itself it should not exist. And if it can pay for itself it should not exist.

So if the military can't be made into a profitable enterprise that pays its own way, should that be abolished? Should cops demand payment before they save lives or investigate crimes?

Much of the business of the US would never have been possible without a universal postal system.

As for infrastructure, you're being a bit arbitrary, but it is also possible to say that public health is part of the infrastructure. Without healthy people there's no commerce.

Insurers aren't forceably taking money and doling it out as they see fit. In other words, they are not using the coercive power of the government to force people to give them money. Try not paying your taxes once and see what happens.

We're not talking about the market for luxury yachts. That's a market that is not essential to the public health and well-being.

Having a stranglehold over a basic necesity (which health care is) and gradually removing competition (which the healthcare monopolists are doing:see above article), that is coresion.

Here's the rub-if this program fails to break even, would you suggest that revenue be diverted from other areas to subsidize your plan?

Possibly. Or shared risk/reward with private insurers. That'd ultimately have to depend on what people, through the legislative process, prefer. There is no free lunch. We're already subsidizing a lot of things that you believe are worthwhile, like the war on Iraq and roads.

Unfortunately, reality has to be part of our discussion. No matter where you are, what type of government you live under, or what time period you live in, income and status will always play a part in health care, and everything else too.

Spoken like a true materialist.

Sure they will always play a part. Biut the question is whether the basic right to life and death -- or the ability to have suffering remediated -- should not be totally deoendent on those....But that's just my morals and my non-materialistic values speaking.

Kind of a role reversal there, eh?

[TXNavy]

Originally posted by curious:
Yep, a well rounded reasoned argument. No selective presentation of reality there.

He conveniently ignores the fact that although Canadians, for example, gripe about their healthcare system and want reforms, a large majority still prefer it over what we've got, and they want to keep the basic framework they have.

A large number of Americans "like" Social Security, even though its basic framework is flawed. A lot of Venezuelans "like" Hugo Chavez, and its clear where that's taking them.

I thought we'd been over populism and its efficacy in determining right from wrong...of course, if you really backed populism as much as you claim to do, you'd be forced to accept that the common people don't want what you're selling anymore [img]graemlins/Laughing.gif[/img]

And for millions of people without health coverage the length of time between a diagnosis and operation is irrelevant BECAUSE THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO GET A DIAGNOSIS.

Hasn't a certain health care professional disputed this with you before?

Oh, right, that doesn't mean anything, just like the fact that you can't rebut my math and science doesn't mean anything.

Sure, a "best health care that money can buy" system is superior in terms of quality of care. But only for those who can afford that care.

If you care about the cost, then you should do things to lower the price rather than raise it.

Its clear that you really don't care and you really don't understand by the health care initiatives you support. You believe it'll be a free lunch if we make "everyone" pay for it. How do you think it affected the use rate of medical services in Europe when it became "free?" How did that effect the cost? Who paid for it?

I suppose your answer is to have the "rich" and "corporations" pay for it. After all, they have more money than you, which is all the justification you need to steal from them to pay for your plans.

Certainly, its not that they "owe" more than you, or any other insulting arguments.

With all its' inefficiencies, public health care at least doesn't systemically exclude millions of people becauase they can't afford it.

Oh yes, its more selective in picking who it'll exclude.

More people have access to health care today than they did under Clinton, and more have basic coverage. That's "good," right? Or is it a "crisis?

Sorry Curious, health care isn't a right and you're not entitled to a doctor's time or services.

The fact is that in terms of access and affordability, America's health care system is in trouble. 45 million uninsured and growing.

Really? Is that "growing" at a smaller or larger rate than the population growth of the United States? (This may involve demonstration of understanding of an exponential curve, which could later be exploited against your other ideas!) How many illegal aliens does it include? How many people who are only temporarily off health insurance does it include?

And countless millions of otehrs whose budgets are being busted by the cost of their insurance....Not to mention the burden being placed businesses who provide health benefits.

Wait, the burden being placed on businesses? So who's going to pay for the services you require?

Your employer? Do you pay health care to babysitters and lawn mowers because its some natural right? Democrats seem to think so, so why don't you do it?

Taxpayers? Riiight, that'll work marvelously, just like Medicare did. Gee, I wonder why its seven times more expensive than it was supposed to be by now...

A "more of the same" approach and making medicine totally a commodity isn't going to solve that. More of that will only make it worse, except for the very affluent.

"More of the same" is the regulations, taxes, and government plans that have driven the costs beyond the ability of common people to pay.

If you actually did your homework and looked at a time when people could afford health care, you'd see that it was back when it was regarded as simply a service industry.

A universal single payer system may not be the answer. But neither is a totally free market "You survive only if you got the bucks and mortgage your future" approach.

Yes, it is. Sorry, Curious.

There are many alternative mixes of public and private health care that would at least open up the system, and alleviate the human and economic burden of the present health care system.

Had my share of mixing public and private health care here in the military. No thank you.

But as long as conservatives are determined to block anything that is not pure Health Inc.

Market-based initiatives are always superior, Curious. Where there's a need, its met. Socialism cannot deliver what it promises, as is demonstrated in every nation with socialized medicine today.

All of the things you believe it offers, it doesn't. That's the point of the article, if you hadn't noticed.