Still want national health care?

[Bubba Wheels]

Up in Buffalo yesterday (quaint little burg) and was listening to a Canadian radio station. Apparently many Canadians are dying while awaiting the necessary surgery with waits as long as 2yrs. Private options are strictly out. Anybody still in love with this idea for the U.S.?

[Draft Dodger]

yeah, definitely a no go on that, because people down here don't die while waiting for surgery.

[Bubba Wheels]

The thing is, in both the Canadian version and in Hillary's failed attempt, in order for the national model to work the private option has to be made illegal. Not sure why this is, but seems to be can't have one without the other.

[Galaxy]

Always been against a national health care system. It will deter the brightest students from becoming doctors (it's already happening with the insane hours, the high debt load, and oppressive pay with federal/state health programs that pay very little, and free healthcare to those who don't pay-Illegial Aliens). Also, it will hurt the R&D of our medicine. I wish Bush had the balls to take the bull by the horn, and fix our health-care system.

[NoMyths]

I know I'm loving not having health care.

[Karlifornia]

Why give heart surgery to 80-year-olds? It's not like they're useful anymore. When it's your time, it's your time.

*ducks flying objects*

[Ben E Lou]

While I'm opposed to nationalized health care (or pretty much nationalized *anything*, for that matter), I fail to see the logic of those who point to Canada as a reason not to do it. Just because they can't do it right, doesn't mean it isn't doable, especially by the United States Of Dadgum America.

[vtbub]

The dadgum is important.

I have my health care subsidized, it's not as advertised.

[cougarfreak]

I wonder how long some people have to wait if they have to pay for their surgery out of pocket?

[Esquared1]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Up in Buffalo yesterday (quaint little burg) and was listening to a Canadian radio station. Apparently many Canadians are dying while awaiting the necessary surgery with waits as long as 2yrs. Private options are strictly out. Anybody still in love with this idea for the U.S.?

Yes.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

free healthcare to those who don't pay-Illegial Aliens

It isn't just Illegal Aliens who get free healthcare--they probably are a very small portion of the population receiving health care at little or no cost to the recipient. Not only are a significant percentage of the US population already receiving subsidized care; in many parts of this country, you cannot be denied urgent care based on your ability to pay.

And of course, many families have to resort to bankruptcy as the medical bills mount--which makes the cost to the recepients of the healthcare defacto "free" (or, at least, greatly reduced)...

[chinaski]

bubba heard something on talk radio! listen up people!

[QuikSand]

I am pretty ambivalent about most proposals for truly nationalized health care... but I also don't think there exists any public policy issue that has been more unfairly demonized.

By our collective resistance to "government" health care, we have a positively absurd system in place to provide health care of all sorts to people.

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).

We have decided that human dignity requires that people receive health care (it's not really that people go without health care, they go without health insurance or coverage) and so we provide a "safety net" propgram for the poorest among us. Which, in turn, creates a substantial disincentive for achievemtn for the poor -- who if they become more actively involved inthe economy by working and making income, will only find themselves losing their health care coverage and fending for themselves as the uncovered working poor -- an implicit "tax rate" that puts most matters of tax policy among the more well-to-do to shame.

We have programs to provide to indigent with long term care that now have become the vehicle for essentially everyone to receive free long term care -- spawning an enormous and morally repulsive industry of "wealth sheltering" for the exlicit purpose of convincing the government you are so poor as to require government-funded Medicaid coverage, while still maintaining the benefits and control over property and assets needed to provide a very comfortable and even luxurious lifestyle.

We have working people who don't receive coverage from their employers who therefore end up actual cash payors for immediate medical care, and therefore have an actual financial incentive to put off preventative treatment and care (which would cost them money) until it blossoms into a more acute (and expensive) problem, which providers will be duty-bound to treat independent of ability to pay.

And all these people who get treated "for free" do, of course, result in much higher payments made by you, me, our employers, and our government. Be clear -- what we seem to be happy with in this regard is that peopel get treated for free, the hospital then turns all this "uncompensated care" into its geenral overhead costs, for which it then gets compensated by jacking up the rates it charges the paying customers. You think you're getting a wonderful free ride, suckers, but really you're getting less in your paycheck because of it, you're paying higher taxes already because of it, and the care you are receiving is lesser because of it.


But, in the name of the "free market" (though let's not kid ourselves, the market for medicine in this country is so absurdly far from being free to make the very suggestion of it laughable) we absolutely reject the notion of "socialized medicine." Every sensible politician knows that to rail against this sort of thing (and the "higher taxes" that it would bring about) is a sure-fire way to win over all those people in the audience. Including the ones whose kids don't have any insurance from their jobs at Best Buy.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by chinaski

bubba heard something on talk radio! listen up people!

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....

But hey, sorry to disturb whatever it was that you were doing...like checking out threads that you find beneath your intelligence. But then, if you were so busy with your rocket science in the first place, why post here at all?

I would add that this is a freight train coming down the tracks and will happen. So the devil is in the details. Let others decide for you how its going to be and we could wind up with something worse than what Canada's got.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

We have weird systems where large employers are obliged to grant benefit packages to professional employees that bear no particular connection to the employee's actual value to the company (if you have a family of ten sick kids you get a much, much greater benefit from health coverage than the single young woman hired on the same day as you and who does a better job).

I think this is an important point. I find the employer-based health-care system to be very odd. It seems to create strange incentives for health service provision and use all around that defies any sort of normal market dynamic... I just don't see how it can lead to an efficient allocation of resources. There have got to be better ways.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....

Where did you get this from? Hillary's plan was basically a requirement that all employers had to provide health insurance coverage for their employees.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

The thing is, in both the Canadian version and in Hillary's failed attempt, in order for the national model to work the private option has to be made illegal. Not sure why this is, but seems to be can't have one without the other.

No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.

Quiksand's post is a very good one which is spot on. Because of our messed up health care system the poor who don't have insurance avoid preventative care, which ends up costing us more because they develop much greater problems that hospitals are obligated to treat, even if they can't pay. This results in the US paying MORE than any other country's for healthcare on a per capita basis. Overhead really kills us in costs with the tons of insurance companies we have.

I'd wholeheartedly support a mixture of public and private healthcare systems as many European countries sport.

[Fonzie]

QuikSand 1, Bubba Wheels 0

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.

France has a nationalized part, and a private part where you can pay for 'extra' things out of pocket. France's health care system might be the best in the world, top to bottom, it's too bad that prejudices will keep us from putting it into practice here.

[Galaril]

I , as mentioned in another thread I just got a job and am very relieve dto be employed again. I know this topic form first hand experience and thought I weigh in on it.
I served in the US Air force for over 8 years (including the first gulf war in the early 90's) and got out under honorable conditions while overseas. I will note that this was my choice and the subseqquent working overseas was as well. Being that I lived overseas and was not paying into state taxes per se I was not eligible for unemployment benefits. This situation was understood from the beginning and I had no problems with it. However, when I decided to relocate the family back to the US for a career change and better opportunities for my kids in relation to schools I met with a stark reality. We had been living off our savings for the last four months. Now, I had planned for a period of unemployment until I could find work in the IT field I was trying to get into so this was not to much of an unexpected situation. The one real scary thing though, was when my 2 year old daughter came down with a serious possibly life threatening illness and I might not have the means to see to proper care for her. In the end, she did recieve excellent care due in great part to the fact that here in Massachusetts they have something called Mass Health which will provide state funded insurance coverage for most medical care for those who are in need of medical care. I am happy to say my daughter Kelly is happy, healthy, if a bit precocious 2 year 9 month old child.
I thank God that I was able to get this state medical benefits when it was needed most. I know that there are many pros and cons to both sides of this argument and even I myself am not sure if I want to see national health care implemented. I certainly don't want private health care to become illegal. Anyways, I was reading this thread and wanted to let folks know that not everyone without medical care is crack head or "illegal alien".

[clintl]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

No it doesn't. European countries have national health care, but also private coverage for somewhat higher cost stuff or specialized stuff. You can definetly have one with the other.

Yes. I have a friend in England who has private insurance to supplement national health insurance. As I understand the German system, the insurance providers are private companies, but the premiums are paid through payroll taxes. So there are lots of ways to mix government and private coverage successfully.

[Airhog]

My fiancee doesnt have medical covereage. She works part time for the hospital, and it would cost here nearly 400 dollars a month for coverage, which is only about 200 less than what she makes every month.

Now the hospital has a plan where you they will look at your sitaution and provide funds for those that cannot pay. This only coveres the cost of the hospital though. At this hospital, all of the services are billed seperately. You see a doctor for 10 minutes? That 200 bucks. You need to have an EKG done? Well the radiologist will charge you another 200 bucks.

Of course now they have changed their policy, I guess to discourage people that cannot pay coming into the emergency room. Your hospital only bill has to be at least 2000 bucks for them to pay it for you. If would be very difficult to be charged that much for anything less than an overnight visit.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Galaril

I , as mentioned in another thread I just got a job and am very relieve dto be employed again. I know this topic form first hand experience and thought I weigh in on it.
I served in the US Air force for over 8 years (including the first gulf war in the early 90's) and got out under honorable conditions while overseas. I will note that this was my choice and the subseqquent working overseas was as well. Being that I lived overseas and was not paying into state taxes per se I was not eligible for unemployment benefits. This situation was understood from the beginning and I had no problems with it. However, when I decided to relocate the family back to the US for a career change and better opportunities for my kids in relation to schools I met with a stark reality. We had been living off our savings for the last four months. Now, I had planned for a period of unemployment until I could find work in the IT field I was trying to get into so this was not to much of an unexpected situation. The one real scary thing though, was when my 2 year old daughter came down with a serious possibly life threatening illness and I might not have the means to see to proper care for her. In the end, she did recieve excellent care due in great part to the fact that here in Massachusetts they have something called Mass Health which will provide state funded insurance coverage for most medical care for those who are in need of medical care. I am happy to say my daughter Kelly is happy, healthy, if a bit precocious 2 year 9 month old child.
I thank God that I was able to get this state medical benefits when it was needed most. I know that there are many pros and cons to both sides of this argument and even I myself am not sure if I want to see national health care implemented. I certainly don't want private health care to become illegal. Anyways, I was reading this thread and wanted to let folks know that not everyone without medical care is crack head or "illegal alien".

Hey, thanks for sharing your story. And its stories like these that have convinced me that some form of national health care is needed. People shouldn't have to worry about getting wiped out because their kid gets really sick or something.

[sterlingice]

I love the post made by the Computer One. Great synopsis of the situation.

SI

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, seems like a pretty important topic to me, considering that and the fact that Hillary is running in 2008 and she is best known for 1. A failed attempt at a national health care plan that would also have 2. Made it a felony for those attempting to go outside the system for something mundane like, oh, a second opinion maybe to not have your insides removed if possible....

1. It is interesting you infer that Hillary is to blame for the measure failing. If you remember, the initiative had bi-partisan support, one of the biggest proponents also being Newt Gingrich. What the two sides couldn't agree on was the final shape the health care plan would take.

2. I would like a source (not World Net Daily) that says seeking a second opinion or other medical help would have been a felony. That statement reeks of scaremongering, and causes reactionary responses, not honest debate.

It is obvious that our current system isn't going to work going forward. Two of the biggest government entitlement programs are Medicade and Medicare. These have both been expanded far beyond what they were originally conceived to address. Many of the points QS brings up are much more relevant topics to be discussed, rather than make statements that Hillary would have you put away for life if you request a MRI.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

France has a nationalized part, and a private part where you can pay for 'extra' things out of pocket. France's health care system might be the best in the world, top to bottom, it's too bad that prejudices will keep us from putting it into practice here.

But isn't the welfare state killing France? I love the idea of a national health care system, but I have two fears:

1) The drop in quality of doctors, and the innovative research and breakthroughs we make. If doctors, surgeons, and researchers are limited in what they can earn and charge and make, with the rising debt loads they carry ($200,000-$300,000 of school), is it worth it? Med schools are having a tough time attracting bright talent.

2) Will this hurt our economic structure, that many other countries are struggling with?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But isn't the welfare state killing France?

There a lot more to the welfare state problem than simply medical care. As, I believe it was Fantasic Flying Froggie saying, while he was unemployed, he was receiving something like 80% of his former salary as unemployment insurance. It is also very hard and very expensive for an employer to fire someone. Another problem, that is affecting much of western Europe, is a greatly declining birth rate. This is causing a smaller and smaller pool of workers having to support a growing number of retirees and other state welfare recipients.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

There a lot more to the welfare state problem than simply medical care. As, I believe it was Fantasic Flying Froggie saying, while he was unemployed, he was receiving something like 80% of his former salary as unemployment insurance. It is also very hard and very expensive for an employer to fire someone. Another problem, that is affecting much of western Europe, is a greatly declining birth rate. This is causing a smaller and smaller pool of workers having to support a growing number of retirees and other state welfare recipients.

Wouldn't that a big problem in 15-20 years when the Boomers are hitting retirement (and we seem to a bigger % of health issues)?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Wouldn't that a big problem in 15-20 years when the Boomers are hitting retirement (and we seem to a bigger % of health issues)?

It will be, but not as big a problem as it is in Europe. We are still growing as a population in the US, but most countries in Europe, especially Italy, are actually shrinking in population.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

1. It is interesting you infer that Hillary is to blame for the measure failing. If you remember, the initiative had bi-partisan support, one of the biggest proponents also being Newt Gingrich. What the two sides couldn't agree on was the final shape the health care plan would take.

2. I would like a source (not World Net Daily) that says seeking a second opinion or other medical help would have been a felony. That statement reeks of scaremongering, and causes reactionary responses, not honest debate.

It is obvious that our current system isn't going to work going forward. Two of the biggest government entitlement programs are Medicade and Medicare. These have both been expanded far beyond what they were originally conceived to address. Many of the points QS brings up are much more relevant topics to be discussed, rather than make statements that Hillary would have you put away for life if you request a MRI.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_deta...er=articledate

Just one source. Note: $10,000 and 10 years for 'health care offenses' over $100, one year in jail for under.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_deta...er=articledate

Just one source. Note: $10,000 and 10 years for 'health care offenses' over $100, one year in jail for under.

LOL!!! Did you even read the article? That was a change the Republicans added to the proposed legislation, not your evil Hillary!!! The fine was for an offense called "health care fraud", which I really have a hard time translating as getting a second opinion or asking for an alternative treatment.

Originally Posted by Bubba's source

Then: it was the Republican's turn at bat, and history quickly turned to farce. The leadership decided it needed to pass a health care bill before the November election. Democrat Ted Kennedy, a longtime proponent of socialist medicine, then cooperated with Republican Nancy Kassebaum to produce a bill in the Senate, while the House introduces its own version. The Senate bill covers mental health (in case the Senators have to reenter the private sector?), while the House bill offers some specialized tax breaks, but otherwise the bills are identical.

Incredibly, the core of this Republican-backed bill is exactly the same as the Clinton bill. Look at the section of the bill called "Guaranteed Availability of Health Care Coverage," and compare Bill Clinton's grandiose promises with the actual language from the Republican side:

"An insurer may not decline to provide whole group coverage to employers; and a group health plan (whether an insured health plan or self-insured health plan) may not establish eligibility, continuation, enrollment, or contribution requirements for participants or beneficiaries based on: health status, medical condition, claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, evidence of insurability, or disability of a participant or beneficiary."

That's legislative language for a mandate to replace the market with a broad government demand for exactly what Bill Clinton promised: "We must--and we will--outlaw insurance company practices that discriminate...."

There's more that links the repudiated Clinton plan with the beloved Republican plan. There's "Guaranteed Renewability," mandated and state-certified "Health Plan Purchasing Coalitions," and vague insinuations of premium caps. A "study," for example, will assess "the need for Federal standards that limit the variation in health insurance premiums...."

There are criminal penalties for "federal health care offenses," as Jane Orient of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons discovered. It imposes fines up to $10,000 "for each instance" of what it calls "health care fraud"--meaning not complying with the new dictates--and prison terms up to 10 years. For violations involving less than $100, one year in jail is the penalty.

Are the Republicans attempting to legislate socialism? Of course, just like Clinton before them. As James Glassman has written, "Inevitably Americans will arrive at the destination they rejected when Bill and Hillary Clinton proposed it: government-controlled health care."

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

LOL!!! Did you even read the article? That was a change the Republicans added to the proposed legislation, not your evil Hillary!!!

So what? Hillary pushed the plan, complete with secret, illegal meetings over it. Article is about the failed national health care plan pushed by Hillary, and all modification including those by 'Republicans' would have had the same effect on those being effected by the plan. Never made this out to be a "Hillary bad, Republicans good' deal like you presume in the first place.

"Incredibly, the core of this Republican-backed plan is the same as the Clinton plan."

[cartman]

Dola,

A closer look at the article also contridicts your statement about her "failed health initiative". The basic gist of the article is that the bill the Republican Congress passed on health care reform was just a copy of the initiatives she recommended. So if you are trying to say that the health care problem is all Hillary's fault, you need a better source to support your claim.

Originally Posted by More from Bubba's source

The Republicans were right to ridicule the Clinton plan, predicting that it would lead to high prices, fewer services, shortages, and generalized disaster. But the Republican version of the same passed it overwhelmingly in the House; the Senate passed it unanimously. Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal, which were on the warpath against Hillary's bill, have cheered the new version to the skies.

The only mystery is how the Republicans got away with this. The answer is that they guaranteed profits for the largest and most influential special interest groups while providing just enough favors to potential opponents of the bill to buy their support. They knew leftists would have no incentive to expose the plot; in fact, the left secretly cheered.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Never made this out to be a "Hillary bad, Republicans good' deal like you presume in the first place.

Well, based on your statement that she was running for President in 2008, and would try to keep pushing her failed health initiative sure made it appear that way.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

A closer look at the article also contridicts your statement about her "failed health initiative". The basic gist of the article is that the bill the Republican Congress passed on health care reform was just a copy of the initiatives she recommended. So if you are trying to say that the health care problem is all Hillary's fault, you need a better source to support your claim.

Well, this is just basic history. Bill put Hillary in charge of creating a national health care plan, Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone) and regardless of whether or not Republicans attempted to 'jump on board' with there own version later the whole thing was for naught. That usually means it failed (both versions.) Or not?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

Well, based on your statement that she was running for President in 2008, and would try to keep pushing her failed health initiative sure made it appear that way.

She is running in 2008, and national health care will be an issue.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, this is just basic history. Bill put Hillary in charge of creating a national health care plan, Hillary held illegal, secret meetings (that was what initially alarmed everyone) and regardless of whether or not Republicans attempted to 'jump on board' with there own version later the whole thing was for naught. That usually means it failed (both versions.) Or not?

I have no idea where you are going with this. Nor do I really care.

I've got to go off now and continue my plans to run for President myself on the Libertarian ticket, and listen to some Enrique Iglesias.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

She is running in 2008, and national health care will be an issue.

But if it isn't a Hillary bad/Republicans good thing, why even single her out? No matter who runs, national health care is going to be an issue, and the your source clearly stated that both sides are advocating the same solution. So no matter who is running for President, we are screwed.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by cartman

But if it isn't a Hillary bad/Republicans good thing, why even single her out? No matter who runs, national health care is going to be an issue, and the your source clearly stated that both sides are advocating the same solution. So no matter who is running for President, we are screwed.

Well, the article is dated 1996. In the time since, most Republicans that I hear do not want this model of national health care. Don't think you can say the same about the democrats. Just my opinion.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm amazed at the irrational hatred that is heaped onto a woman who has had a nondescript one term as a Senator and a fairly uneventful term as first lady. Yesterday on some big conservative website (I forget which) the blogger was consoling everyone over the Miers pick, saying that if Kerry had won he would have nominated Hillary Clinton. Bubba Wheels is part of that fantasy world.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by cartman

I have no idea where you are going with this. Nor do I really care.

I've got to go off now and continue my plans to run for President myself on the Libertarian ticket, and listen to some Enrique Iglesias.

Would you dance, if I ask you to dance?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I'm amazed at the irrational hatred that is heaped onto a woman who has had a nondescript one term as a Senator and a fairly uneventful term as first lady. Yesterday on some big conservative website (I forget which) the blogger was consoling everyone over the Miers pick, saying that if Kerry had won he would have nominated Hillary Clinton. Bubba Wheels is part of that fantasy world.

Well, Ms. Clinton may personally be a warm, wonderful human being. But politically I think there is strong evidence that if not Marxist, she is one or two bus-stops down the pike from being one. BTW, this was covered before in another thread so I won't rehash it all again here.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

But isn't the welfare state killing France? I love the idea of a national health care system, but I have two fears:

1) The drop in quality of doctors, and the innovative research and breakthroughs we make. If doctors, surgeons, and researchers are limited in what they can earn and charge and make, with the rising debt loads they carry ($200,000-$300,000 of school), is it worth it? Med schools are having a tough time attracting bright talent.

2) Will this hurt our economic structure, that many other countries are struggling with?

The welfare state is actually working out really well for a lot of the Frenchmen. There system isn't perfect, and I don't like a lot about it, but it has its advantages.

1) Med schools have a tough time attracting talent because the arduous process of becoming a doctor. I was a premed major at PSU, score in the top percentile on my MCATs, and didn't go to med school because the whole process is crazy to go through just to end up with a decent job and to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. The AMA is what is artificially keeping doctors salaries high, because of their refusal to add aditional medical schools. But I digress...European countries pay their doctors significantly less, and still get better medical results.

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, Ms. Clinton may personally be a warm, wonderful human being. But politically I think there is strong evidence that if not Marxist, she is one or two bus-stops down the pike from being one. BTW, this was covered before in another thread so I won't rehash it all again here.

Marxist? See what I am talking about?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Debating BW is pointless. Canada's health system is not perfect, but way better than the U.S. for the middle class and lower. While people do have to wait 1-2 years for non-emergency surgery (i.e. hip replacement, knee damage), you can still get surgery for "life-threatening" issues fairly quickly. Of course, there are some exceptions, but it is a far cry from the incredible numbers of people in the U.S. with no healthcare coverage at all and thus little or no access to medical care.

Relying on a blurb of (what I will guess is a conservative radio station) in Buffalo is typical of BW. His misquote was even better. And calling Clinton a Marxist?????? I am moving on to another thread now; I spent too much time here already -- I am feeling a little dirty.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The welfare state is actually working out really well for a lot of the Frenchmen. There system isn't perfect, and I don't like a lot about it, but it has its advantages.

1) Med schools have a tough time attracting talent because the arduous process of becoming a doctor. I was a premed major at PSU, score in the top percentile on my MCATs, and didn't go to med school because the whole process is crazy to go through just to end up with a decent job and to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. The AMA is what is artificially keeping doctors salaries high, because of their refusal to add aditional medical schools. But I digress...European countries pay their doctors significantly less, and still get better medical results.

2) As it is right now, our government spends more per capita on health care than any other government. Our government also covers less people, and has a lower score on almost every conceivable metric to measure health care performance.

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

[Young Drachma]

I left the Air Force after my enlistement in 2002 and haven't had any decent health insurance since then. Since I've been in college for 3 of the 4 years since I got out (and I am now after taking last year off split between an internship and a job where I actually got coverage..) I've opted to do the school insurance twice (once because I didn't have a choice and now here at Wyoming because while it's not great, I can't find anything cheaper really) and I actually got a small policy from Blue Cross/Blue Shield back in '03-04.

The point of all this drivel, is really just to say that I think - like QS eloquently pointed out - people who work hard and have no interest in cheating the system or finding loopholes are the ones who get shafted in the status quo.

I don't know what the answers are, really. I mean, I'm an education policy guy - not an aspiring health care policy wonk - but...i do believe that we can come up with something a lot better than what we have now, that's for sure. Not because of some liberal wishy-washy reasoning (in case it sounded that way..) but more because the long-term increase in productivity would be worth the spending.

After all, how many more bridges to nowhere in Alaska do we need to build?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state? What do you consider "better medical results"? What about research and technological advances here, compared to Europe/Asia? I think a big problem is that Americans wait to see a doctor before something is wrong, and we are terrible at taking care of ourselves. The hopsitals in Europe aren't much to write home about.

We actually had a German girl in class today talking to us about the educational system there. In addition to that, she was talking specifically about the high unemployment rates, the high rates of taxation and all that. As high as 20% in some states, unemployment and losing half your check to taxes.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Aren't France and Germany struggling with GDP growth, unemployment rates, ect. and the bloated spending of a welfare state?

Their GDP growth is lower than ours, but at a rate equal to the difference in how much work we do compared to them. They have shorter work weeks and more vactation time, the downside of that is lower growth. You could argue either side of that one. The unemployment is probably a condition of the labor laws, and I'm not a big fan of a lot of those, but to tell you the truth I don't know too much about them.

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What do you consider "better medical results"?

Average life span, infant mortality, low-birth weight children, probability at birth of not living until age 60, etc, we rank at or near the bottom in all of them among western nations.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Average life span, infant mortality, low-birth weight children, probability at birth of not living until age 60, etc, we rank at or near the bottom in all of them among western nations.

Isn't this largely because of the proportion of poor people we have though? In other words, if you controlled for that..it'd probably be about on par, no? Not to say I think we should ignore it, since I don't.