Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance

[Chris]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

 

[Bern80]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Chris you truly are an intellectual baffoon. For the upteenth time. Whether it works in other countries or not (which is also open for debate) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because whatever plan we ultimately come up with needs to work here. The variables differentiating us from other countries are so many that it is completely pointless to hold them up as examples that universal health care can work here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The buffoonery is Bern80's drivel.

If the Europeans have done it right, we will do it even better.

Bern buddy, look at me, look me in the eyes, look at me. That's better. It will be OK, buddy, it will be OK.

 

[rubberhead]

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?[/quote]

You mentioned a causation. Was that just rhetoric? Or are you going to reinforce that assertion with evidence.

Although I don't believe in single-payer (socialized) medicine, there are several points where I agree with Zeke Emanuel. Oddly enough, they happen to be the points that none of the mouthpieces are mentioning. In "The Perfect Storm of Overutilization", Zeke Emanuel et. al. states:

In normal markets, demand is modulated by cost. But
third-party payment for patients attenuates this control.

This is extremely insightful and I think it hits the heart of the issue. I don't think it is completely correct, though. Yes, price controls demand to some degree. But health care is an extremely inelastic commodity. That is, it is so essential to one's well-being that as the price goes up, certain individuals' demand for it does not diminish. Especially if the patient's life is threatened.

This is the property of the health care market that created an opportunity for insurance companies to insulate people from the growing cost of health care. Thus, the problem is inherent to the fee-for-service system. That is to say, there is a moral hazard for health care providers that raise prices without considering the rigidity of demand. Notice this has nothing to do with insurance providers because they are merely filling a need because that's what creative people do in a market economy. Also, note that it is not a moral imperative to radically change our system.

Price controls on providers seems to be a remedy that wouldn't interfere with medical decisions directly. This merely amounts to protecting health care consumers. However, pretending that health care is a right (like Teddy Kennedy wanted to do) will just turn people into slaves. Health care is a service provided by a firm and we show our appreciation for the provider of that service by paying them, because they are free to refuse to provide that service, even if we pretend that they are not.

It won't let me post a link to Zeke Emanuel's article, but you can find it in references section of the wikipedia article about him.

 

[RodISHI]

Poor Jakey, he does not seem to understand America is no longer part of Europe holdings. France and Spain sold their interest in this country back in the 1800's. Brits were told to take a hike and the people agreed this country would be a country for the people by the people. Bern's drivel is at least worth reading at times, Jakey, yours is not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poor Jakey, he does not seem to understand America is no longer part of Europe holdings. France and Spain sold their interest in this country back in the 1800's. Brits were told to take a hike and the people agreed this country would be a country for the people by the people. Bern's drivel is at least worth reading at times, Jakey, yours is not.

Sorry you don't get it, bub. But your day is over, forever.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

What place is america in in the world?


11th, 12th? further down the line?

 

[Political Junky]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

What place is america in in the world?


11th, 12th? further down the line?

In healthcare, we're #37

 

[Political Junky]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Chris you truly are an intellectual baffoon. For the upteenth time. Whether it works in other countries or not (which is also open for debate) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because whatever plan we ultimately come up with needs to work here. The variables differentiating us from other countries are so many that it is completely pointless to hold them up as examples that universal health care can work here.

Too bad the cons can't come up with anything. The GOP is the party of NO.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Chris you truly are an intellectual baffoon. For the upteenth time. Whether it works in other countries or not (which is also open for debate) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because whatever plan we ultimately come up with needs to work here. The variables differentiating us from other countries are so many that it is completely pointless to hold them up as examples that universal health care can work here.

Too bad the cons can't come up with anything. The GOP is the party of NO.

CONS WANT:

Tort Reform
Insurance Reform (AKA Stop denials for illness and pre-existing conditions)


See they have a plan, its just simple and feasible and wont but undue stress on the nations economy and tax system. The dems want to create chaos so they can be elected to fix it later.

 

[rubberhead]

Chris you truly are an intellectual baffoon. For the upteenth time. Whether it works in other countries or not (which is also open for debate) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because whatever plan we ultimately come up with needs to work here. The variables differentiating us from other countries are so many that it is completely pointless to hold them up as examples that universal health care can work here.

Too bad the cons can't come up with anything. The GOP is the party of NO.

CONS WANT:

Tort Reform
Insurance Reform (AKA Stop denials for illness and pre-existing conditions)


See they have a plan, its just simple and feasible and wont but undue stress on the nations economy and tax system. The dems want to create chaos so they can be elected to fix it later.

Zeke Emanuel (a guy who advises the president on these things and happens to be Rahm Emanuel's brother and a physician) who I mentioned earlier also recognizes that tort reform and defensive medicine contribute to the high costs of medical care. The problem is that guys like Joe Biden and the rest of the litigator crowd in Washington are not willing to sell out their buddies to help Americans. Howard Dean (another physician on the left) is on record saying that actually. "We don't want to take on the trial lawyers too!" He said at a town hall meeting recently. Notice also that no one on the left even mentions tort reform. Please note: I am on the side of freedom and prosperity and the growth of government threatens both.

 

[rubberhead]

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

Chris you truly are an intellectual baffoon. For the upteenth time. Whether it works in other countries or not (which is also open for debate) is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Because whatever plan we ultimately come up with needs to work here. The variables differentiating us from other countries are so many that it is completely pointless to hold them up as examples that universal health care can work here.

Too bad the cons can't come up with anything. The GOP is the party of NO.

This is nonsense. There's no argument here, you're just trying to incite hostility so that your opponents look irrational, but doing so makes you irrational.

How about this: "Progressivism is the ideology of attack your opponents for who they are rather than what they're saying in hopes of distract people for what they're saying because it makes more sense than what you're saying." It's a little longer, which I think is good because then TV pundits won't be spoon-feeding it to empty headed talking point machines to spew onto forums where people are having actual conversations.

 

[Diuretic]

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

You mentioned a causation. Was that just rhetoric? Or are you going to reinforce that assertion with evidence.

Although I don't believe in single-payer (socialized) medicine, there are several points where I agree with Zeke Emanuel. Oddly enough, they happen to be the points that none of the mouthpieces are mentioning. In "The Perfect Storm of Overutilization", Zeke Emanuel et. al. states:

In normal markets, demand is modulated by cost. But
third-party payment for patients attenuates this control.

This is extremely insightful and I think it hits the heart of the issue. I don't think it is completely correct, though. Yes, price controls demand to some degree. But health care is an extremely inelastic commodity. That is, it is so essential to one's well-being that as the price goes up, certain individuals' demand for it does not diminish. Especially if the patient's life is threatened.

This is the property of the health care market that created an opportunity for insurance companies to insulate people from the growing cost of health care. Thus, the problem is inherent to the fee-for-service system. That is to say, there is a moral hazard for health care providers that raise prices without considering the rigidity of demand. Notice this has nothing to do with insurance providers because they are merely filling a need because that's what creative people do in a market economy. Also, note that it is not a moral imperative to radically change our system.

Price controls on providers seems to be a remedy that wouldn't interfere with medical decisions directly. This merely amounts to protecting health care consumers. However, pretending that health care is a right (like Teddy Kennedy wanted to do) will just turn people into slaves. Health care is a service provided by a firm and we show our appreciation for the provider of that service by paying them, because they are free to refuse to provide that service, even if we pretend that they are not.

It won't let me post a link to Zeke Emanuel's article, but you can find it in references section of the wikipedia article about him.[/QUOTE]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

 

[Douger]

Poor Jakey, he does not seem to understand America is no longer part of Europe holdings. France and Spain sold their interest in this country back in the 1800's. Brits were told to take a hike and the people agreed this country would be a country for the people by the people. Bern's drivel is at least worth reading at times, Jakey, yours is not.

LOL.......... No. Now China owns you bitches.
Well. Europe does too if you follow the money you borrowed for your ki... OH WAIT.
Let me get the new language right.
Da money you B barwin fo you chillunz ta pay back N shit.

"For the people by the people"
You think you could get your acid guy to drip a couple of stamps and send me a postcard ?

 

[rubberhead]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. Yes, I've heard the collective action, bridge building argument, but if you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave for whatever amount of time the government forces you to work for no pay to cover your share of the service that you are not using.

 

[Diuretic]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. If you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave.

Tax doesn't have to be that high I would think. Taxes are a fact of life and that's that and it's important that governments are held to account for the beneficial use of tax money. I would think funding universal health care is a beneficial use of tax money.

 

[Chris]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. Yes, I've heard the collective action, bridge building argument, but if you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave for whatever amount of time the government forces you to work for no pay to cover your share of the service that you are not using.

They pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.

That means they pay less.

I guess you don't know what the word "half" means.

 

[dilloduck]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

How much money do these county spend to benefit the rest of the world as far as contributing to their general welfare ? Are they 11 trillion dollars in debt ?

 

[Chris]

High Living Standard Countries

Top ten countries in the world all have national health insurance : There's an obvious correlation. There's causation too. Healthcare spending in those countries averages around 8% of GDP, in the US it's 18%.

Would you like an extra 10% pay?

How much money do these county spend to benefit the rest of the world as far as contributing to their general welfare ? Are they 11 trillion dollars in debt ?

Changing the subject?

 

[rubberhead]

It's an interesting reference. But I disagree with the bit about slaves. No-one is advocating that doctors, for example, should work for no payment.

Yes, the doctors would not work for no payment, so the taxpayers would become the slaves. 50% tax = 50% slavery. If you have to work until August to pay your taxes, then you are a slave for half the year. If you don't want/don't use a single payer system, but are forced to pay for it, then you are a slave.

Tax doesn't have to be that high I would think. Taxes are a fact of life and that's that and it's important that governments are held to account for the beneficial use of tax money. I would think funding universal health care is a beneficial use of tax money.

If it really is true that we'll be adding 46 million people into the risk pool (many of whom are high risk, which is why they are not covered now) and that, since we will have the referee playing in the game, many insurance companies will not be able to compete anymore and will be forced to shutdown, then I argue that the tax will be at least that high (it is in the UK) because the 46 million who are uninsured and the millions of others who are forced onto the government plan because their insurance company went out of business, their coverage was deemed insufficient by the legislation (read the house bill if you don't believe me) or their employer decides that it's cheaper just to pay the 8% payroll tax will suddenly be subsidized by tax dollars. Also, for someone opposed to government run health care (i.e. someone who doesn't believe that they will benefit from it) the collective action (bridge building) argument that you are making-which I have already addressed in earlier posts actually-doesn't work. That is, unless you believe that our government knows best when it comes to health care and the critics should all just be dismissed. Unfortunately, that is a tiptoe in the direction of fascism.

Here's something to consider: If this massive bureaucratic apparatus is put into place, how many people will thereafter be 'voting for a living?' That is, if a candidate for elected office were to oppose the system that is being proposed once it is in place, how many people would be voting for their own livelihoods? The UK Health Service is the third largest employer in the world. Second only to the PRC and the India Railroad Company. Now that's a lot of votes. This would permanently shift the political climate in our country to the left and completely change the game. Now doesn't that sound like something that the average politician would actually care about? Republican, democrat, socialist, libertarian, it doesn't matter: politicians want to keep their jobs at all costs (Arlen Specter proved that). Single payer health care is job security for Democrats and a giant leap toward socialism.