jeffr why would you allow something as important as health care to be subjected to free market mechanism?
As I failed to get back to your last excellently argued post directed to me, let me address it here within this context.
It has been proved time and time again that nations are most likely to prosper who 1) respect human rights and 2) embrace a free market system.
Further the USA is nation founded on an ideal that had never before been put into practice on a large scale anywhere in the world. That principle is that the people, not the government, would look to their own interests better than any government ever could. The role of the government was to secure our rights, which would include access to free markets, and then leave the people alone to work out what sort of society they wished to live in. Most Americans have a deep seated passion and instinct for freedom, and resent others presuming to govern them, especially on a scale as large as the USA.
Even if we don't look at Canada's population being 1/10th of the USA--that is not an insignificant consideration--we can include Canada with many other experiments in socializatin of some or all government services.
Without exception socialism in part or in total has seemed to make things better for awhile. Sometimes the people really like it. Often they get thoroughly hooked on it and are unwilling to give up security for freedom. But invariably socialism bogs down. It cannot sustain itself. As Maggie Thatcher once said, "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money." So the people lose more and more control of their own destiny and eventually economies bog down and stagnate as we see in much of Europe.
Canada may be getting there too re their universal healthcare if the rumors are accurate.
It calculates that at present rates, Ontario will be spending 85 percent of its budget on health care by 2035. “We can’t afford a state monopoly on health care anymore,” says Tasha Kheiriddin, Ontario director of the (Canadian Taxpayers) federation. “We have to examine private alternatives as well.”
Canada: Socialized Medicine Going Broke? | America's North Shore Journal
Here in the USA Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are all many hundreds of billions of dollars in debt. With a track record like that, on what planet would informed people then think the government would do a better job with the rest of the healthcare system?
My turn to express appreciation of your post.
Further the USA is nation founded on an ideal that had never before been put into practice on a large scale anywhere in the world. That principle is that the people, not the government, would look to their own interests better than any government ever could. The role of the government was to secure our rights, which would include access to free markets, and then leave the people alone to work out what sort of society they wished to live in. Most Americans have a deep seated passion and instinct for freedom, and resent others presuming to govern them, especially on a scale as large as the USA.
I'm a bit tentative here in taking on these points. But let me say that when an American informs me about American values I won't argue with them, logically it's uncontestable. But that doesn't mean that the claims are valid of themselves, just that those values are held.
The USA's founding out of the British colonies was a first in so many ways and again I can't contest those claims because I agree with them. While Europe was by far and away the most advanced society (if I can allege a continent has a “society”
it's true that in governmental terms it was a bit patchy and hardly democratic. But I need to make the point that many of the principles on which the Founding Fathers rested were know well before their implementation in the new nation. The doctrine of the separation of powers is one of them. But the new nation took those various ideas which appealed to its founders and implemented them and that is progress indeed. And leaving folks alone was also a great idea. I'm not sure but I would think until then the idea that people lived for the government was probably still strong in Europe, given its history of feudalism and near slavery of its peoples in that system.
But sometimes ancient values get in the way of common sense public policy. In this particular instance we're discussing public health policy. I don't think that any of us are arguing that people should be denied access to health care – the argument is about the appropriate mechanism(s) to ensure that happens. However when someone advocates DIY surgery at home I'll concede.
It has been a tendency for one side of the discussion to point to failings in health care systems. The
Daily Mail in the UK is a great source of stories about the horrors of the NHS. And the distal cause of most of these incidents? Underfunding.
Yes, that's it, underfunding. The mechanism is fine, the fuel to drive the mechanism is the problem behind these incidents. Sometimes someone will argue that a surgeon taking out the wrong lung is due to “socialised health care”. No it isn't, it's called incompetence and it occurs regardless of the provision mechanism.
You have pointed to failings in the Canadian system (actually it's not a national system, it's provincially based and that might he one of the problems). Some provincial governments are stubbornly opposed to a two-tier system. I dsiagree with that.
It's good policy to have a two-tier system where those with cash or those who can afford insurance can get preferential treatment. This is a good thing because it's the case that more people can afford to pay directly or via insurance than there are those who can't afford to do either. That's a sort of crude utilitarian view but there is a benefit in that it reduces the load on the public system which allows the public system to be used by those who can't afford the private system.
In Canada some of the provinces have outlawed a two-tier system, I think Ontario is one of them. That's short-sighted, even here in notoriously (well we think we are) egalitarian Australia we have a two-tier system – sometimes pragmatism beats principle.
I'm addressing the general expression of disagreement now, not your points specifically Foxfyre.
Much of the popular opposition to Obama's healthcare reforms has been based on the values that have been discussed. I'm afraid though it seems to me that those opponents have been blinded by mythology. Now they are not alone, we all love to think of ourselves, our societies, in positive terms, expressing the social values that we learned as children, but sometimes they have to be set aside and we have to take a good hard look at our society without the comforting mythologies. The US has a failed health care system when it's examined objectively. If you're wealthy or insured you're okay, if you're neither than you're not okay. But you should be. No-one in a civilised society should be denied health care simply because they can't afford to pay for it. That's the sentiment that underpins my position that a form of universal health care - hybrid models included - is necessary for any society. I keep making the point that the free market is fine for commodities but not for essentials such as health care but the ideology of the free market is strongly held in the US and that ideology is what drives opposition to the reforms. I'm arguing to dump the ideology, it doesn't make sense in terms of public health policy.
The vested interests have marshalled opposition to the reforms by playing on Americans' basic values. To me that's tantamount to propagandising of the worst type. I'm always a bit annoyed when, in a political discussion the Trots bang on about the "false consciousness of the working class". I agree with them that it does exist but I hate the bloody patronising attitude they evince about it. But at the risk of being accused of patronising the opposition in this discussion there is a false consciousness at work where the vested interests have disguised their real motives for opposing the reforms. Instead of admitting naked economic self-interest they have grabbed the flag to cover up those real motives and many Americans have been conned.
