TorgoX quotes someone else, "How many more nations will have to, for example, prove that gun licensing works, or that gay-marriage legislation is a moral imperative, or that health care for all is mandatory for a nation's well being, before America finally looks at itself and says, whoa, damn, we are so silly and small and wrong?"
There's no evidence that gun licensing "works," and even if it did, it would say little if anything about whether or not it is compatible with liberty, which is the entire point.
There's no evidence that gay marriage legislation is a moral imperative, as this is opinion, not fact.
There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."
Precisely how "more nations" can "prove" things that no nations are currently proving is a mystery.
There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."
In any given economic activity there is an inverse relationship between efficiency and "fairness." This is something that is repeatedly misunderstood and it causes fundamental problems when people try to discuss these issues. Failing to recognize this trade-off means that a core problem is ignored: going to either extreme tends to cause the activity to fail. There are plenty of examples where either too much state control leads to economic stagnation and too little leads to economic anarchy. Both "communistic" (however it's practiced) and "laissez-faire" (however it's practiced) economies tend to have serious problems.
In reality, well-functioning economies lie somewhere between the two extremes of perfect efficiency and perfect fairness. Universal healthcare tends towards being more fair but it does tend to hurt the efficiency of an economy. However, our Darwinistic "sucks to be you" attitude towards health care causes worse problems because hospitals are legally required to not turn away emergency patients in emergency rooms. In fact, some states have even more stringent requirements on what hospitals are mandated to provide. Once in the door, it's tough to get rid of a patient who may be seriously ill or dying. Thus, the poor still get their health care, but at a far higher cost. This is passed on to others in the forms of higher insurance premiums and is one of the reasons why the US has some of the highest health care expenses in the world.
If you want to truly appreciate the "efficiency" of not having universal healthcare then you're going to have to tell the homeless mother to lie on the street and die because you won't pay for her and her children's antibiotics for the pneumonia they picked up while sleeping under a bridge. Right now, we have a crippled form of universal health care that still drives up the costs but is frequently even more substandard than "socialized" medicine.
Re:We already have "socialized" medicine
pudge on 2004-12-21T21:40:29
Both "communistic" (however it's practiced) and "laissez-faire" (however it's practiced) economies tend to have serious problems.
But I am not arguing for an extreme. It's a given that the U.S. has socialized medicine today, to some extent; so to say that others do and the U.S. doesn't is to say the U.S. doesn't go all the way. It's the author I was criticizing that was arguing for an extreme.
I essentially agree with much of what you say, though I think I would come down more on the side of laissez-faire and you would come down more on the side of communistic. I don't prefer "sucks to be you," but I do want government-supplied health care to be limited to those who are truly in need, and whenever possible, for it to be limited in time for those who are only in temporary need. That is, I want it to be a true safety net, not the norm.
If you want to truly appreciate the "efficiency" of not having universal healthcare then you're going to have to tell the homeless mother to lie on the street and die because you won't pay for her and her children's antibiotics for the pneumonia they picked up while sleeping under a bridge.
We can come up with rhetorical devices all day on both sides, but the bottom line is that we should have practical solutions that don't significantly lower the overall well-being of society in order to help a minority (such as, IMO, Oregon's defeated universal health care likely would have done).
There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."
Where is your hard evidence to support the above statement? In the absence of such evidence I guess you are stating an opinion as well.
The reports I have seen indicate that the United States spends more as a percent of GDP than Canada and yet leaves 40% (a number that varies from source to source) uninsured.
There are problems with the Canadian system, including wait times and a lack of specialized equipment. But I fail to see how universal health care has screwed the economy and the overall national "well being" is doing ok if you judge by the UN's ranking of the best countries to live in.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-21T23:38:14
Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.
I am not saying the U.S. is necessarily better than Canada, although I prefer our system. I am talking about broader principles, e.g. private vs. public dollars and the impact on the economy. Our health care system produces more for the economy, employs more people, produces more wealth. Because the government is involved less, the market can more efficiently use the money involved. etc.
if you judge by the UN's ranking of the best countries to live in.
I never would.:-)
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-22T00:27:35
I never would.:-) I knew that was too good a setup to ignore.
;) Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus a government agency that is doing the spending? Along with spending a higher percentage of GDP the US system also 'loses' more of that money to the beauracracy with a lower percentage actually being spent on the patients (which I am thinking could simply be a matter of scale). The difference of course is that in the Canadian system the money is funneled through the governent via tax revenues but if you are thinking that the goverment spending would be more inefficient it does not seem to be so.
Regardless, the spending figures were my response to your claim that universal health care screws the economy. If Canada spends less (as a percentage of GDP, which I though a fair metric to use) on healthcare than the US how can it be screwing the economy? Doesn't that leave more money to be spent on other goods and services?
Like you, I don't want to claim that one system is better than the other. As a Canadian I am well aware there are problems with our system. I will readily admit my ignorance of the American system, and perhaps it is my Canadian passive-aggressive tendencies coming out but I would sum up the American healthcare system as such: It is better for those that can afford it.
In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.
I wonder if the Canadian system could scale to meet the needs of a population the size of the US, and I find it difficult to believe it could in its current form.
Basically I am talking out one of my lower orifices, but it is truly a subject I am interested in with no real answers (also I first believed you were dismissing the Canadian system as a dismal failure, as some Republican talking heads like to do, and responded accordingly).
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-22T01:09:37
Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus a government agency that is doing the spending?
There's several problems. First, if the government pays for it, *I* am paying for it, whether I want to or not, which hurts the market and drags on the economy. Second, the government always sets some sort of price controls, whether explicit or implicit, which hurts the market. Third, the government is usually less efficient, not just in how it handles the money, but in how easily it can react to changes in the market. There's more, but you get the idea.
Also, note that Americans would not stand for decreased service quality, if the government took over. And given that, there's no reason to think that costs would go down under a more socialized plan, let alone a single-payer one.
Along with spending a higher percentage of GDP the US system also 'loses' more of that money to the beauracracy with a lower percentage actually being spent on the patients
Which would happen at least as much if the government did it, of course. Regardless, money "lost" to the bureaucracy is not lost when it happens in the marketplace. It goes into someone's pocket, and in the worst case, it puts a drag on one company's efficiency and thereby provides an opportunity for another.
The free market works.
perhaps it is my Canadian passive-aggressive tendencies coming out but I would sum up the American healthcare system as such: It is better for those that can afford it.
Yes. Is it so wrong to not want *my* quality of service decreased? I am not saying we should not help those in need, I am saying we can do practical things to accomplish that without dragging down everyone else.
In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing.
I can't agree. I can't see how it is "best" to -- to pick an extreme example, but you speak in absolutes, so it is fitting -- spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person. If a deathly overweight 90-year-old person has the money to pay for that themselves, fine, but it is insane to posit that we should spend all that public money on someone in that condition.
I am not saying the US system is great. It is broken in major ways. I just don't want the fix to go in the direction of MORE socialization, but LESS overall, with increased safeguards for the most needy, and practical ways to keep costs down for everyone else by relying on the free market as much as possible, with regulation only when necessary.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-22T17:14:16
I can't agree. I can't see how it is "best" to -- to pick an extreme example, but you speak in absolutes, so it is fitting -- spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person. If a deathly overweight 90-year-old person has the money to pay for that themselves, fine, but it is insane to posit that we should spend all that public money on someone in that condition.That is a lovely straw man there.
If performing the heart bypass means another patient more suitable for the procedure (ie younger, healthier, etc) cannot receive the same treatment then that is not acceptable. If the homeless man is not suitable for the operation due to other health concerns it should not be performed. But otherwise it should be performed, and I do not see how it is insane to value a life more than money. If you are going to argue that it will drag down the system for others go ahead, but I doubt the number of 90 year old homeless men getting quadruple bypass surgery will be that high.
I think we are simply getting to the point where you say you don't want the government spending your money on other people's health problems and I say that I am perfectly willing to pay higher taxes to provide for those less fortunate around me.
As far as the lower quality of service, that simply consists of a longer wait for elective surgery and perhaps a drive to a hospital in a larger city if I ever require specialized tests or treatment (which is different from living in a rural area of the US how?). If that is unacceptable to you, fine, but it seems a decent enough tradeoff to me.
My experiences within the Canadian health care system are of course anecdotal but here is a list of my recent experiences in the last few years:
- testing for acid reflux
- testing for sleep apnea (spelling?)
- birth of my son
- multiple checkups with son, vaccinations, etc
- trip to emergency room with son with a concussion
The only waiting I ever had to do was to fit my appointments into my work schedule. We had a two hour wait at the emergency room but that was partly because it was obviously not an extreme emergency. Total cost to me: $0
I reach the opposite conclusion from you, that the answer to the Canadian health care problems is more government spending to provide access to more advanced equipment and reduce wait times.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-22T22:40:34
That is a lovely straw man there.
Rubbish. I took what you said to its logical conclusion. You can feel free to amend what you said, but don't attack *me* for taking your words at face value.
If performing the heart bypass means another patient more suitable for the procedure (ie younger, healthier, etc) cannot receive the same treatment then that is not acceptable.
No, that would hold true for a transplant. For a bypass, it is not about availability, it is about cost.
But otherwise it should be performed, and I do not see how it is insane to value a life more than money.
And I can't see how it is NOT insane to take the public's money and use it to very temporarily prolong the life of someone who will die soon anyway.
Death is a fact of life. We should not do everything possible to avoid it, especially when it means spending the public's money.
I think we are simply getting to the point where you say you don't want the government spending your money on other people's health problems
No. I am saying there are limits to what the government should pay for, and I gave one pretty clear example.
I say that I am perfectly willing to pay higher taxes to provide for those less fortunate around me.
Please don't be deceptive. What you mean is that you are perfectly willing to use the government to force everyone to pay higher taxes. If it were just about what you were paying, you could give your money to charities devoted to such purposes. This is not about what you are willing to pay, it is about your willingness to take money from other people.
Total cost to me: $0
You don't pay taxes?
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-22T23:31:17
Rubbish. I took what you said to its logical conclusion. You can feel free to amend what you said, but don't attack *me* for taking your words at face value.Here is what I said:
First explain how that is speaking in absolutes. Second show me where I say that the best health care system should '...spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person.' I guess "best possible care" is open to interpretation but it always meant in my mind that you provide the best possible care provided it doesn't cost someone else similar care who is more deserving/suitable.In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.No, that would hold true for a transplant. For a bypass, it is not about availability, it is about cost.I will say that if the only reason for not doing the bypass is the cost then that is not an acceptable reason. Which leads to your next statement:
And I can't see how it is NOT insane to take the public's money and use it to very temporarily prolong the life of someone who will die soon anyway.Which would seem to be ignoring what I said here:
IE it should not be performed if he is going to die soon anyway. Personally I would prefer to leave that decision to the doctors. But simply saying that he is old and so will die soon is not good enough.If the homeless man is not suitable for the operation due to other health concerns it should not be performed.Death is a fact of life. We should not do everything possible to avoid it, especially when it means spending the public's money.Agreed, but I think we should do everything reasonably possible to avoid it. Feel free to define reasonably possible as you wish, as will I.
No. I am saying there are limits to what the government should pay for, and I gave one pretty clear example.I agree that there should be limits, and I have never said there should not be. Our limits are obviously different however.
Please don't be deceptive. What you mean is that you are perfectly willing to use the government to force everyone to pay higher taxes. If it were just about what you were paying, you could give your money to charities devoted to such purposes. This is not about what you are willing to pay, it is about your willingness to take money from other people.First off, how do you know what I do and do not give to charities? Of course the need for charities devoted to 'such purposes' is considerably less when the government provides for the people in need of the charities' services.
In actual fact, I meant what I said. I am personally willing to pay higher taxes. I then extrapolate from that to assume that my fellow Canadian citizens are also willing to do so. If my fellow citizens decide that they are not happy paying higher taxes then they will vote in a government that will privatize health care. I will then have more money, due to lower taxes of course, to donate to the charities that will be necessary to help the people who cannot afford privatized health care.
You are very quick to tell me about my willingness to take money from other people when all I have said is I am willing to pay higher taxes.
You don't pay taxes?Ha! You got me. You are of course right that my tax dollars are what paid for those services. So my question is if the only difference is I pay taxes to pay for my health care and you pay an insurance company and/or hospital for your health care, then what is the difference? We both spend money to receive a service.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T02:53:21
First explain how that is speaking in absolutes.
No. You explain how "best possible care to all that require it" is *not* absolute.
IE it should not be performed if he is going to die soon anyway.
We're all going to die soon.
Personally I would prefer to leave that decision to the doctors.
Not when it's my money involved, no.
I agree that there should be limits, and I have never said there should not be.
You mentioned only one limit: where that care would prevent someone else more "worthy" of getting care, which did not apply to my scenario. Then you added another limit: that the person is going to die soon, which is true of everyone. Any more?
First off, how do you know what I do and do not give to charities?
I never stated, nor implied, you didn't.
In actual fact, I meant what I said. I am personally willing to pay higher taxes.
While that is true, it is not the thrust of what you meant. When you favor higher taxes, you are not doing so merely because of what you are willing to do, but because of what you are willing to ask the government to force other people to do. That's the fact of the matter, and focusing on your own willingness to pay as your reason for favoring a system to force everyone to pay is deceptive. Say what you mean: you want the government to force everyone to pay. You are willing to ask the government to do this.
then what is the difference?
I have already described at some length the difference between public and private funding; feel free to review it again.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T04:02:38
In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.No. You explain how "best possible care to all that require it" is *not* absolute.
Isn't context a wonderful thing?
So why perform bypass surgery for anyone? What's the point?We're all going to die soon.
Read what I wrote again:You mentioned only one limit: where that care would prevent someone else more "worthy" of getting care, which did not apply to my scenario. Then you added another limit: that the person is going to die soon, which is true of everyone. Any more?
If performing the heart bypass means another patient more suitable for the procedure (ie younger, healthier, etc) cannot receive the same treatment then that is not acceptable. If the homeless man is not suitable for the operation due to other health concerns it should not be performed.
I added nothing; perhaps it was poorly explained. I would personally leave it up to the medical professionals to determine the approximate lifespan left to the patient. But since your money is involved I am sure it is better left to you.
I will take you at your word and not attempt to tell you what you meant.I never stated, nor implied, you didn't.
I am personally willing to pay higher taxes. I then extrapolate from that to assume that my fellow Canadian citizens are also willing to do so. If my fellow citizens decide that they are not happy paying higher taxes then they will vote in a government that will privatize health care.While that is true, it is not the thrust of what you meant. When you favor higher taxes, you are not doing so merely because of what you are willing to do, but because of what you are willing to ask the government to force other people to do. That's the fact of the matter, and focusing on your own willingness to pay as your reason for favoring a system to force everyone to pay is deceptive. Say what you mean: you want the government to force everyone to pay. You are willing to ask the government to do this.
Explain to me how you can take this to mean I favour the government forcing people to pay higher taxes. Honestly, I don't see how you could possible interpet this the way you seem to. All I can do is repeat exactly what I said: I am willing to pay higher taxes if it means universal healthcare. If there are enough people not willing to do so then a political party will come along to take advantage of that and it will change. If someone presents a better alternative then I will be all for it, but this is the system we have and I am satisfied with it.
There is this:I have already described at some length the difference between public and private funding; feel free to review it again.Except of course that the American system is less efficient as seen by the fact that a higher percent of the GDP is spent on health care while leaving 40% uninsured and a smaller percent of the money is actually spent on the patient (ie more is 'lost' in the system).Because the government is involved less, the market can more efficiently use the money involved. etc.
This makes no sense to me as I still cannot fathom how money spent by the government just vanishes into the ether. The money is spent on the same things and ends up in someones pocket at the end of the day.Regardless, money "lost" to the bureaucracy is not lost when it happens in the marketplace.
This has gotten completely derailed by a debate over what I meant by best possible health care system and what I mean when I say I am willing to pay higher taxes....as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."
The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being." Especially considering the fact that Canada has a greater life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than the US.Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T07:09:47
So why perform bypass surgery for anyone? What's the point?
You answer that, since you're the one who said "he's going to die soon" is the reason he should not get treatment.
Read what I wrote again:... If the homeless man is not suitable for the operation due to other health concerns it should not be performed.
But that does not apply. There's nothing wrong with the surgery, and if it can be paid for, there's no reason not to do it (unlike a transplant).
Explain to me how you can take this to mean I favour the government forcing people to pay higher taxes.
Do you, or do you not, favor the government paying for the health care expenses of everyone, using public money? And do you, or do you not, favor income taxation as a method of raising those monies? Income taxation is forced taking of money by the government, even if it is voted for by a majority of the people.
QED.
Except of course that the American system is less efficient as seen by the fact that a higher percent of the GDP is spent on health care while leaving 40% uninsured and a smaller percent of the money is actually spent on the patient (ie more is 'lost' in the system).
Again, those numbers are comparing apples and oranges, as I already showed, and are therefore irrelevant.
This makes no sense to me as I still cannot fathom how money spent by the government just vanishes into the ether.
It does less because it goes into the government, which does not produce wealth.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T15:11:09
I have already done so: I would personally leave it up to the medical professionals to determine the approximate lifespan left to the patient.You answer that, since you're the one who said "he's going to die soon" is the reason he should not get treatment.I completely agree. If there's nothing wrong with the surgery it should be done. You are the one that came up with the straw man of a deathly overweight homeless man receiving a quadruple bypass operation as a flaw in my 'best possible' health care system. This ignored my statement the operation should not be done in the presence of other health problems.But that does not apply. There's nothing wrong with the surgery, and if it can be paid for, there's no reason not to do it (unlike a transplant).(emphasis mine of course)Income taxation is forced taking of money by the government, even if it is voted for by a majority of the people.
I will agree that the minority of people are being force to pay higher taxes but since the majority of people voted for it how can you say it is forced? Nice try.You have shown nothing, expect voiced your opinion that the free market is more efficient than government funded health care. Money spent on health care is money spent on health care and when it takes a lower percentage of GDP to cover a higher percentage of citizens with less money being 'lost' that is very much relevant.Again, those numbers are comparing apples and oranges, as I already showed, and are therefore irrelevant.Yes, yes, I forgot. Money spent by the government is gathered into a pile and burnt on a regular basis. Doctors and nurses are payed in smarties (Canadian M&Ms) and equipment is bought with Canadian Tire money.It does less because it goes into the government, which does not produce wealth.
I will simply cut and past the end of my previous comment since you apparently didn't read that far:
The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being." Especially considering the fact that Canada has a greater life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than the US.Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T16:06:26
I have already done so: I would personally leave it up to the medical professionals to determine the approximate lifespan left to the patient.
So you retract your previous statement that the 90-year-old homeless person should not get the surgery. OK.
I completely agree. If there's nothing wrong with the surgery it should be done.
I didn't say that. I said it should be done if it can be paid for.
You are the one that came up with the straw man of a deathly overweight homeless man
YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM.
I will agree that the minority of people are being force to pay higher taxes but since the majority of people voted for it how can you say it is forced?
Wow. "I will agree that the minority of people are being forced, but how can you say it is forced?" I dunno, how can YOU say it is forced?
You have shown nothing, expect voiced your opinion that the free market is more efficient than government funded health care.
Sigh. No. In this context, I showed that the free market is *different* than the government, which makes the comparison irrelevant. If you recall, for example, one big difference is that single-payer systems like Canada have inherent government cost controls. You can't reasonably compare the two systems in simplistic terms like percentage of GDP, because they are too different.
Yes, yes, I forgot. Money spent by the government is gathered into a pile and burnt on a regular basis.
The Canadian health care system is not designed to produce profit, but to produce health care. You can't see this difference?
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T16:30:17
You should work on your reading comprehension.So you retract your previous statement that the 90-year-old homeless person should not get the surgery. OK.Ok, fine then. Any democratic system forces the will of majority on the minority.Wow. "I will agree that the minority of people are being forced, but how can you say it is forced?" I dunno, how can YOU say it is forced?Then how do you compare them?You can't reasonably compare the two systems in simplistic terms like percentage of GDP, because they are too different.I am sorry, I though the point of a health care system was to produce health care. My bad.The Canadian health care system is not designed to produce profit, but to produce health care.
Yet again, I will simply cut and past the end of a previous comment since you apparently didn't read that far:
The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being." Especially considering the fact that Canada has a greater life expectancy and a lower infant mortality rate than the US.Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T18:21:17
You should work on your reading comprehension.
Riiiiight. You didn't say, "it should not be performed if he is going to die soon anyway." Gotcha.
Oh wait, yes you did!
Never mind.
Any democratic system forces the will of majority on the minority.
Yes, but in most cases that will is not expressed against the individual so directly as actually going in and taking something that belongs to you.
Then how do you compare them?
In terms of raw dollars spent? You don't. You can compare them in terms of liberty, in terms of quality, in terms of effectiveness of care, in terms of impact on the economy. But not in simplistic raw dollar comparisons.
I am sorry, I though the point of a health care system was to produce health care. My bad.
Good, now you are beginning to understand. That's only one part of it. That silly belief is like saying, "I thought the point of news web sites was to disseminate information."
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T18:30:09
The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T19:32:21
When you keep asking for what has already been provided, you just make yourself look like a tool.Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T19:45:03
Your definition of hard evidence is interesting. I envy your self confidence.Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
pudge on 2004-12-23T20:06:44
You yourself conceded that there is hard evidence of decreased care quality in Canada, in your very first post, and now you say no such evidence exists? I envy your... well, no, I don't.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-23T20:55:08
There are problems with the Canadian system, including wait times and a lack of specialized equipment.The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."
Once again your definition of hard evidence is interesting if you include a statement of opinion from someone who would readily admit to not being fully informed. My opinion is based on reports I have read about the Canadian system as well as comparisons with other countries' systems. The opinion applies to the Canadian health care system not universal health care in general. Your original statement, which is the one I am still waiting for you to back up, was concerned with universal health care not the Canadian version of universal health care.
In addition, while some people might wait longer, whether it be for elective/minor surgery or access to specialized equipment, the average quality of care is higher when the entire population is covered (ie 40% are not uninsured). Even so, let's concede, for the sake of argument, that there is hard evidence there is decreased average quality of care in a system of universal health care.
Hmmm, that still leaves the absence of hard evidence showing that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, and lowers the overall national well being. Well, lets lump the national well being in with a decreased average quality of care. So now we are at 50%.
I guess your opinion that the free market better utilizes money spent on health care, oh and let's not forget that the purpose of a health care system is not to provide health care, is the hard evidence to support the other two. Like I said, interesting definition of hard evidence and your confidence in your opinion, and apparently mine as well (thank you), is enviable.
Oh, and I just got YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM. My wife would be disappointed it took so long.
Anybody want a peanut?Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
jdavidb on 2004-12-22T17:01:58
If Canada spends less (as a percentage of GDP, which I though a fair metric to use) on healthcare than the US how can it be screwing the economy? Doesn't that leave more money to be spent on other goods and services?
You have committed the broken window fallacy. Note that I am not arguing that it is necessarily true or false that such a change in spending would leave more money to be spent on other goods and services. Simply pointing out that your reasoning is incomplete; as pudge mentioned, the money "lost" through greater spending in the health-care system goes right into the pockets of people who spend it. All spent money gets spent again, making something complex enough to make reasoning difficult.
Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of?
tunaboy on 2004-12-22T17:36:08
I'm afraid I don't understand how this applies. I am saying that less is being spent on health care leaving more to be spent on other things.
The broken window fallacy applies when I say that it is good that a situation was created because it creates economic opportunity while ignoring the opportunity cost of the situation. What is lost by spending less money on health care?
It seems that the reverse is true, saying that the US spending more per GDP is a good thing because it is good for the economy ignores what that money might have otherwise been spent on.
I also don't understand how money spent by a private system enters back into the economy but money spent by the government does not. Where does that government spent money dissapear too?
Anyways, the whole point of mentioning the percentage of GDP spent on health care along with the amount that is "lost" was simply to point out that the socialized health care is perhaps not as inefficient as claimed by some, and also does not screw the economy as claimed by pudge.
