Healthcare: More regulation or less?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, if you look at the quality of a health care system, you should look at the quality it delivers to the entire population. It doesn't make any sense to just look at the quality it delivers to the rich. I'm sure the rich in most places get quite good health care.

As for debt, the US has a large deficit but its debt it about average compared to oth ...[text shortened]... strialized nations - and much smaller than Japan's, which has a universal health care system.

By the way, was this meant to argue against Japan's overspending and resulting record debt levels and slow growth as well as fall in per capita income? Case in point.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
By the way, was this meant to argue against Japan's overspending and resulting record debt levels and slow growth as well as fall in per capita income? Case in point.

Well, Japan's case shows the importance of a responsible fiscal policy.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
First you make a value judgement, then you say that such a value judgement is the only statement and position that should be made by anyone. That is just bias, not logic or debate. It's not even an argument, in fact.

Here is the difference between the US private system and Europe's public systems:

Quality healthcare in Country I is indeed provi outlined.


Okay, that is my logical presentation, feel free to rebut with your own.

A couple of major problems arise in Country I's approach.

Patient B invests heavily in his own education and job search and still finds that the only job he can get is barely more than minimum wage. (Turns out the job he trained for 25 years ago is now done completely by a machine). Or he gets a high-paying job but has a pre-existing condition and cannot afford the insurance. So in spite of having a chronic illness, he's stuck seeing mediocre Doctor C and only if its a dire emergency.

Country I chooses to focus on spending lots of money on preventive care. Patient B takes advantage of this to get frequent screenings so as to "catch things early". The screening indeed catches something early. It looks menacing, but after surgery is done, it turns out to be a benign cyst. But a major infection occurs because of the surgery, leaving the patient with a huge bill and permanent disfigurement - which the insurance company considers to be a pre-existing condition and refuses to cover.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
A couple of major problems arise in Country I's approach.

Patient B invests heavily in his own education and job search and still finds that the only job he can get is barely more than minimum wage. (Turns out the job he trained for 25 years ago is now done completely by a machine). Or he gets a high-paying job but has a pre-existing condition and cann ...[text shortened]... - which the insurance company considers to be a pre-existing condition and refuses to cover.

But what is the solution to these rare cases, and is the only way to nationalize healthcare? how much would that delay or restrict care for how many people? how much more deficit spending would it take? can we afford that right now of all times?

Originally posted by eljefejesus
But what is the solution to these rare cases, and is the only way to nationalize healthcare? how much would that delay or restrict care for how many people? how much more deficit spending would it take? can we afford that right now of all times?

Healthcare has already been heavily nationalized. And the private insurance industry already greatly restricts care. So those horses left the barn decades ago.

Medicare and Medicaid already deal with many of those "rare cases". The main issue involves the remainder of those cases -- that is, people who are chronically ill or at a high risk but are not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare, or poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. If, as you say, these cases are rare, then it shouldn't be that expensive to cover them - whether it be via some sort of public option, or via some sort of subsidy system.

I would argue that "now of all times" is when healthcare reform is especially important. With lots of people losing their jobs, the number of people losing their insurance is also going up. And with premiums rising rapidly, employers are going to have to cut back or stop covering their employees entirely in order to remain competitive and create jobs in a slow economy.

As for the deficit - there are any number of ways in which the government can cut back on benefits or programs that go to people who don't really need them. Maybe we can raise Medicare premiums for affluent seniors. Maybe we stop sending so many subsidies to big farmers that don't need them.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
Healthcare has already been heavily nationalized. And the private insurance industry already greatly restricts care. So those horses left the barn decades ago.

Medicare and Medicaid already deal with many of those "rare cases". The main issue involves the remainder of those cases -- that is, people who are chronically ill or at a high risk but are not ...[text shortened]... ent seniors. Maybe we stop sending so many subsidies to big farmers that don't need them.

Slippery slope, just because we have one massive entitlement program pushing us into deficits we can't afford doesn't mean we ought to expand the program or that it no longer matters if it's expanded.

Now of all times, we need better finances and to do so in a way as does not suffocate job creation through exorbitant taxes.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Slippery slope, just because we have one massive entitlement program pushing us into deficits we can't afford doesn't mean we ought to expand the program or that it no longer matters if it's expanded.

Now of all times, we need better finances and to do so in a way as does not suffocate job creation through exorbitant taxes.

What empirical relation is there between taxes and jobs?