Originally posted by wittywonkaBecause we are at a minimum point of a multidimensional shape. Any move in any direction will save money. But that doesn't mean that all movements in all directions will save an equal amount of money. Free markets always save the most money.
Why then has the CBO, not to mention a slew of state-level studies, consistently argued that national health care would save money?
Originally posted by KunsooIf they can undersell the private companies and still break even, great. But if they undersell private companies to force them out of business because they have the taxing power, then it's not competition. That's called predatory pricing and it would be illegal if a private company did it.
Well, that's the whole point. Economies of scale will allow them to "undersell" the private companies and put them out of business. Isn't that the point of competition?
I'm fine with parity in regulation, but if the federal government can offer a less expensive product, then how exactly does the consumer suffer from the loss of private insurance companies?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo my position is that using the cost of healthcare as some kind of magic card that trumps everything else is a dud. There are places with less state healthcare that are cheaper, there are places with more state health care which are dearer and every other possible combination.
Norway is much richer than the US, people have lots more to spend, yet health care is much cheaper. Is your position that there is so little "regulation" in Norway (there is universal health care in Norway) that the costs are reduced?
It's one of poopers favorite magic cards and it means nothing because there are as many other factors effecting the cost as there are people.
"How to Lie With Statistics" Darell Huff
When the stae takes on that control of a persons most private posession the state then becomes justified in expanding their control in oother areas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/8533896/Marmite-made-illegal-in-Denmark.html
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI said neither of the two alternatives you expressed for me.
[b]"There will always be those who will argue that one person's need justifies taking another's productive work to pay for it. This argument is both immoral, and destructive of human will, and incentives."
So then you're under the belief that someone who doesn't pay taxes (jobless, students, etc.) should not be allowed to utilize public road ...[text shortened]... You're saying people on Medicare and Medicaid are a bunch of irresonsible sloths? Wow.[/b]
"one person's need justifies taking another's productive work to pay for it."
Roads are funded, rightly by user fees (gasoline taxes, although some of that money is siphoned off to fund public transit, another injustice)
Public schools clearly aren't a bargain for anyone, except for the employees. Ultimate fairness would say that users ought to pay, that is parents. The fact that childless and elderly pay for schools, and the full burden doesn't fall on those who use them, detracts from the consumer pressure that should be present. Many low income parents take for granted it's free so why complain about the quality?
911? Police services are one basic service that is a proper government service, at the local level.
Sinjce article 1, sec. 8 and the 10th amendment severely limit federal responsibilities, DEA, FBI, BATF, and other federal cops aren't really required, other than perhaps ICE, and border patrol.
Your other distortion doesn't deserve a reply, however, the fact that something creates perverse and negative economic incentives doesn't mean that everyone goes along with them. When the benefits and cost of anything are separated and secret, most tend to accept the benefit, and disregard the cost as if it didn't exist.
On the other hand, most rational people accept that there is no free lunch, and that you can't have your cake and eat it to.
Originally posted by wittywonkaGreat! Government studies telling us their services will save us money. The most feared words ought to be "I'm from the government here to help you."
While I'd love to see some evidence supporting your first two assertions with respect to nationalized health care, I'll go ahead and say don't even bother with defending the third one.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_system_cost.php?page=all
If you aren't at least a bit sceptical about that type of claim, think about the advent of Medicare. The first year actual costs were 10x plus the budgeted estimates. Obama care promises to reduce the deficite.
Anyone who tells you that they can provide services to millions of new people, without any underwriting, and it will save money is promising a free lunch, and that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper"US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita."
Oh, so THAT explains why the US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html
Also, this is divided by the entire population. We have tens of millions without access to healthcare and this is compared to countries who cover everybody. I love how you call healthcare a "scheme." Given the recent firestorm over Ryan's plan, it seems seniors love that Medicare "scheme."
The US is the richest nation in the world, and more services are provided via our system, even though it is a system which already is compromised by single payer at both ends of the spectrum among the highest users of health care the poor and elderly, with tremendous amounts of fraud and waste in both Medicaid and Medicare.
A conman's dream is a government bureaucracy with altruistic motives and a pile of money, staffed by people who can't keep up with the paperwork and don't understand the regulations.
Originally posted by Kunsoo"Medicare IS single payer, and it outperforms the private insurance industry,"
Medicare IS single payer, and it outperforms the private insurance industry, which is why the industry killed the public option. They knew they couldn't compete.
Medicare is close to being broke. It relies on people being able to afford private insurance.
Do a carefull review of Medicare from it's beginings and you'll stop thirsting for single payer.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMy daughter works (RN) in a large Detroit hospital, which is flooded with Canadians who can't get health care in Canada.
I'd like to see that evidence, then.
I had cataract surgery twice in Windsor. The wait for Medicare is about 2 months, for Canadian Health care about six month. Cash in my pocket got it done next week.
Suppose you need dialysis, and are too old? or need it now, not later?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI am not specifically aquainted with Norway, but Norway can no more ignore economic law than the law of gravity.
Norway is much richer than the US, people have lots more to spend, yet health care is much cheaper. Is your position that there is so little "regulation" in Norway (there is universal health care in Norway) that the costs are reduced?
There are some factors which may play into lower costs, mostly differences in culture, and environment.
It is a silly argument anyway, on either side to compare relative costs under differing systems, differing cultures, differing work environments, too many variables to make valid comparisons.
You must ask, how does putting government in charge of anything make it more efficient and less expensive? You add multiple layers of bureaucracy, pages of regulations that an army of lawyers, and the Congress who wrote them can't understand or explain. You promise to cover the uninsured, and uninsurable, and it's going to cost less? Sounds like a fairy tale to me.
Originally posted by KunsooHundreds of drugs are in use outside of the USA years before FDA approval.
The other industrialized countries are much more regulated, and our average citizen has about the same amount of money to spend.
One difference is that our pharmaceutical industry spends an inordinate amount of money on marketing, which is why we have those annoying late night viagra ads.
Those Big Pharma companies spend billions in R & D, with dozens of failures for each success. Then after approval they get a limited time to recoup their investment. And their patent protection doesn't extend overseas, so generics of their drugs appear in parts of the world almost before they're out of the gate.
Originally posted by KunsooIf you were talking about the private sector or any part of it becoming a monopoly, you would be aghast. What about competition?
Well, that's the whole point. Economies of scale will allow them to "undersell" the private companies and put them out of business. Isn't that the point of competition?
I'm fine with parity in regulation, but if the federal government can offer a less expensive product, then how exactly does the consumer suffer from the loss of private insurance companies?
But the worst of all monopolies is a government monopoly, or a government sanctioned monopoly. It is the very least responsive to consumer pressure.
Originally posted by normbenign"The US is the richest nation in the world"
"US pays the highest healthcare costs in the world per capita."
The US is the richest nation in the world, and more services are provided via our system, even though it is a system which already is compromised by single payer at both ends of the spectrum among the highest users of health care the poor and elderly, with tremendous amounts of fraud and w ...[text shortened]... taffed by people who can't keep up with the paperwork and don't understand the regulations.
I provided per capita figures and per capita you are WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
"and more services are provided via our system"
Citation Required - Which services does the US provide that noone else does?
"even though it is a system which already is compromised by single payer at both ends of the spectrum among the highest users of health care the poor and elderly"
So the reason we pay double and more than countries that provide single payer for ALL is because we provide it for the poor and elderly?
"with tremendous amounts of fraud and waste in both Medicaid and Medicare"
Tremendous amounts? What are the facts and figures as compared to the rest of the modernized countries who provide healthcare for all?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperhttp://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/ according to his wording and the site I provided he is not wrong. I saw no one talking about per capita other than you.
[b]"The US is the richest nation in the world"
I provided per capita figures and per capita you are WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita
"and more services are provided via our system"
Citation Required - Which services does the US provide that noone else does?
"even though it ...[text shortened]... ures as compared to the rest of the modernized countries who provide healthcare for all?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
[b]"The US is the richest nation in the world"
I provided per capita figures and per capita you are WRONG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita