Note that the Cato Institute had many positive things to say about the French, Swiss and Dutch systems, at least in comparison with the UK, Canada and much of southern Europe. The successful systems use ‘managed competition’, so the system is largely decentralized.
You listed several statistics that compared the US with several of the less successful programs in Europe. Did the Cato institute also provide these numbers for the more successful programs in Europe? The Cato paper shows that the Swiss are in some ways more market-oriented than the US.
I’m all for a decentralized system, where the control moves back to the providers rather than the insurers. I just see our current system as grossly inefficient any anything other than enriching drug and insurance companies.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If one can use the force of government to make me responsible for the health of another, is the recipient of government enforced charity also held responsible to me? Can we prohibit cigarettes, fast food (or all unhealthy diets), anal sex, alcohol, contact sports, etc? Do we need to enforce national helmet, knee/elbow pad, and leather riding clothing laws? Well, should we even allow motorcyles, when a car might be safer?
Or, is this responsibility a one way deal? From me (though I don’t want to participate at all) to someone else?[/quote]
Ummm, have we not seen laws against many of these things already. There are sodomy laws, there was Prohibition in the US, Little League is required to use hard helmets. In Iowa, cigarettes are prohibited in most public places. There are states that can or did require helmets for motorcycle riders.
Tying this these to universal health care seems like a straw man to me.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
If one can use the force of government to make me responsible for the health of another, is the recipient of government enforced charity also held responsible to me? Can we prohibit cigarettes, fast food (or all unhealthy diets), anal sex, alcohol, contact sports, etc? Do we need to enforce national helmet, knee/elbow pad, and leather riding clothing laws? Well, should we even allow motorcyles, when a car might be safer?
Or, is this responsibility a one way deal? From me (though I don’t want to participate at all) to someone else?
Ummm, have we not seen laws against many of these things already. There are sodomy laws, there was Prohibition in the US, Little League is required to use hard helmets. In Iowa, cigarettes are prohibited in most public places. There are states that can or did require helmets for motorcycle riders.
Tying this these to universal health care seems like a straw man to me.[/quote]
I don’t understand why it would be a strawman. I would have a direct and invested interest in the risky lifestyle choices of the people whose healtchare I’m forced to subsidize. Otherwise, I’m pretty much being told “Pay up and shut up.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand why it would be a strawman. I would have a direct and invested interest in the risky lifestyle choices of the people whose healtchare I’m forced to subsidize. Otherwise, I’m pretty much being told “Pay up and shut up.”[/quote]
I’m just saying that there are a lot of laws that we already subscribe to that interfere with how we live our lives. Some of this comes from lefties that want to require that we all contribute everything to the collective. Some comes from a type of conservative that wants to impose its morality on all of us. These have already existed before discussions of universal health care.
If we like it or not, we in the US are part of a society that has the most expensive health care in the world. I look at the world and see many other systems that cost a lot less. None of them are perfect, but the best of them seem quite a bit better than what we have.
These facts seem clear
market forces work
our system of health care is not really a market system, the insurance companies have too much power. they take your money when you are healthy and they can dump you when you are not and there isn’t much you can do about it. the power is too unequal.
European nations that have universal health care with market forces (even if they are ‘government run’ markets that are theoretically less efficient than a free market) are providing better care for less. Even the Cato institute said as much.
the US will simply not allow a free market in health care. we are not prepared to let people suffer and die if they cannot afford health care.
In light of that, discussions of the other risky behavior seem to be a bit off topic. But yes, once you accept the premise that we have to pay for each other’s risky behavior, it stands to reason that we should have say in limiting the costs we are now assuming. This is less than ideal, philosophically.
Cain asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The answer is a limited yes. Socialists don’t want to limit the yes, and libertarians say no. I think that the truth is messy and somewhere in the middle of either ideologically pure response. That is why I think that this question is political rather than philosophical.
Not to say people shouldn’t care about others they should, but the government should not force it. They are far too inefficient.
But there simply is not empirical evidence for your assumption that government is less efficient. Who pays the most (per capita) for health care, the US or Western Europeans? Which system delivers better health? Our current system is one of the least efficient (economically) of any system in the world. From an economic perspective, our current system is a huge burden on our economy. We are competing with Europeans that have lower health care costs than we do. We are constantly seeing US companies, like the Big Three, that are unable to compete with foreign competitors. A significant component of this cost difference is the cost of providing health care coverage for employees. We need cost effective health care for or long term economic competitiveness. The empirical evidence is clear, universal health care is more efficient.[/quote]
But with that statement you don’t understand my whole post.
Healthcare is a service.
It is not a mandatable right.
If you have been to a hospital and have not paid your bills they should have the right to refuse you.
Now if society wants to set up free clinics then they can ask for donations for such. but these things should not be forced and those who play by the rules should not be undercut or charged more for those who don’t.
Like if I go to a hospital and don’t pay my bill that hospital should be able to refuse me next time.
If you are a fat insulin resistant heart attack walking, we should not be forced to pay for your bypasses and medication.
People need to learn to be responsible and accountable for their actions, and they never will if we don’t allow them to. And those who are punished for their good behavior will start down that path as well.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand why it would be a strawman. I would have a direct and invested interest in the risky lifestyle choices of the people whose healtchare I’m forced to subsidize. Otherwise, I’m pretty much being told “Pay up and shut up.”
I’m just saying that there are a lot of laws that we already subscribe to that interfere with how we live our lives. Some of this comes from lefties that want to require that we all contribute everything to the collective. Some comes from a type of conservative that wants to impose its morality on all of us. These have already existed before discussions of universal health care.
If we like it or not, we in the US are part of a society that has the most expensive health care in the world. I look at the world and see many other systems that cost a lot less. None of them are perfect, but the best of them seem quite a bit better than what we have.
These facts seem clear
market forces work
our system of health care is not really a market system, the insurance companies have too much power. they take your money when you are healthy and they can dump you when you are not and there isn’t much you can do about it. the power is too unequal.
European nations that have universal health care with market forces (even if they are ‘government run’ markets that are theoretically less efficient than a free market) are providing better care for less. Even the Cato institute said as much.
the US will simply not allow a free market in health care. we are not prepared to let people suffer and die if they cannot afford health care.
In light of that, discussions of the other risky behavior seem to be a bit off topic. But yes, once you accept the premise that we have to pay for each other’s risky behavior, it stands to reason that we should have say in limiting the costs we are now assuming. This is less than ideal, philosophically.
Cain asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The answer is a limited yes. Socialists don’t want to limit the yes, and libertarians say no. I think that the truth is messy and somewhere in the middle of either ideologically pure response. That is why I think that this question is political rather than philosophical.[/quote]
I would argue the point that their healthcare systems do not provide better health care and many people in europe do not use the government provided healthcare they purchase their own, but I am not european only know what I am told by european counterparts at work.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Journeyman wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t understand why it would be a strawman. I would have a direct and invested interest in the risky lifestyle choices of the people whose healtchare I’m forced to subsidize. Otherwise, I’m pretty much being told “Pay up and shut up.”
I’m just saying that there are a lot of laws that we already subscribe to that interfere with how we live our lives. Some of this comes from lefties that want to require that we all contribute everything to the collective. Some comes from a type of conservative that wants to impose its morality on all of us. These have already existed before discussions of universal health care.
If we like it or not, we in the US are part of a society that has the most expensive health care in the world. I look at the world and see many other systems that cost a lot less. None of them are perfect, but the best of them seem quite a bit better than what we have.
These facts seem clear
market forces work
our system of health care is not really a market system, the insurance companies have too much power. they take your money when you are healthy and they can dump you when you are not and there isn’t much you can do about it. the power is too unequal.
European nations that have universal health care with market forces (even if they are ‘government run’ markets that are theoretically less efficient than a free market) are providing better care for less. Even the Cato institute said as much.
the US will simply not allow a free market in health care. we are not prepared to let people suffer and die if they cannot afford health care.
In light of that, discussions of the other risky behavior seem to be a bit off topic. But yes, once you accept the premise that we have to pay for each other’s risky behavior, it stands to reason that we should have say in limiting the costs we are now assuming. This is less than ideal, philosophically.
Cain asked, “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The answer is a limited yes. Socialists don’t want to limit the yes, and libertarians say no. I think that the truth is messy and somewhere in the middle of either ideologically pure response. That is why I think that this question is political rather than philosophical.
I would argue the point that their healthcare systems do not provide better health care and many people in europe do not use the government provided healthcare they purchase their own, but I am not european only know what I am told by european counterparts at work.
[/quote]
I am originally from England, so I can vouch for this being true in England and nowhere else. My aunt as MS and can’t afford private insurance so she uses the NHS. My cousin has a benign brain tumor and can afford private insurance.
I would go so far as to say that if Universal Healthcare becomes reality, I would no longer view the Federal Government as even pretending to honor the Constitution. Therefore, I would see the US government as an illegal entity, having completely failed to follow it’s contract.
There is a debate on this issue at Is The Government Responsible For Health Care? : NPR. The two debate teams use Oxford rules. Members include a recent Nobel Prize winner and a senior fellow at the Cato institute. It is quite long, 1h40m, but the content seems first rate.