(not my title, article title) Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

[gwydion75]

Really? You aren't aware of the disparity in per capita health care spending between the US and every other industrialized nation on earth? That includes the consumer cost at the window, the cost monthly for the service/insurance, and the tax per capita. I thought my statement was pretty common knowledge.

For you to read: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person

Specifically note these are PPP dollars, so the differences have cost of living and everything already weighted in to them, allowing for a direct comparison. As you can clearly see not only do we pay more, we pay a LOT more.

If you need more sources I can provide you with about 1,000 more that will say the same thing.

Spending > Per person 4,271 [1st of 133]
Definition: Health > Spending > Per person
Spending > Private 7.1 [3rd of 141]
Definition: Health > Spending > Private
Spending > Public 5.7% (1999)
Definition: Health > Spending > Public

The site doesn't adequately define "Spending", actually, at least on the front end. I'll go ahead and do some more research to make/break your case for you.

There's a View All stats area, which is rather revealing. Would you look at that, we're already 3rd in Public Health Care Spending. At least now we'll be #1 there, too, which is all we really want. To be #1!

I consider dubious any source that says 1 in 4 women have HIV, btw. But that's just a side -note.

Health care funding > Private per capita $2,580.00 per capita [1st of 25]
Definition: Health > Health care funding > Private per capita
Health care funding > Public per capita $2,051.00 per capita [3rd of 25]
Definition: Health > Health care funding > Public per capita
Health care funding > Total per capita $4,631.00 per capita [1st of 25]

There's some ADDITIONAL information. So now I can't tell which one's accurate, since they're different, but all from the same "source".

But wait, there's more. I decided to delve deeper into your claim of "cheaper health care" at the other countries. Switzerland's had universal health care for some time, but since its inception, the % of GDP used has risen steadily.

Switzerland spent 11.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health in 2003, against the OECD average of 8.8%. The cost has been increasing steadily in Switzerland, rising by 2.4% of GDP between 1990 and 2004, above the OECD average increase of 1.5%. http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,2340,en_2649_201185_37562223_1_1_1_1,00.html

The OECD had this to say about Norway's Universal Health Care in 2004:

The cost of health services delivery, however, has risen faster than expected. The current financing system falls short of aligning incentives of health care providers and patients with social objectives. Downward pressure on prices and costs from greater competition is a missed opportunity in the hospital and pharmaceutical sectors.

The OECD also indicates that since the "Act of Patients Rights" in 1999, %GDP costs have steadily risen in Norway.

I simply can't find the data to support the claim that costs will go down. Sure, we'll have to take less out of our wallet. But that's because it will be taken out before it gets there. Through taxation and inflation.

After all this you've yet to address how increasing taxes and demand will lower healthcare costs per capita in the US. You've also managed to avoid the loss of liberty you get when people are forced to do something by the overlords at the barrel of a gun. All this without even discussing quality of service, which will also be reduced.

As a libertarian, it does appall me when people say "Norway's very satisfied with their UHC!". Being taxed by force to provide others a service is the opposite of what I consider freedom. I'm not sure anyone's answered yet why the government should provide health care in the first place. Are they exceptional health practitioners? What's their track record? They got involved, they screwed everything up, and now we're begging them to act again. Repeal the tax break, or better yet, provide citizens with an equal tax break for health expenses. Put the individual back in a place of competition, instead of GUARANTEEING ensuring that only groups (employers and unions), can get the discounted services.

 

[gwydion75]

I saw a couple posts about how people who oppose Universal Health Care are "for the insurance companies". It's just shallow to believe that's true. Dig a little deeper. Harness that inner fart you use to find the keys on the keyboard and consider that we're not happy with the current system either.

The current system, if you'd do a little research, is not remotely close to a free-market, and hasn't resembled one for 60 years. "Managed Care" created by government tax subsidies given at the behest of lobbyists when companies were trying to provide "Extras" due to wage freezes. This destroyed any hope an individual or family could have of competing with prices against the business "Group Care". When medicine turned into "Managed Health Care", the consumer was no longer apprised of the bills/cost. This lack of downward pressure, along with burgeoning demand, as we were now able to go see the doctor for every bruise and blister for almost nothing, caused prices to skyrocket.

I'm trying to find any semblance of free market in that paragraph. I see a lot of sound economic principles being played out, but obviously so, to anyone who'd look. Get rid of the subsidy. Return health care decisions to the consumer, and I assure you prices will drop like a rock, and we'll all get paid more money for our work instead of being tied to jobs for fear of losing our benefits.

PS. The "turnover security" companies get for providing lucrative health benefits will be removed. People won't have to stay for 20 years to get that golden medical parachute offered by some employers. This will increase competition between employers in the jobs market. The'll have to pay higher wages to compensate for peoples unwillingness to stay for their crappy pay.

 

[Patranus]

I thought the Democrats were all about *choice* when it comes to their bodies and medical decisions. Where is my *choice* in not buying medical insurance?

Typical hypocritical Liberals.

By the way, word on the street is that you cannot legislate responsibility.

 

[fskimospy]

Spending > Per person 4,271 [1st of 133]
Definition: Health > Spending > Per person
Spending > Private 7.1 [3rd of 141]
Definition: Health > Spending > Private
Spending > Public 5.7% (1999)
Definition: Health > Spending > Public

The site doesn't adequately define "Spending", actually, at least on the front end. I'll go ahead and do some more research to make/break your case for you.

There's a View All stats area, which is rather revealing. Would you look at that, we're already 3rd in Public Health Care Spending. At least now we'll be #1 there, too, which is all we really want. To be #1!

I consider dubious any source that says 1 in 4 women have HIV, btw. But that's just a side -note.

Health care funding > Private per capita $2,580.00 per capita [1st of 25]
Definition: Health > Health care funding > Private per capita
Health care funding > Public per capita $2,051.00 per capita [3rd of 25]
Definition: Health > Health care funding > Public per capita
Health care funding > Total per capita $4,631.00 per capita [1st of 25]

There's some ADDITIONAL information. So now I can't tell which one's accurate, since they're different, but all from the same "source".

But wait, there's more. I decided to delve deeper into your claim of "cheaper health care" at the other countries. Switzerland's had universal health care for some time, but since its inception, the % of GDP used has risen steadily.



The OECD had this to say about Norway's Universal Health Care in 2004:


The OECD also indicates that since the "Act of Patients Rights" in 1999, %GDP costs have steadily risen in Norway.

I simply can't find the data to support the claim that costs will go down. Sure, we'll have to take less out of our wallet. But that's because it will be taken out before it gets there. Through taxation and inflation.

After all this you've yet to address how increasing taxes and demand will lower healthcare costs per capita in the US. You've also managed to avoid the loss of liberty you get when people are forced to do something by the overlords at the barrel of a gun. All this without even discussing quality of service, which will also be reduced.

As a libertarian, it does appall me when people say "Norway's very satisfied with their UHC!". Being taxed by force to provide others a service is the opposite of what I consider freedom. I'm not sure anyone's answered yet why the government should provide health care in the first place. Are they exceptional health practitioners? What's their track record? They got involved, they screwed everything up, and now we're begging them to act again. Repeal the tax break, or better yet, provide citizens with an equal tax break for health expenses. Put the individual back in a place of competition, instead of GUARANTEEING ensuring that only groups (employers and unions), can get the discounted services.

Well I had a long response that the computer ate, so I'll keep this one short.

Your quotes and figures that you got from that site don't address the question. So what if Switzerland's costs have risen? Is it still cheaper? Yes, by quite a bit. So what if Norway has missed a chance to contain costs better? It's still vastly cheaper than ours for similar quality.

The question is (and always will be), 'what is the most efficient system to provide health care'? In this case, socialized systems are far more efficient than ours. This is indisputable, and if you don't like the numbers from that site go look it up yourself on one of a dozen others. You will not find one single solitary source that says anything other than that the US pays far and away more than any other country for health care.

It looks like you're having problems with the fact that you've run into inconvenient facts that don't fit with your ideology. You're probably getting a slightly uncomfortable feeling in your head when you look at the figures as you try to square the two. The free market is great at solving most problems, but it's not so great at solving health care. The asymmetry of information and motivation between provider and providee make for a situation where a free market cannot operate effectively.

As for the libertarianism, I won't address that other than to say that I find it impossible to take libertarianism seriously. In my opinion it is an ideology that takes refuge in the knowledge that it never has to worry about its policy positions actually being implemented.

 

[gwydion75]

Well I had a long response that the computer ate, so I'll keep this one short.

Your quotes and figures that you got from that site don't address the question. So what if Switzerland's costs have risen? Is it still cheaper? Yes, by quite a bit. So what if Norway has missed a chance to contain costs better? It's still vastly cheaper than ours for similar quality.

The question is (and always will be), 'what is the most efficient system to provide health care'? In this case, socialized systems are far more efficient than ours. This is indisputable, and if you don't like the numbers from that site go look it up yourself on one of a dozen others. You will not find one single solitary source that says anything other than that the US pays far and away more than any other country for health care.

It looks like you're having problems with the fact that you've run into inconvenient facts that don't fit with your ideology. You're probably getting a slightly uncomfortable feeling in your head when you look at the figures as you try to square the two. The free market is great at solving most problems, but it's not so great at solving health care. The asymmetry of information and motivation between provider and providee make for a situation where a free market cannot operate effectively.

As for the libertarianism, I won't address that other than to say that I find it impossible to take libertarianism seriously. In my opinion it is an ideology that takes refuge in the knowledge that it never has to worry about its policy positions actually being implemented.

You can't speculate at all as to why their costs have gone up? You're making grand assumptions that because they started lower, and remain lower, that ours will go down, instead of up like every other example one can find.

You're entering into the discussion with a bunch of countries that are starting lower on the GDP, and fantasizing that we'll drop to that level of GDP magically, without any basis for your claim. Their costs did not drop once universal healthcare was implemented. They weren't as high to begin with. We're the ones that implemented subsidies to protect the Managed Health Care system, forever breaking any relationship it once had to the free market. Your assumptions of "the free market" not efficiently handling health care has not had very good examples in decades. That is unless you take a look at plastic surgery and laser eye surgery.

It seems, magically, that since the Managed Health Care industry is not involved in either area, that costs have come down. My best friend just paid cash for his lasik, and because he waited a year, and shopped around, he spent half as much as he had initially budgetted.

The free market works fine, when it's allowed to. I'm not sure what you have against reducing taxes and reducing health care costs. You've provided no data to prove that Universal Health Care REDUCES costs. I've provided data, from your own sources, to prove that Universal Health Care or Socialized Medicine INCREASES costs.

As for Libertarianism being an ideology, of course it is. Everything's an ideology. As for it taking refuge in the notion that it's policies will never come to pass? Yeah, I take refuge. I take such solice in watching liberty fade, costs rise, and hope for the future dwindle, while people blindly follow two parties with little ideological difference, conspiring to control the country, and benefit while doing so.

It's disgusting to conceive that anyone would take refuge in that.