Now if we can only reform medical insurance...
I paid $30K in taxes last year. I don't quite understand why would I even have to think about terms like "insurance" and "money" when/if I get sick. I'm not an American, although I've been living here for 11 years, yet the thought of PAYING for medical care still feels shameful and medieval.
If there isn't enough money in the budget to pay doctors then start cutting: on "defense", on bureaucrats, I don't care. Medical care must be absolutely the highest priority federal expense: not a single government employee should be paid until the last US citizen who needs medical attention gets help.
But I digress...
The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.
A bloated health care industry that inflates prices on medical services, making "insurance" the only viable option for payment, seems like the main issue that demands reformation.
I have no idea where this sudden drop comes from. Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food? You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious. It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
Totally unnecessary to having a discussion. But I'll address your point:
> ...here we tend to look at each other as consumers and customers first, and human beings - second. What an unfortunate cultural difference, to say the least...
Many people who are opposed to the healthcare bill, including me, do care quite a lot about people. I've run charity events for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in the Stats and Great Ormond Street Children's in London. I donate to charity too, including trying to get a therapy dog program going in Tokyo.
With me so far? Okay, I care about people. I'm not looking at people as consumers or customers. I think the more say elected and appointed officials get over medicine, the worse medicine will be. Elected and appointed officials typically do a terrible job with any science, business, or production that they try to run. For every success story, there's 3-10 dramatic failures.
> Do you really have to be born somewhere else to clearly see the difference between healthcare and food?
They're both essential for survival. The difference is that we've made food very accessible, largely without the help of government. Medicine will get there too, given time.
In fact, over the counter medicines today are incredibly powerful by historical standards. The fact that we can get anti-inflammatories and mild topical steroids over the counter is incredible. We'd be able to get antibiotics too, if it wasn't for the government legislation requiring prescriptions. It's rationalized by saying people could abuse or mistake antibiotics, leading to more antibiotic-resistant strains of diseases. But this hasn't been found to be true in countries with over the counter antibiotics.
> You don't charge people who are scared, in pain or unconscious.
1. The vast majority of medicine isn't trauma medicine, it's fairly routine and predictable thing that you can make educated, thought out judgment calls on.
2. Doctors need to get paid like anyone else to practice their profession. Someone needs to pay them.
3. I'm unwilling to pay for other people's medicine under threat of force. I will actually pay for someone's medicine in some circumstances - I'll run a charity event, donate money, help out a friend or relative. But I do not accept being mandated to buy insurance, pay a tax, or be arrested. I think it's bad for me as an individual and bad for society.
> It's like urinating in public or having sex with your sister: does it need to be explained why you don't do that?
Look, I've seen your comments. People reply to you with intelligent points. Do you care? You talk past people, you ignore their points and respond with more rhetoric.
--
My points:
1. Doctors need to be paid to practice their profession.
2. I'm unwilling to pay doctors for other people's medicine under threat of force for failing to do so. You're willing to have me arrested for refusing to play along?
That's the argument. I want healthy people too. I care about society. I've done more to help sick people I don't know than the vast majority of people stumping for government run healthcare. But I think it's wrong on an individual and societal level.
That's the main disagreement right there: in what is the role of a government and what is a function of any modern society. If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion. It's like with evolution vs intelligent design: you quickly hit a wall which can't be cracked by any arguments from any side due to the fundamental difference in beliefs.
Even under the pressure from overwhelming evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform#United_States) you keep believing that a social medicine is "bad for society".
And just to answer your question, yes - I would have you arrested. Refusing to "play along" and letting your fellow citizens die is a borderline murder.
> If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion.
Your conclusion is that automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen. You say that there's no intelligent discussion if I don't accept that, and compare not believing it to believing in creationism.
I don't accept that medicine provided by others under threat of force is a fundamental right. I have well thought positions on this.
> And just to answer your question, yes - I would have you arrested.
I do respect that. I mean it scares the hell out of me, but at least you'll say it. Most people won't bite that bullet. I disagree on the borderline murder thing, because I don't think being born in the same place as someone makes you morally accountable to protect them without any say on your part or agreement between you.
But seriously - I don't want to be part of this system. I don't agree that being born in the same place as me makes me accountable for your life without my agreeing to be.
But you say:
"If you don't believe that an automatic medical treatment is a basic right of any citizen then there won't ever be an intelligent discussion."
If you can't intelligently discuss this with me not agreeing with your conclusion, then it'd be kind of useless for me to continue huh? In fact, I reckon that no matter how many suggestions I put forth on a better way to save people's lives than a government run medical system, I don't think I'd change your mind.
Is it possible? Should I bother trying to explain, in that there's a chance I'd change your mind?
It has been my experience, that no matter how smart and civilized, folks quickly start to sound ugly when it comes to health care. Take guests on Bill Maher show, for example. Proponents of a single payer system like myself quickly get called "communists" and it goes only down from there.
But sure, I am curious to hear how are you going to lower the cost of knee MRI exam from $1,100 to $80 (US vs Japan). You can even drop me a line if you want, my email is in my profile.
But I take your point. Medical care doesn't have a higher priority, but its nature makes it a more important issue for government to deal with. The statistical nature of medical costs is that the vast majority of people cannot prepare for the worst without buying into an insurance plan of some sort. Food costs, although they can go up a lot during crises, never reach such heights. Barring a severe depression or massive food shortages -- which it should be noted affect everyone, not just a small portion of the population -- people living above poverty can shift their budgets to be able to afford food even if the price goes up 50%. Hardly anyone can modify their budget to be able to afford bypass surgery or treatment for cancer.
However, another side to the issue is that the government already interferes substantially in food costs and food policy. There are substantial subsidies paid to corn and soy farmers, for instance, driving consumer costs of many food products below the actual costs of production if you take away government subsidies.
Everyone who needs health care should be able to obtain it. Most people in developed countries can already obtain health care. Why insert the government into the situation where it isn't needed? Any time you disconnect the amount paid for goods and services from the receipt of those things, the market (i.e. mass human psychology) will work less efficiently. Perhaps the price the government decides to pay will be less than is needed to convince enough people to provide the services in question, resulting in a shortage.
Subsidize health care for those who can't afford it. Everyone else should pay their own way privately. Similar changes should be made to the other non-public goods we subsidize, like roads, transit and education.
1. Why is medical care the highest priority? What about food? Shelter? Safety from rape, murder, and other forms of violence? What about electricity, water, and other infrastructure? While most people don't get very sick, pretty much everyone needs the things above. Why should medical care be the highest priority federal expense?
2. You think it's barbaric to think about paying for medical care, but guess what: you do pay for it. Everyone does. Your "right" to healthcare is not free; someone has to pay for it. And because you think you're entitled to that free of charge, someone else out there is having money taken from them under the threat of force so that you don't have to worry about healthcare. The right to private property far outweighs the right to healthcare, according to the US Constitution, but your system reverses this relationship.
3. The decoupling of supply and demand in the type of system we're about to pass is likely to result in dramatically higher costs and lower quality care over the long run, not to mention the fact that we have no way of paying for it. Granted, our current system is screwed up, but this is far from a fix. This is just moving further in a bad direction.
EDIT: Added a third item :)
I agree with the post you are replying to. I think if people didn't have to worry about whether or not their health was at stake, they could make better decisions about the work they do. They'd be more productive and worry less and have more brain waves to devote to a better life.
People seem to complain a lot saying the government can't do things well. But they run our defense industry and it's the best in the world. They run the roads and we have plenty to drive on. They control the dams and those aren't breaking. Many are lasting way longer than they thought. Furthermore, plenty of governments around the world run their health care systems and they get better care for less money than Americans do.
Disagree? Quick! Who's the supplier and who's the consumer in the present system? It's not the patients.
At the root of this viewpoint is the understanding that the citizens of a nation depend upon each other and have a duty to each other.
This is clearly at odds with the modern American viewpoint which declares each individual to be utterly responsible for his own welfare. As Americans we are not in this together, we are each struggling separately.
And it is readily apparent that we are willing to sacrifice any principle on the altar of our individualism. This country (my country) openly condones torture, the bombing of civilian populations, extrajudicial imprisonment and the murder of political dissidents; all in the name of Individual Liberty.
It is less surprising that we cannot do what most of Europe regards as the sane and sanitary solution to ensuring the health of the nation; and more surprising that we aren't busy legalizing the hunting of the homeless and the use of the indigent as pet food.
I understand the point that you're trying to make, but you're misrepresenting things. American culture is decidedly more individualistic than Europe's, but its unfair to characterize us as "not in it together", either as a whole or when referring to the libertarian argument that you're attempting to refute. There's no honor in being forced to watch out for your neighbor, and in the long run, it creates problems of moral hazard where you expect that someone should be taking care of whatever problem you have at the moment.
This country (my country) openly condones torture, the bombing of civilian populations, extrajudicial imprisonment and the murder of political dissidents; all in the name of Individual Liberty.
This is where you really lost me. Those things have not been done in the name or spirit of individual liberty. Quite the opposite: they represent an egregious breach of the individual liberties we're entitled to under the Constitution. Not sure how you managed to twist this issue up to be an example in your mind of the supposed dangers of individual liberty.
...and more surprising that we aren't busy legalizing the hunting of the homeless and the use of the indigent as pet food.
Thanks for making my point about over-the-top rhetoric. Have you been to Europe, by the way? I lived there for years, and they've got their own set of problems, I assure you.
As such the systematic dismantling of our policies to prevent torture and hold torturers accountable; our eager rush into aggressive war and our continuing efforts to thwart prosecution of our own war criminals is perfectly comprehensible in the defense of the Rugged Individualist Lifestyle.
I am sorry that I did not adequately communicate the biting sarcasm that I habitually apply to our political discourse, or the barely repressed anger that I feel in my forced complicity in the crimes of America. In such light I think that your inability to see the swiftian satire I intended to lighten the last line of my last post is perfectly comprehensible.
2. Yes it is barbaric to pay for medical care yet I realize that doctors need to get paid, this is why I mentioned my taxes. Perhaps I should have said that it's barbaric to run for-profit businesses that capitalize on people's illness, especially when businesses don't actually treat people, i.e. like insurance companies.
3. The decoupling of supply and demand has already happened: this is why you don't see Cuban and Indian doctors on H1bs diagnosing influenza and stomach flu for $50. This decoupling is also the reason why the same drug/med. equipment costs significantly more in US than anywhere in Europe.
Lastly, I want to confess that usually I don't get much into politics but I've posted my previous comment under influence of circumstances: I am self-employed, I pay $920/mo for good health insurance for my family, yet when I got pneumonia two weeks ago, they still took $120 out of my pocket which went towards 20 minutes interacting with medical personnel and 1 pack of antibiotics. This is insane, absolutely insane.
http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009....
In car collisions, pain and suffering is a scary demand. In emergency medical care, all those fancy machines to figure out what is going on with my body right now is likewise rather expensive.
A long term plan to adopt a good diet, exercise, stretch, brush my teeth, etc. is a relatively easy way to avoid paying for large amounts of medical care. And, I am fortunate enough not to have any major body/mind disability.