It's not about health care or insurance. It's about expanding the power of government and politicians. It's about expanding the power of the state and socialism as fawning sycophants breathlessly engage in hero worship. Full stop.
Gillespie has a good video too about the voluntary lack of insurance on Reason.TV
muirgeoJune 19, 2009 at 4:43 pm
OK so he has addressed 40% of the voluntarily uninsured. Kinda… I guess sorta.. a little bit. Assuming they can afford as much as a 25% reduction in their family incomes (assuming after tax dollars) and assuming he's addressed the possibility that some of these people can not get insurance do to pre-existing condition… assuming those things I think it's fair to say he addressed those 4 of 10 uninsured.
But my interest in the article right after reading the title was in how he would choose to address the other 60% of "chosen uninsured".
Did I miss it? Or maybe he missed it?
Amazing how some one could think they've spotted a solution that leaves 24 million people to the whims of nature and totally ignored.
Again… sometimes I don't think people are looking at how their position might play out in the real world.
Where's the market and price mechanism come in for 3 year old with pre-B cell leukemia???
It's simply a position of cold-hearted callousness that feels 400 on top making 1.7 trillion a year is OK even if it means letting millions die untreated.
So I hate to seem so confrontational but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures? Do you want them to just die? It's a totally fair question.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It's simply a position of cold-hearted callousness that feels 400 on top making 1.7 trillion a year is OK even if it means letting millions die untreated.
In which country is this happening?
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 5:00 pm
10s of millions of people are going to die of old age this year. Many millions will die in countries with "UNIVERSAL" health care, I wonder what the government has done to stop the never ending epidemic.
Think about it: Of the 40-something million without insurance, some marginal cases among them do not purchase insurance because the premiums are too high.
Among these are many young people who a)make less money, and, b)can afford to pass on insurance if it's too high.
Now, one of the reasons their insurance may be too high is because in order to qualify for the tax deduction, the entire employee base falls into a single risk pool.
Thus, some number of healthy, young, lower-paid employees go without insurance because it's really just a mechanism to force them to pay for older less-healthy co-workers who just happen to work for the same employer and fall into the same federally-created risk pool.
Now, the irony is that these healthy hold-outs are being counted as part of the reason we need universal healthcare.
In other words, some of the 47 million are simply trying to escape employer-based socialized medicine, and so the libs want to "help" them by imposing nationally socialized medicine.
So I hate to seem so confrontational but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures? Do you want them to just die? It's a totally fair question.
In the case of diabetes, you misspelled "diet" and forgot about exercise. That'll fix a good chunk of the problem.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 6:15 pm
BoscoH,
he was talking about children. I don't think type I diabetes is caused by lack of excercise. It can happen to a really small infant.
But the deception in muirgeo's statement is in his 25 million number. It gives the reader the impression that there are 25 million poor parents with diabetic children, with no medical insurance.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Where's the market and price mechanism come in for 3 year old with pre-B cell leukemia???
What are you implying? enlighten us on this pre-B cell leukemia.
Assuming that it is a rare disease contracted by a tiny percentage of the population, the ideal thing to do would be to not divert any resources for finding a cure for it. It is better that the best available chemists & scientists spend their time on finding a cure for diabetes.
muirgeoJune 19, 2009 at 7:08 pm
In which country is this happening?
Posted by: S Andrews
The one you are proposing? Who is gonna pay for the child with diabetes who has no insurance? You didn't answer the question.
Right now we pay for that child when they show up in the emergency room and then after the family goes bankrupt we pay for their Medicaid. Is that what you are proposing?
If so you are like me proposing a govenment solution but a horribly ineffecient and costly one.
DanoJune 19, 2009 at 7:13 pm
"Assuming they can afford as much as a 25% reduction in their family incomes (assuming after tax dollars)" Muirgeo.
Well as one of the commentators on the other blog point out, health care taxes for universal care in Canada are 21% for a person earning $35,000. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the premiums Mark Perry Quotes are before tax.
"So I hate to seem so confrontational but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures?" Muirego
So 100% of these people are going to come down with diabetes or seizures?
muirgeoJune 19, 2009 at 7:16 pm
But the deception in muirgeo's statement is in his 25 million number. It gives the reader the impression that there are 25 million poor parents with diabetic children, with no medical insurance.
Posted by: S Andrews
Epidemiologically out of 25 million people there will be at least a half million on a yearly basis who will die with out expensive treatment they can not afford. Sorry if my deception made you feel bad… I hope the real numbers make you sleep better at night.
Thise kind of numbers multiplied over 10 years will put you in the range of a Hitler or a Stalin… and all for the sake of defending liberty!!! What a great human you are.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Who is gonna pay for the child with diabetes who has no insurance?
Their church members, their extended family, neighbours, friends, other charitable organization, and they themselves, who all will have a lot more money if the parasites in the government were sucking away the fruits of their hard work.
MarcJune 19, 2009 at 7:18 pm
his interpretation of the data is wrong. The numbers is not thousands of people, but number of people in the sample without insurance.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 7:19 pm
What a great human you are.
I would any day compare the percentage of my income I give away to organization who don't benefit me monetarily with yours.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Epidemiologically out of 25 million people there will be at least a half million on a yearly basis who will die with out expensive treatment they can not afford. Sorry if my deception made you feel bad… I hope the real numbers make you sleep better at night.
Your deception would make anyone with IQ over room temperature sick. I sleep very well @ night. Bleeding hearts will never succeed in sending me on a guilt trip.
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Thise kind of numbers multiplied over 10 years will put you in the range of a Hitler or a Stalin… and all for the sake of defending liberty!!! What a great human you are.
Stalin, despicable government agent that you worship, provided universal all care. Doesn't that make you ecstatic? Hitler was a national socialist. You are in good company.
Hayek_in_BoulderJune 19, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Any kind of analysis (empirical or political) of the CPS data must take into consideration that the CPS categorizes responses as "uninsured" if the responder did not have insurance AT ANY TIME during the year in question. IMHO, policy discussions must examine how long people are uninsured.
Check out the CBO report How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long, May 2003.
Interesting policy suggestion from the CBO:
"One might think that a program to expand insurance coverage among low-income people would primarily benefit the long-term uninsured. But CBO's analysis shows that 42 percent of uninsured spells among people with income below 200 percent of the poverty level end within four months, while only about one-third last more than a year."
MethinksJune 19, 2009 at 9:21 pm
"Where's the market and price mechanism come in for 3 year old with pre-B cell leukemia???"
Roughly 5400 people (of ALL ages) are diagnosed with pre-B cell Leukemia every year. That's an ASTOUNDING 0.0018% of the population. HORROR! Because of this incomprehensibly low number we surely need to force everyone to subjugate themselves to the government.
Epidemiologically out of 25 million people there will be at least a half million on a yearly basis who will die with out expensive treatment they can not afford.
Assuming it's not your usual hyperbole (probably a crap assumption), they will die. They will die faster with socialized medicine. They will either die or we will bankrupt the entire country in a desperate attempt to practice hail mary medicine. No country with socialized medicine has ever provided expensive treatments.
Thise kind of numbers multiplied over 10 years will put you in the range of a Hitler or a Stalin… and all for the sake of defending liberty!!! What a great human you are.
So, are you downsizing your life so that you can give every penny that doesn't go to the barest necessities to these people who are going to DIE if a selfish bastard like you doesn't give up everything but bread and water to pay for their treatments? Are YOU doing four hours daily of pro-bono work to save their lives since you ARE a DOCTOR, after all. If the people who can afford it should pay the most, then the people who have the skills should do the most without payment. You have what people need and they have a right to what you have. Health care is a right, yeah? If you aren't doing those things, why not? Why don't you live what you preach? Don't bother answering that, hypocrite.
Some people may let them die rather than commit the sin of Theft on their behalf to preserve liberty. But, you're letting them die because your kid wants an i-pod. How disgusting you are.
The truth is your statistics, like everything else you spew, are crap. People will die regardless of treatment. Even people who can afford treatment will die because treatment doesn't always work and if it does work, it often prolongs their suffering for a few more years at great expense until they die. Meanwhile, the living face bleak lives and a hopeless future because their labour is taxed to pay for it. And let's face, Morongeo, if cancer really wants to kill you, it will. No amount of treatment will stop it. That's the biggest lesson from cancer research. In fact, the limits of treatment are the biggest lesson of medical research lately.
You want to save lives? Let people sell their organs. As always, free markets are the solution.
You're a crap doctor.
RandyJune 19, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Muirgeo,
"…but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures? Do you want them to just die? It's a totally fair question."
It is a fair question. I'll give you a fair answer. If it were my child, I would do whatever I could to save her. I would ask for help and greatly appreciate any assistance that anyone would offer. But I would not demand, nor use the misfortune as a rationalization for exploiting others.
MethinksJune 19, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I would do whatever I could to save her.
When I wanted something I couldn't afford, I got a second job and I always saved in good times – just in case. When did asking people to provide for themselves become evil and stealing became holy? The trouble with all of these emotional arguments is that, in reality, socialized medicine is more costly, and those people will still not get the care they need. It's a lie.
RandyJune 19, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Methinks,
Its a rationalization. You nailed it in your first comment. It's about expanding the power of government and politicians.
muirgeoJune 19, 2009 at 9:56 pm
"They will die faster with socialized medicine. They will either die or we will bankrupt the entire country in a desperate attempt to practice hail mary medicine."
Here is what Wikipedia says about #1 in your list – Macao: There are no western-style medical schools in Macau and thus all aspiring physicians in Macau have to obtain their education and qualification elsewhere
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Here is what CIA factbook says about #2 in the list
Tourism, the mainstay of Andorra's tiny, well-to-do economy, accounts for more than 80% of GDP. An estimated 11.6 million tourists visit annually, attracted by Andorra's duty-free status and by its summer and winter resorts. Andorra's comparative advantage has recently eroded as the economies of neighboring France and Spain have been opened up, providing broader availability of goods and lower tariffs. The banking sector, with its partial "tax haven" status, also contributes substantially to the economy.
Here is what WHO says about Andorra's health care system
In spite of Andorra’s small size, it has historically had a rather decentralized
health care system. This tradition was partly a response to the difficulty of
communication among the various valleys and parishes of this mountainous
country. During recent decades, however, the country has been moving in the
direction of a more centralized system as a result of improved communications
and the perceived need to develop a more comprehensive, coordinated approach
to health care. Until the 1980s, central regulation was practically non-existent,
and both the communes and the physicians acted as independent health care
providers. From the 1980s on, and especially since the creation of the Ministry
of Health in 1993, health care regulations have been systematized and more
services have been placed under the administrative responsibility of SAAS.
There has been some debate about increasing the degree of decentralization in
the Andorran health care system. The increasing importance of health centres
could be seen as a manifestation of this.
GamutJune 19, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Genius Muirgeo,
Now that you have that chart up, bring up the other one on obesity, and please explain to me how citizens of your country, so bitterly deprived of socialised medicine, manage to even stay on that chart given your activity level and calorie intake.
You chart expresses nothing other than the remarkable fact that obesity, though the number one cause of premature death, hardly manages to put a dent in the life expectancy of the lucky people who manage to partake in the bounty of medical care your country provides.
GamutJune 19, 2009 at 10:28 pm
To put it more simply:
Thanks to a spectacular medical economoy, despite stuffing themselves with burgers and pop, something I would LOVE to do daily, and sitting around watching TV citizens of the U.S.A. manage to outlive most of the civilised world.
What the hell are you trying to fix?
S AndrewsJune 19, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Gamut says… Thanks to a spectacular medical economoy, despite stuffing themselves with burgers and pop, something I would LOVE to do daily, and sitting around watching TV citizens of the U.S.A. manage to outlive most of the civilised world.
Exactly! Two other important points ( among many ) come to my mind that will affect the life expectacy.
1) Violent crimes due to war on drugs – which causes premature death on the streets ( on a different note, higher incarcerate rates, on a smaller level, higher capital punishment rate ).
2) Heavy subsidization of automobile culture by a government heavily in the hands of Unions of the type of UAW – and subsidization businesses that support Unions like those of detroit. I suggest that one visit the blog marketurbanism.com for an austrian take on this issue. Which causes unnecessary obesity, even in the case of the quack doctor muirgeo himself.
K AckermannJune 20, 2009 at 2:59 am
What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment.
What of the 6 million people recently unemployed due to the financial crisis?
Are they supposed to buy into Cobra with their no money?
So what is the concensus on health coverage? Should it remain the same as it is?
Is there a good reason health care costs (inflation adjusted) double every 10 years or so?
John DeweyJune 20, 2009 at 4:39 am
K Ackermann: "What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment."
Consider a different view.
I don't see anything "insane" about employers negotiating sharply lower health insurance rates for their large number of employees.
I don't see anything "insane" about employers using their negotiating power to induce employee retention.
If employees generally prefer that employers negotiate with health insurers on their behalf, what's the problem?
Well, the problem has been that employer based insurance benefits are not subject to income taxes. But when workers use after tax income to purchase individual insurance policies, they do not receive the same fa vorable tax treatment.
Isn't the obvious solution the simplest one? Just allow the full deduction of health insurance premiums.
muirgeoJune 20, 2009 at 4:45 am
"The trouble with all of these emotional arguments is that, in reality, socialized medicine is more costly, and those people will still not get the care they need. It's a lie."
methinks
In other words, Gamut, Westerners could live to be 100 years old or so if they could be bothered to eat healthful food and actually exercised. But prefer a sugar-laden lifesytle and live up to be 50 or so?
The reason why the prices of medical care are rising faster than prices in other sectors of the economy is:
1) Because government restrictions on the number of providers and regulation induced barriers to entry lead to a decreased supply, resulting in higher market clearing prices.
2) Because government subsidies in care, notably medicare and medicaid, raise the market clearing prices.
3) Because government tax policy, encouraging third party payments and employer provisioning of medical care, reduces free market competition and makes provisioning of medical care less certain than it otherwise would be.
"Just allow the full deduction of health insurance premiums."
Agreed. In conjuction with removing government restrictions on plans. Let people choose they need. I would also have the government reimburse hospitals for mandated care expenses. Then have the government collect from people who have the ability to pay but have chosen not to.
K Ackermann: "What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment."
That's your fault. Liberals keep it that way. You vote for liberals. Do the math.
LowcountryJoeJune 20, 2009 at 9:51 am
>>What of the 6 million people recently unemployed due to the financial crisis?
Are they supposed to buy into Cobra with their no money?<<
What of the many millions who identify with being a so-called Progressive? Of the some 60 million that voted for a Democrat in these last elections, surely a third of them fall into the hard-left, bleeding heart camp. And of those 20 million, 6 million are going to be in the upper two quintiles of income earners [this assumes that not all so-called Progressives are parasites on the Treasury].
So, then, let the redistribution begin amongst yourselves. Of all the people that do not qualify for Medicaid and all the people that are already in the top quintiles, surely there's something that you bleeding hearts can do for each other. Please count me out, I'm not on board with this as runs counter to securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Something that comes to mind is how "progressives" view so many people as hapless victims of "the bad guys", like so many cattle, and so they have constructed an education/indoctrination system that inculcates citizens with that expectation, thus creating an entire class of hapless victims of the entire system.
muirgeoJune 20, 2009 at 3:33 pm
"Something that comes to mind is how "progressives" view so many people as hapless victims of "the bad guys"….."
So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?
First most progressives are just as likely to be hard working tax paying and wealthy citizens as conservatives. But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth. Where as people like yourself must believe that you have both superior genes and greater intestinal fortitude as the reason for your "success". Again as if those also weren't exclusively the product of chance.
But you don't give a crap because you think success is a Darwinistic thing based on inheritance alone. And yes I'm somewhat proselytizing because I really have no idea on what basis you believe the things you do… but I'm pretty certain it's not based on an objective rational evaluation of real world factors. Just the simple-minded idea that merit is always best metered out when the rules are most minimal. WHATEVER!
What we progressives DO understand and I think it's point we might actually agree on, is that all of civilization has been a struggle of elites on top to preserve and consolidate their power at the expense of the rest of society. They did and do do it using religion, force and or economic power.
The answer IMO is democratic representation while your answer is ill defined or pretty much has been tried in the past and been shown to concentrate power just the same.
What I think we progressives realize is that, also, throughout history financial and societal success is mostly a matter of birth right. Certainly it has been improved in the modern capitalistic/ democratic society but we progressives see that we have far to go and we look at your position as one in support of what has been tried before and has failed to produce adequate results.
Herbert Simon a former recipient of he Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel recognized that even in todays modern society status was 90% determined by birth. Your position is one that advocates more of the same and as far as I'm concerned you offered very little evidence to the contrary.
We progressives realize that at least a fair portion of people through nothing other then sheer luck ARE born into more "hapless conditions" with lesser chances of fulfilling their potential when wealth and power is allowed to concentrate. And we understand or at least believe the evidence suggest improving democracy is the best way to improve outcomes both for individuals, for liberty and for the whole of the society.
The fact that I can point to our poor longevity, the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system and you guys can dismiss these findings pretty much on a whim is the evidence that it is YOU who are the inculcated. Regurgitating the same old same old regardless of the facts. Simple because you like simple clear cut answers that seem like they would directly benefit you. You're unwilling and unable to see that your current position and the freedoms you do enjoy have much to do with those aspects of democracy that do work and little to do with a system run on free market principals.
There's no room for compromise, no in between, no shades of grey…. just strict adherence to a doctrine of individualism in spite of the fact you benefit and require the society and the rules it makes. A complete denial that maybe you have avoided a reality in which your odds of being a true serf, a truly indentured person would have been much much greater. But you're convinced of the great personal make up that is you would prevail with so much more liberty and freedom and money if only the state had left you alone and stlole your money ( which it coins) and not forced you daily at gun point to carry out its will.
What we progressives DO understand and I think it's point we might actually agree on, is that all of civilization has been a struggle of elites on top to preserve and consolidate their power at the expense of the rest of society.
What they DON'T understand is that the state is a creature of the elites' intention to stay on top and that the structure of said system, even in a "democracy", will always favor those already on top.
A complete denial that maybe you have avoided a reality in which your odds of being a true serf, a truly indentured person would have been much much greater.
We are serfs, better fed and housed than serfs of old, but nonetheless serfs.
the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system
What free market health care system?
We don't have a free market health care system.
In case you weren't aware, John D. Rockefeller was not born to great wealth.
Neither was Bill Gates borne to great wealth.
In no other country have so many poor immigrants made such gains as those that came to America.
You only pretend we have free markets when it suits you.
The health care system is likely the second most regulated sector of the U.S. economy.
Again, YASAFI.
RandyJune 20, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Muirgeo,
"…most progressives are just as likely to be hard working…"
Interesting point. But first, not everyone who "works hard" is a member of the productive class. Lots of political types "work hard", but that hardly means that they produce anything of value (indeed, their pay being drawn from the exploitation pool is very strong evidence that what they do is not productive). And then there are the exploited, members of the productive class, who nonetheless side with the exploiters. Considering the enormous resources utilized by the poltical class to achieve precisely this end, it is no great surprise. But these can be reached. Propaganda can be undone.
"…improving democracy is the best way to improve outcomes both for individuals, for liberty and for the whole of the society.
Democracy is propaganda. The Progressive concept of Society is propaganda. The truth is the exploitation of productive class by the political class, and it will not end until the rule of the Productive class, or more precisely, a society structured in accordance with the ethics of the Productive class. Karl Marx was right.
DanoJune 20, 2009 at 7:13 pm
"The fact that I can point to our poor longevity, the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system and you guys can dismiss these findings pretty much on a whim is the evidence that it is YOU who are the inculcated."
"national differences in life expectancies are a highly imperfect indicator of the effectiveness of health delivery systems.for example, life styles are important contributors to health, and the US fares poorly on many life style indicators, such as incidence of overweight and obese men, women, and teenagers. To get around such problems, some analysts compare not life expectancies but survival rates from different diseases. The US health system tends to look pretty good on these comparisons."
And on high costs:
"Health insurance is expensive in the US partly because most states mandate coverage of various health expenditures that have little to do with insurable risks. For example, the majority of states require insurance companies to cover the medical costs of all birth deliveries, even though these deliveries are mainly planned, and the expenses are known beforehand. The proper insurance approach would cover only unusual birth expenses caused by complications in the delivery and post delivery stages. By getting rid of unnecessary mandates, health insurance would become much cheaper, especially in states with the more onerous mandates."
George, when available, do you prescribe generics instead of the name-brand drugs? If not, why aren't you doing your part to lower costs for your patients? Why aren't you following that old progressive bumper sticker "think globally act locally?"
Tell you what George, let us keep what the government extracts via the income tax and we will donate all that goes currently to the maintenance of the empire, to medical charity for those in need but can't afford appropriate care.
By "we", I mean my family.
LowcountryJoeJune 20, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I going to start posting all replies to the troll on his own blog on whatever thread shows up first over there.
"So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?"
Friggin' A. Absolutely. Hell yeah!
"But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth."
Why, because you were born to parents who potty trained you? ..who taught you manners? To go to school? Not to steal?
And so now you think we should all just "give stuff" to people whose parents didn't teach them not to steal? …who don't have a work ethic?
And this is supposed to help them how, exactly???
LowcountryJoeJune 20, 2009 at 11:10 pm
>>And this is supposed to help them how, exactly???<<
It doesn't. It helps the brainwashed into assuaging their guilt. It helps those who brainwashed the guilty into ammassing even more control through honed oratory gymnastics, clever sloganeering, and promises of inclusion into the inner-circle.
CheersJune 20, 2009 at 11:23 pm
"throughout history financial and societal success is mostly a matter of birth right. Certainly it has been improved in the modern capitalistic/ democratic society but we progressives see that we have far to go and we look at your position as one in support of what has been tried before and has failed to produce adequate results."
I don't understand. If a combination of capitalism and democracy has brought us to a better place than we've experienced before, then how are we in support of what has been tried before and failed to produce adequate results?
NathanJune 21, 2009 at 1:38 am
As a post on Cafe Hayek couple days ago showed. The very highest achievers rarely produce children with the same level of success. It seems, just as with IQ scores that regression to the mean is the rule. And gasp 90% of people are average, and produce average children. What self congratulatory statistical hogwash.
Share
{ 50 comments }
It's not about health care or insurance. It's about expanding the power of government and politicians. It's about expanding the power of the state and socialism as fawning sycophants breathlessly engage in hero worship. Full stop.
Gillespie has a good video too about the voluntary lack of insurance on Reason.TV
OK so he has addressed 40% of the voluntarily uninsured. Kinda… I guess sorta.. a little bit. Assuming they can afford as much as a 25% reduction in their family incomes (assuming after tax dollars) and assuming he's addressed the possibility that some of these people can not get insurance do to pre-existing condition… assuming those things I think it's fair to say he addressed those 4 of 10 uninsured.
But my interest in the article right after reading the title was in how he would choose to address the other 60% of "chosen uninsured".
Did I miss it? Or maybe he missed it?
Amazing how some one could think they've spotted a solution that leaves 24 million people to the whims of nature and totally ignored.
Again… sometimes I don't think people are looking at how their position might play out in the real world.
Where's the market and price mechanism come in for 3 year old with pre-B cell leukemia???
It's simply a position of cold-hearted callousness that feels 400 on top making 1.7 trillion a year is OK even if it means letting millions die untreated.
So I hate to seem so confrontational but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures? Do you want them to just die? It's a totally fair question.
It's simply a position of cold-hearted callousness that feels 400 on top making 1.7 trillion a year is OK even if it means letting millions die untreated.
In which country is this happening?
10s of millions of people are going to die of old age this year. Many millions will die in countries with "UNIVERSAL" health care, I wonder what the government has done to stop the never ending epidemic.
Think about it: Of the 40-something million without insurance, some marginal cases among them do not purchase insurance because the premiums are too high.
Among these are many young people who a)make less money, and, b)can afford to pass on insurance if it's too high.
Now, one of the reasons their insurance may be too high is because in order to qualify for the tax deduction, the entire employee base falls into a single risk pool.
Thus, some number of healthy, young, lower-paid employees go without insurance because it's really just a mechanism to force them to pay for older less-healthy co-workers who just happen to work for the same employer and fall into the same federally-created risk pool.
Now, the irony is that these healthy hold-outs are being counted as part of the reason we need universal healthcare.
In other words, some of the 47 million are simply trying to escape employer-based socialized medicine, and so the libs want to "help" them by imposing nationally socialized medicine.
See how socialism "helps" everyone???
Here is a libertarian take on current state of health care.
George asked:
In the case of diabetes, you misspelled "diet" and forgot about exercise. That'll fix a good chunk of the problem.
BoscoH,
he was talking about children. I don't think type I diabetes is caused by lack of excercise. It can happen to a really small infant.
But the deception in muirgeo's statement is in his 25 million number. It gives the reader the impression that there are 25 million poor parents with diabetic children, with no medical insurance.
What are you implying? enlighten us on this pre-B cell leukemia.
Assuming that it is a rare disease contracted by a tiny percentage of the population, the ideal thing to do would be to not divert any resources for finding a cure for it. It is better that the best available chemists & scientists spend their time on finding a cure for diabetes.
In which country is this happening?
Posted by: S Andrews
The one you are proposing? Who is gonna pay for the child with diabetes who has no insurance? You didn't answer the question.
Right now we pay for that child when they show up in the emergency room and then after the family goes bankrupt we pay for their Medicaid. Is that what you are proposing?
If so you are like me proposing a govenment solution but a horribly ineffecient and costly one.
"Assuming they can afford as much as a 25% reduction in their family incomes (assuming after tax dollars)" Muirgeo.
Well as one of the commentators on the other blog point out, health care taxes for universal care in Canada are 21% for a person earning $35,000. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the premiums Mark Perry Quotes are before tax.
"So I hate to seem so confrontational but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures?" Muirego
So 100% of these people are going to come down with diabetes or seizures?
But the deception in muirgeo's statement is in his 25 million number. It gives the reader the impression that there are 25 million poor parents with diabetic children, with no medical insurance.
Posted by: S Andrews
Epidemiologically out of 25 million people there will be at least a half million on a yearly basis who will die with out expensive treatment they can not afford. Sorry if my deception made you feel bad… I hope the real numbers make you sleep better at night.
Thise kind of numbers multiplied over 10 years will put you in the range of a Hitler or a Stalin… and all for the sake of defending liberty!!! What a great human you are.
Their church members, their extended family, neighbours, friends, other charitable organization, and they themselves, who all will have a lot more money if the parasites in the government were sucking away the fruits of their hard work.
his interpretation of the data is wrong. The numbers is not thousands of people, but number of people in the sample without insurance.
I would any day compare the percentage of my income I give away to organization who don't benefit me monetarily with yours.
Your deception would make anyone with IQ over room temperature sick. I sleep very well @ night. Bleeding hearts will never succeed in sending me on a guilt trip.
Stalin, despicable government agent that you worship, provided universal all care. Doesn't that make you ecstatic? Hitler was a national socialist. You are in good company.
Any kind of analysis (empirical or political) of the CPS data must take into consideration that the CPS categorizes responses as "uninsured" if the responder did not have insurance AT ANY TIME during the year in question. IMHO, policy discussions must examine how long people are uninsured.
Check out the CBO report How Many People Lack Health Insurance and For How Long, May 2003.
Interesting policy suggestion from the CBO:
"One might think that a program to expand insurance coverage among low-income people would primarily benefit the long-term uninsured. But CBO's analysis shows that 42 percent of uninsured spells among people with income below 200 percent of the poverty level end within four months, while only about one-third last more than a year."
"Where's the market and price mechanism come in for 3 year old with pre-B cell leukemia???"
Roughly 5400 people (of ALL ages) are diagnosed with pre-B cell Leukemia every year. That's an ASTOUNDING 0.0018% of the population. HORROR! Because of this incomprehensibly low number we surely need to force everyone to subjugate themselves to the government.
Epidemiologically out of 25 million people there will be at least a half million on a yearly basis who will die with out expensive treatment they can not afford.
Assuming it's not your usual hyperbole (probably a crap assumption), they will die. They will die faster with socialized medicine. They will either die or we will bankrupt the entire country in a desperate attempt to practice hail mary medicine. No country with socialized medicine has ever provided expensive treatments.
Thise kind of numbers multiplied over 10 years will put you in the range of a Hitler or a Stalin… and all for the sake of defending liberty!!! What a great human you are.
So, are you downsizing your life so that you can give every penny that doesn't go to the barest necessities to these people who are going to DIE if a selfish bastard like you doesn't give up everything but bread and water to pay for their treatments? Are YOU doing four hours daily of pro-bono work to save their lives since you ARE a DOCTOR, after all. If the people who can afford it should pay the most, then the people who have the skills should do the most without payment. You have what people need and they have a right to what you have. Health care is a right, yeah? If you aren't doing those things, why not? Why don't you live what you preach? Don't bother answering that, hypocrite.
Some people may let them die rather than commit the sin of Theft on their behalf to preserve liberty. But, you're letting them die because your kid wants an i-pod. How disgusting you are.
The truth is your statistics, like everything else you spew, are crap. People will die regardless of treatment. Even people who can afford treatment will die because treatment doesn't always work and if it does work, it often prolongs their suffering for a few more years at great expense until they die. Meanwhile, the living face bleak lives and a hopeless future because their labour is taxed to pay for it. And let's face, Morongeo, if cancer really wants to kill you, it will. No amount of treatment will stop it. That's the biggest lesson from cancer research. In fact, the limits of treatment are the biggest lesson of medical research lately.
You want to save lives? Let people sell their organs. As always, free markets are the solution.
You're a crap doctor.
Muirgeo,
"…but please some one tell me what they want to see happen to these 25 million people's children when they come down with diabetes or intractable seizures? Do you want them to just die? It's a totally fair question."
It is a fair question. I'll give you a fair answer. If it were my child, I would do whatever I could to save her. I would ask for help and greatly appreciate any assistance that anyone would offer. But I would not demand, nor use the misfortune as a rationalization for exploiting others.
I would do whatever I could to save her.
When I wanted something I couldn't afford, I got a second job and I always saved in good times – just in case. When did asking people to provide for themselves become evil and stealing became holy? The trouble with all of these emotional arguments is that, in reality, socialized medicine is more costly, and those people will still not get the care they need. It's a lie.
Methinks,
Its a rationalization. You nailed it in your first comment. It's about expanding the power of government and politicians.
"They will die faster with socialized medicine. They will either die or we will bankrupt the entire country in a desperate attempt to practice hail mary medicine."
Just before you wrote that you said something about hyperbole.. what was that again?
So? What does that have to do with Health Care?
Here is what Wikipedia says about #1 in your list – Macao:
There are no western-style medical schools in Macau and thus all aspiring physicians in Macau have to obtain their education and qualification elsewhere
Here is what CIA factbook says about #2 in the list
Tourism, the mainstay of Andorra's tiny, well-to-do economy, accounts for more than 80% of GDP. An estimated 11.6 million tourists visit annually, attracted by Andorra's duty-free status and by its summer and winter resorts. Andorra's comparative advantage has recently eroded as the economies of neighboring France and Spain have been opened up, providing broader availability of goods and lower tariffs. The banking sector, with its partial "tax haven" status, also contributes substantially to the economy.
Here is what WHO says about Andorra's health care system
In spite of Andorra’s small size, it has historically had a rather decentralized
health care system. This tradition was partly a response to the difficulty of
communication among the various valleys and parishes of this mountainous
country. During recent decades, however, the country has been moving in the
direction of a more centralized system as a result of improved communications
and the perceived need to develop a more comprehensive, coordinated approach
to health care. Until the 1980s, central regulation was practically non-existent,
and both the communes and the physicians acted as independent health care
providers. From the 1980s on, and especially since the creation of the Ministry
of Health in 1993, health care regulations have been systematized and more
services have been placed under the administrative responsibility of SAAS.
There has been some debate about increasing the degree of decentralization in
the Andorran health care system. The increasing importance of health centres
could be seen as a manifestation of this.
Genius Muirgeo,
Now that you have that chart up, bring up the other one on obesity, and please explain to me how citizens of your country, so bitterly deprived of socialised medicine, manage to even stay on that chart given your activity level and calorie intake.
You chart expresses nothing other than the remarkable fact that obesity, though the number one cause of premature death, hardly manages to put a dent in the life expectancy of the lucky people who manage to partake in the bounty of medical care your country provides.
To put it more simply:
Thanks to a spectacular medical economoy, despite stuffing themselves with burgers and pop, something I would LOVE to do daily, and sitting around watching TV citizens of the U.S.A. manage to outlive most of the civilised world.
What the hell are you trying to fix?
Gamut says…
Thanks to a spectacular medical economoy, despite stuffing themselves with burgers and pop, something I would LOVE to do daily, and sitting around watching TV citizens of the U.S.A. manage to outlive most of the civilised world.
Exactly! Two other important points ( among many ) come to my mind that will affect the life expectacy.
1) Violent crimes due to war on drugs – which causes premature death on the streets ( on a different note, higher incarcerate rates, on a smaller level, higher capital punishment rate ).
2) Heavy subsidization of automobile culture by a government heavily in the hands of Unions of the type of UAW – and subsidization businesses that support Unions like those of detroit. I suggest that one visit the blog marketurbanism.com for an austrian take on this issue. Which causes unnecessary obesity, even in the case of the quack doctor muirgeo himself.
What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment.
What of the 6 million people recently unemployed due to the financial crisis?
Are they supposed to buy into Cobra with their no money?
So what is the concensus on health coverage? Should it remain the same as it is?
Is there a good reason health care costs (inflation adjusted) double every 10 years or so?
K Ackermann: "What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment."
Consider a different view.
I don't see anything "insane" about employers negotiating sharply lower health insurance rates for their large number of employees.
I don't see anything "insane" about employers using their negotiating power to induce employee retention.
If employees generally prefer that employers negotiate with health insurers on their behalf, what's the problem?
Well, the problem has been that employer based insurance benefits are not subject to income taxes. But when workers use after tax income to purchase individual insurance policies, they do not receive the same fa vorable tax treatment.
Isn't the obvious solution the simplest one? Just allow the full deduction of health insurance premiums.
"The trouble with all of these emotional arguments is that, in reality, socialized medicine is more costly, and those people will still not get the care they need. It's a lie."
methinks
Yes methinks… its all emotion…all a lie!
In other words, Gamut, Westerners could live to be 100 years old or so if they could be bothered to eat healthful food and actually exercised. But prefer a sugar-laden lifesytle and live up to be 50 or so?
oopsies!
The reason why the prices of medical care are rising faster than prices in other sectors of the economy is:
1) Because government restrictions on the number of providers and regulation induced barriers to entry lead to a decreased supply, resulting in higher market clearing prices.
2) Because government subsidies in care, notably medicare and medicaid, raise the market clearing prices.
3) Because government tax policy, encouraging third party payments and employer provisioning of medical care, reduces free market competition and makes provisioning of medical care less certain than it otherwise would be.
A detailed explanation of the mechanism that causes government subsidies and restrictions on medical care to raise prices.
John Dewey,
"Just allow the full deduction of health insurance premiums."
Agreed. In conjuction with removing government restrictions on plans. Let people choose they need. I would also have the government reimburse hospitals for mandated care expenses. Then have the government collect from people who have the ability to pay but have chosen not to.
K Ackermann:
"What is insane is to expect health coverage to be a function of employment."
That's your fault. Liberals keep it that way. You vote for liberals. Do the math.
>>What of the 6 million people recently unemployed due to the financial crisis?
Are they supposed to buy into Cobra with their no money?<<
What of the many millions who identify with being a so-called Progressive? Of the some 60 million that voted for a Democrat in these last elections, surely a third of them fall into the hard-left, bleeding heart camp. And of those 20 million, 6 million are going to be in the upper two quintiles of income earners [this assumes that not all so-called Progressives are parasites on the Treasury].
So, then, let the redistribution begin amongst yourselves. Of all the people that do not qualify for Medicaid and all the people that are already in the top quintiles, surely there's something that you bleeding hearts can do for each other. Please count me out, I'm not on board with this as runs counter to securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Something that comes to mind is how "progressives" view so many people as hapless victims of "the bad guys", like so many cattle, and so they have constructed an education/indoctrination system that inculcates citizens with that expectation, thus creating an entire class of hapless victims of the entire system.
"Something that comes to mind is how "progressives" view so many people as hapless victims of "the bad guys"….."
So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?
First most progressives are just as likely to be hard working tax paying and wealthy citizens as conservatives. But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth. Where as people like yourself must believe that you have both superior genes and greater intestinal fortitude as the reason for your "success". Again as if those also weren't exclusively the product of chance.
But you don't give a crap because you think success is a Darwinistic thing based on inheritance alone. And yes I'm somewhat proselytizing because I really have no idea on what basis you believe the things you do… but I'm pretty certain it's not based on an objective rational evaluation of real world factors. Just the simple-minded idea that merit is always best metered out when the rules are most minimal. WHATEVER!
What we progressives DO understand and I think it's point we might actually agree on, is that all of civilization has been a struggle of elites on top to preserve and consolidate their power at the expense of the rest of society. They did and do do it using religion, force and or economic power.
The answer IMO is democratic representation while your answer is ill defined or pretty much has been tried in the past and been shown to concentrate power just the same.
What I think we progressives realize is that, also, throughout history financial and societal success is mostly a matter of birth right. Certainly it has been improved in the modern capitalistic/ democratic society but we progressives see that we have far to go and we look at your position as one in support of what has been tried before and has failed to produce adequate results.
Herbert Simon a former recipient of he Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel recognized that even in todays modern society status was 90% determined by birth. Your position is one that advocates more of the same and as far as I'm concerned you offered very little evidence to the contrary.
We progressives realize that at least a fair portion of people through nothing other then sheer luck ARE born into more "hapless conditions" with lesser chances of fulfilling their potential when wealth and power is allowed to concentrate. And we understand or at least believe the evidence suggest improving democracy is the best way to improve outcomes both for individuals, for liberty and for the whole of the society.
The fact that I can point to our poor longevity, the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system and you guys can dismiss these findings pretty much on a whim is the evidence that it is YOU who are the inculcated. Regurgitating the same old same old regardless of the facts. Simple because you like simple clear cut answers that seem like they would directly benefit you. You're unwilling and unable to see that your current position and the freedoms you do enjoy have much to do with those aspects of democracy that do work and little to do with a system run on free market principals.
There's no room for compromise, no in between, no shades of grey…. just strict adherence to a doctrine of individualism in spite of the fact you benefit and require the society and the rules it makes. A complete denial that maybe you have avoided a reality in which your odds of being a true serf, a truly indentured person would have been much much greater. But you're convinced of the great personal make up that is you would prevail with so much more liberty and freedom and money if only the state had left you alone and stlole your money ( which it coins) and not forced you daily at gun point to carry out its will.
Poor poor Sam…. such a hapless person!!!
What we progressives DO understand and I think it's point we might actually agree on, is that all of civilization has been a struggle of elites on top to preserve and consolidate their power at the expense of the rest of society.
What they DON'T understand is that the state is a creature of the elites' intention to stay on top and that the structure of said system, even in a "democracy", will always favor those already on top.
A complete denial that maybe you have avoided a reality in which your odds of being a true serf, a truly indentured person would have been much much greater.
We are serfs, better fed and housed than serfs of old, but nonetheless serfs.
the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system
What free market health care system?
We don't have a free market health care system.
YASAFI
In case you weren't aware, John D. Rockefeller was not born to great wealth.
Neither was Bill Gates borne to great wealth.
In no other country have so many poor immigrants made such gains as those that came to America.
You only pretend we have free markets when it suits you.
The health care system is likely the second most regulated sector of the U.S. economy.
Again, YASAFI.
Muirgeo,
"…most progressives are just as likely to be hard working…"
Interesting point. But first, not everyone who "works hard" is a member of the productive class. Lots of political types "work hard", but that hardly means that they produce anything of value (indeed, their pay being drawn from the exploitation pool is very strong evidence that what they do is not productive). And then there are the exploited, members of the productive class, who nonetheless side with the exploiters. Considering the enormous resources utilized by the poltical class to achieve precisely this end, it is no great surprise. But these can be reached. Propaganda can be undone.
"…improving democracy is the best way to improve outcomes both for individuals, for liberty and for the whole of the society.
Democracy is propaganda. The Progressive concept of Society is propaganda. The truth is the exploitation of productive class by the political class, and it will not end until the rule of the Productive class, or more precisely, a society structured in accordance with the ethics of the Productive class. Karl Marx was right.
"The fact that I can point to our poor longevity, the high cost and the likely dreary outcomes of a free market health care system and you guys can dismiss these findings pretty much on a whim is the evidence that it is YOU who are the inculcated."
As you've been told before, there is much evidence that life expectancy is a poor indicator of the quality of health care. For instance read what Nobelist Gary Becker writes (http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2009/06/health_care-bec.html):
"national differences in life expectancies are a highly imperfect indicator of the effectiveness of health delivery systems.for example, life styles are important contributors to health, and the US fares poorly on many life style indicators, such as incidence of overweight and obese men, women, and teenagers. To get around such problems, some analysts compare not life expectancies but survival rates from different diseases. The US health system tends to look pretty good on these comparisons."
And on high costs:
"Health insurance is expensive in the US partly because most states mandate coverage of various health expenditures that have little to do with insurable risks. For example, the majority of states require insurance companies to cover the medical costs of all birth deliveries, even though these deliveries are mainly planned, and the expenses are known beforehand. The proper insurance approach would cover only unusual birth expenses caused by complications in the delivery and post delivery stages. By getting rid of unnecessary mandates, health insurance would become much cheaper, especially in states with the more onerous mandates."
George, when available, do you prescribe generics instead of the name-brand drugs? If not, why aren't you doing your part to lower costs for your patients? Why aren't you following that old progressive bumper sticker "think globally act locally?"
Tell you what George, let us keep what the government extracts via the income tax and we will donate all that goes currently to the maintenance of the empire, to medical charity for those in need but can't afford appropriate care.
By "we", I mean my family.
I going to start posting all replies to the troll on his own blog on whatever thread shows up first over there.
"So do you honestly think social status at birth is NOT the most significant factor in determining ones success?"
Friggin' A. Absolutely. Hell yeah!
"But we realize much of our success was a coincidence of birth."
Why, because you were born to parents who potty trained you? ..who taught you manners? To go to school? Not to steal?
And so now you think we should all just "give stuff" to people whose parents didn't teach them not to steal? …who don't have a work ethic?
And this is supposed to help them how, exactly???
>>And this is supposed to help them how, exactly???<<
It doesn't. It helps the brainwashed into assuaging their guilt. It helps those who brainwashed the guilty into ammassing even more control through honed oratory gymnastics, clever sloganeering, and promises of inclusion into the inner-circle.
"throughout history financial and societal success is mostly a matter of birth right. Certainly it has been improved in the modern capitalistic/ democratic society but we progressives see that we have far to go and we look at your position as one in support of what has been tried before and has failed to produce adequate results."
I don't understand. If a combination of capitalism and democracy has brought us to a better place than we've experienced before, then how are we in support of what has been tried before and failed to produce adequate results?
As a post on Cafe Hayek couple days ago showed. The very highest achievers rarely produce children with the same level of success. It seems, just as with IQ scores that regression to the mean is the rule. And gasp 90% of people are average, and produce average children. What self congratulatory statistical hogwash.
I think, after inheritance, the biggest factor in individual success is drive.
Some people just go, take risks, and keep going till they succeed. On a sour not, a fair number of these types go into politics.