Can I at Least Opt Out?

The post office is a poor example, since it isn't funded by the government.

Also it has relatively good service. Certainly comparable to UPS/Fedex.

The USPS requires frequent allocations from the general fund to keep it going.

Ok, well the funding is a small percentage of its total revenue, so it's still not really a good example.

It seems comparable to the various companies that get bailouts.

The USPS has also enjoyed a monopoly on the delivery of first class mail since the 1860's.

USPS losses aren't always such a small figure.

more: WASHINGTON—The U.S. Postal Service ended its third quarter (April 1 – June 30) with a net loss of $2.4 billion, including a non-cash adjustment that increased workers’ compensation expense by $807 million. Ongoing electronic diversion and the widespread economic recession continued to reduce mail volume, resulting in a $1.6 billion decrease in revenue for the quarter.

Despite cost reductions against the fiscal 2009 plan of more than $6 billion and actions to grow revenue, the Postal Service (USPS) projects a net loss of more than $7 billion at fiscal year-end. The organization’s financial situation is compounded by its obligation to pay $5.4 billion to $5.8 billion annually to prefund retiree health benefits. This requirement, established in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, is an obligation that no other government agency has to pay.

The Postal Service has incurred net losses in 11 of the last 12 fiscal quarters. The fiscal 2009 year-to-date net loss is $4.7 billion, compared to a loss in the same period last year of $1.1 billion, in spite of comprehensive, organization-wide cost reduction initiatives. The organization is working to mitigate a possible Sept. 30 cash shortfall of up to $700 million.
link

FELLOW AMERICANS, WAKE UP!!

OUR COUNTRY AND WAY OF LIFE IS IN PERIL!

WWW.AMERICAWAKEUPNOW.NET

IGNORANCE IN NO EXCUSE.

Your comment reminds me of Professor Schumpeter's note that the Russian Revolution would provide the world with a laboratory experiment determining the utility of socialism. It amazes me that anyone who lived through the 20th Century, given its numerous examples of social/bureaucratic management of enterprise, could support or champion government entry into medical care. If it shows nothing else, history shows that government management of any business ineluctably produces 3 things: scarcity, higher cost, and deterioration in quality. This happens because the foxes are allowed to run the chicken coop. This is not rocket science!

One poster wrote: Danny Williams is the Premier, which means that he had the final say for how health care dollars were spent in the province.

Krugman fail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EPd2i4Jshs&feat...

sometime within the next 24 hours DK will write a 35 paragraph explanation of why this proves nothing and you just like attacking Krugman for sport.

He's really really practicing hard for that Ph.D. program he's trying to get into and he thinks word count is the way to do it.

I'm confused - what government provided care are you requesting to opt out of? Is there some secret single-payer initiative afoot that I don't know about?

Daniel,

I think Dr. Boudreaux's "opt out" comment is in reference to Mr. Williams essentially opting out of Canada's national health care plan to seek medical treatment in the United States. And, as Adam pointed out a few comments up, Canadians don't have the option to opt out, nor do they have the right to seek private medical treatment or private insurance in their own country. Doing so is a crime. While I am not a supporter of a national health care plan, I am frankly befuddled by the idea that Canadians are in any way better off by losing to have at least the option to seek private treatment. So, I can see how people like Adam might feel a bit stung over this.

Anyhow, that's just my assumption about the title. I got a bit off track there.

Best,

Jack of Spades

Oh, well sure. I'm equally befuddled by the idea that Canadians are in any way better off by losing the option to seek private treatment. I just wasn't sure what Don was asking to opt out of.

And don't worry about getting off track... I got it off track in the first place!

Don forgot my favorite, the DMV!

I read the blog quite a bit, and listen to Econtalk weekly, and I gather that you know how to opt-out. Just on the other side of all those arbitrary lines on the paper the rules are different. But as screwed up as everything may be in the US, most of us choose to stay.

It must not be too untenable.

As a Canadian (not a Newfoundlander, though), I have no problem with Danny Williams going to the US for medical treatment. And I suspect that the reason that he didn't go to Ontario or Quebec is either (a) he didn't think the optics would be better since it would still be "abandoning" his province's health care system anyway (health care is a provincial jurisdiction here) or (b) he can get luxurious treatment in the US that he can't get here (private suite, nicer accommodation while he's in rehab, etc.).

Let's assume for argument's sake that perfectly good and timely medical treatment was available here in Canada and he chose not to avail himself of it. Fine. The REAL problem I have with this situation is that most provinces make it ILLEGAL to obtain on the private market any health care service that is publicly-funded. In other words, you can get private liposuction but you can't pay for your own bypass surgery. Which means that the mega, ultra-rich (like Danny Williams, who's so rich that he donates his salary to charity) can get private health-care but people like me - well off but not wealthy - don't have that option. I can't pay for an operation out of pocket but I could pay for private insurance - except it's illegal. And it isn't right, dammit. At the very least, our healthcare system should be like the education system - public schools exist but if you have the cash, your kids can go to a private institution.

I don't believe in socialized medicine, but at the very least let me cough up out of my own pocket if I want to, in addition to paying taxes.

Many opponents of the current health care reform seem to focus their opposition along the lines of "look at the post-office, or other government agencies." Of course non-profit seeking bureaucratic structures will be less efficient. The problem is the mainstream equates this prevailing argument into "you want to stick with the current system." I feel the argument should primarily hinge on the sources of the current system's dysfunction rather than what it will be in the event of government take over. We can view health care like the banking industry and point to the blatantly detrimental intervention as the obvious cause of the current dysfunctional system. If the current system is not changed, the continued problems will lead the regressives to say "you should of passed our bill." It is important for opponents to convey that we are not against reform--we are against reform involving increased intervention and the inevitable break down of the market coordination system--see: Post office, DMV, passport control, Swine flu vaccines,....or any scheme to control markets.

Sean, many proposals have been advanced to reform the current system. allowing insurance portability (which is closely linked to interstate sale of insurance policies), for instance. It appears to me, at least, that most Americans understand that government interference is at the root of most of the problems with the current system. The problem is that the mainstream media is little more than a propaganda machine for Democrats and Democrats want to pass government care.

Apparently you are unable to read the article you linked. It is the Premier of Newfoundland, one of Canada's smallest provinces, that is having the heart surgery. It NOT the "head of Canada's celebrated health-care system".

I have no issue with a Canadian premier or even the "head of Canada's celebrated health-care system" choosing a private healthcare provider over the state run system. It would be nice, however, if that option were afforded to all Canadians and not just the "elite".

The Canadian PM may be a "progressive", but he has revealed his preference when he personally has "skin in the game." Wonderful post!

A perhaps redundant brief history of labels and morphing.

It is the long term tactic of looney lefties to change their label when the public in general finally catches on to them and knows them for what they are.

Thus the progressives, commies, and socialists of the early part of the last century morphed into liberals when the public understood the true nature of what they wanted to impose on the USA. Then in the 1950s and 1960s they began to morph into the liberal/democrat label, but once again the public caught up to them and understood that label just meant communism/socialism with a new label. Then in the late 1970s and 1980s, we began to see the looney left morph back into the label of progressives, thinking the public had forgotten what that meant (communsim/socialism). They have to keep relabeling themselves to try and hide what they really are, which is regressives.

Scratch the label of progressive off, and underneath you find the same old same old regressive theology, scripture, and goals of the international Church of Socialism.

They are Regressives not progressives, nothing they shoot for will take us forward, everything they shoot for will take us backward.

Agreed; "progressives" are regressives.

Scratch the label of progressive off, and underneath you find the same old same old regressive theology, scripture, and goals of the international Church of Socialism.

I think the label progressive fits, only because they believe that the State, if given enough power, can help us to 'progress' past human nature.
This of course assumes that those to whom they give this power have already achieved enlightenment, which is the fallacy of their faith.

Any label the collectivists adopt is camouflage for their desire to stamp out individual freedom and control the distribution of all resources by political fiat.

I liked Ayn Rand's label: looters.

"By his acts he will be known." Some smart guy said that long ago and it is still appropriate.

One of the simple powers the looney left has had endowed upon it by the sycophantic media is the power of the label. It is a simple power but it has great effectiveness in framing the debates.

Thus a Strategic Missile Defense System is labeled as Star Wars and then it is easy to denigrate not only the program but everyone connected to it.

Thus disgust with little boy loving men is labeled as Homophobia when Homodisgustia fits perfectly, and then the debate is misdirected to the concept of fear rather, than the disgust it provokes.

Thus by resisting total capitulation to communism advanced by the president and congress, we have the label The Party of No.

Thus screwing up the market in healthcare is called Health Care Reform, when it is obvious the label is more like Health Care deform.

The reason I ask you to reconsider your thought above is simply that progressive is as far from what they want and where they want to go, that is it ludicrous to give them benefit of doubt.

It is simply a label they take because it presents them in a better light.

By their acts the shall be known, and all they do is regressive.

:-D

What I am saying JohnK, is not to just you, but in general, the wisdom is that you don't go to a gunfight carrying only a switchblade knife.

We have to learn to fight the loonies with the weapons they use, no compromise. Otherwise, we lose.

I think of that as lowering yourself to their level, to a place where they are much more practiced, to a place where they can win.

Their tools are lies and manipulation, counting on emotional responses to gain support.

Instead of stooping to their level, we need to encourage people to ask themselves "what do I think about this?" instead of "how do I feel about this?".

Once people do that, the left loses all influence upon them.

Danny Williams is not the Canadian PM, he is the premier of Newfoundland (rough equivalent of a state governor).

Thanks for the correction; it would be funnier if he were PM, but it is still tres amusant!

He's a "progressive", but his heart's just not in it.

too funny...

Don, Danny Williams is not the "head" of canada's health care system. He's the premier of the Province of Newfoundland (essentially their prime minister). Newfoundland is too small to support a large healthcare industry, though he could have gone to Quebec or Ontario.

Pardon me. Here's how Danny Williams is described in the report that I link to: "the head of the government that's in charge of the health care system."

I stand corrected for being inaccurate, but the thrust of the story remains undiminished.

As Premier of Newfoundland, he's head of the Newfoundland government, which is in charge of the health care system in Newfoundland. Health care in Canada is primarily a provincial responsibility, with the federal govt subsidizing it and coordinating standards between provinces.

he could have gone to Quebec or Ontario.

Yet he didn't. Why is that?

Methinks, see my post below. I suspect it has to do with non-medical reasons, i.e. he'd be leaving his province anyway and the setting in the US would be more comfortable. To my knowledge, the practical difficulty with our (Canadian) healthcare isn't with acute care, but chronic care. So if you get shot or have a heart attack, as far as I know you will get treated immediately. But if you have debilitating pain or cancer or something that requires long-term follow-up, good luck to you.

Thank you, Adam. I've read your post.

I'm not sure if even acute care is all that quick. For instance, based on her symptoms, my aunt's doctor in Toronto suspected cancer, but couldn't diagnose for about three weeks because that's how long it took to get an MRI. The wait for the specialist for her acute and painful condition was three months - a time during which she was on such strong pain medication that she wouldn't have been able to work if she hadn't already been retired. In short, a problem that takes a week and a half to fix here from first symptoms to recovery took four and a half months in Toronto.

It is an absolute disaster that you don't have private options in Canada. Good luck.

Exactly. Though he's also a wealthy businessman, so he can afford this.

He's the Premier of Newfoundland. Unlike the peasants he rules, he wouldn't have to stand in line for treatment anywhere in Canada. It must be more than wait time that brought him to the US.

Precisely the point. The wealthy have the most choices. If socialized medicine is so great, why would he choose the "inferior" medical system in the United States? This is a rhetorical question, of course.