Heinz-Kerry Calls Opposition of Health Care "Idiots&quo

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-09 10:01pm

Natorgator wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...if everyone else's health care system is so great, why do people come from all around the world for treatment?

I think it's the better doctors.

If you pay enough you can get that good treatment. A good health care system looks out for the poor.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-09-09 10:01pm

Natorgator wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...if everyone else's health care system is so great, why do people come from all around the world for treatment?

Because rich people can pay for that...the problem is, poor people cant. In the US a big wad of cash can jump you to the front of the queue even if you dont need immediate care from a medical standpoint.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-09 10:06pm

Natorgator wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...if everyone else's health care system is so great, why do people come from all around the world for treatment?

Quality of care isn't the issue about the US healthcare system, it's effiency and affordibility for the average person.

Years ago, someone said "The US has the best healthcare system in the world... But, only if you can pay for it". Most of the people you mention who come to the US for treatment have plenty of money to spare for their six-figure medical bills, unlike your average American citizen...

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 10:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:
tharkûn wrote:

In other words, "It might not work as well as in other countries, so lets not try."?
In other words, you've cocked up smaller programs consistently and egregiously. Before we give you the chance to produce an even bigger cock up why don't you show some compotency and responsibility in the programs you already have first?
It obviously hasn't occurred to you that one of the biggest problems with the cost of health-care in the US is the multiplicity of insurers, which drives up administrative overhead costs to many times what socialized healthcare systems pay, and which impacts Medicare/Medicaid. In short, they are hamstrung by their forced integration with a laissez-faire capitalist healthcare system.

The benifits of monopsony have occurred to me, you have stated them multiple times to me and it is basic economics that when you have only one buyer prices fall. Likewise the disadvantages of monopsony have also occurred to me.

You can't be seriously advocating that medicare and medicaid are solely screwed by a multi-payer system? Do you honestly beleive that aside from inflated administrative cost caused by the lack of monopsony, the current socialized medicine in the exhibits compotency and responsibility?

Further the US medical system may be many things, but laissez-faire it ain't. There are reams of government controls, intrusions, and standard practices that any healthcare provider or insurance company must comply with. Some are sensible, some aren't, but no way in hell is this laissez-faire.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-09-09 10:32pm

tharkûn wrote:YDo you honestly beleive that aside from inflated administrative cost caused by the lack of monopsony, the current socialized medicine in the exhibits compotency and responsibility?

In the what?

To answer your supposed question, yes, government run medical systems do exhibit competency and responsibility. That's why they are able to provide better care for a cheaper price than the U.S.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 10:37pm

In the what?

Sorry should read: in the US

To answer your supposed question, yes, government run medical systems do exhibit competency and responsibility. That's why they are able to provide better care for a cheaper price than the U.S.

US government run medical systems do not exhibit such competency and responsibility. Mike notes that with a monopsony overhead falls, as well as some other costs; I'm asking how incompotent and irresponsible Mike thinks the current US systems are ignoring those differences.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-09-09 10:44pm

tharkûn wrote:US government run medical systems do not exhibit such competency and responsibility. Mike notes that with a monopsony overhead falls, as well as some other costs; I'm asking how incompotent and irresponsible Mike thinks the current US systems are ignoring those differences.

That sentence makes no more sense than the first one. I'm not sure what your opinion that Mike is incompetent and irresponsible has to do with medical care.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-09 10:48pm

I am NOT decrying mike.

I am asking Mike's opinion. It is a given that US officials running medicare and medicaid have been irresponsible and incompotent. Is ALL of the vastly bloated cost due to the lack of monopsony? Or do we have the lack of monopsony making an already poorly managed program worse?

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2004-09-09 11:00pm

tharkûn wrote:I am NOT decrying mike.

Then you might want to make your sentences readable. It would help make it worthwhile for people to bother reading what you write.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-10 09:47am

tharkûn wrote:I am NOT decrying mike.

I am asking Mike's opinion. It is a given that US officials running medicare and medicaid have been irresponsible and incompotent.

Oh right, and the ass-clowns in the Canadian federal government who went 6000% over-budget on the gun registry are paragons of administrative efficiency

Is ALL of the vastly bloated cost due to the lack of monopsony? Or do we have the lack of monopsony making an already poorly managed program worse?

Again, you obviously don't get it. THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF PATCHWORK SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE PROVIDERS IS A COMPLETE FAILURE. It is incredibly expensive and horribly incomprehensive, with 40 million fucking people totally uninsured. Warning darkly that a socialized system might be less than perfect is hardly a disincentive to switch from the current disaster to such a system.

In essence, you're saying "unless you can guarantee that any new concept would work wonderfully, we should stick with one that's a complete failure." Great plan

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-09-10 09:57am

On a side-note:

A friend of mine has been invited to dine with Mrs. Heinz-Kerry. Unfortunately, said friend can't go, because she has to report to her second job that evening.

Ain't it a bitch to be a single mother?

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-09-10 02:48pm

Natorgator wrote:Just to play devil's advocate for a moment...if everyone else's health care system is so great, why do people come from all around the world for treatment?

You know, I have seen this meme quite often in health care debates but never with numbers attached.
So, could you please show that more people from others first world countries are coming to america for health care then to be expected ?
That is number of amercians per capita going to other nations for health care is smaller then the numbers of citizens per capita from other first world countries coming to america for health care.

As you can probably not supply these numbers, I will take any (cirumstantial) evidence I can get.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-09-10 03:22pm

Every government is composed primarily of idiot screaming assclowns, the US government is no different.

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-09-10 10:51pm

Plekhanov wrote: Odd isn’t it that all those inefficient socialist government run systems in the EU, Canada and so forth scored so much better than the US’s shining example of efficient private enterprise.

China has an efficient healthcare system>???(Sorry about the OT post, but this has to be seen to be believed)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-10 10:55pm

PainRack wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: Odd isn’t it that all those inefficient socialist government run systems in the EU, Canada and so forth scored so much better than the US’s shining example of efficient private enterprise.
China has an efficient healthcare system>???(Sorry about the OT post, but this has to be seen to be believed)

What the hell are you talking about? He said the EU and Canada, not China. China is not a first-world nation and is therefore not relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-11 12:04am

Darth Wong wrote:
PainRack wrote:
Plekhanov wrote: Odd isn’t it that all those inefficient socialist government run systems in the EU, Canada and so forth scored so much better than the US’s shining example of efficient private enterprise.
China has an efficient healthcare system>???(Sorry about the OT post, but this has to be seen to be believed)
What the hell are you talking about? He said the EU and Canada, not China. China is not a first-world nation and is therefore not relevant for the purposes of this discussion.

He's talking about Plekhanov's color-coded map; it gives the PRC a compartively higher efficiency versus the U.S., IIRC, and an objectively rather high rating.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-09-11 12:44am

While Kerry is running around not offending anyone, his wife is running around deliberately trying to piss people off. What the heck is she thinking? What is Kerry and his campaign staff thinking? His wife is actually sabotaging his entire plan to win the presidency which, flawed though it is, can only POSSIBLY be effective if they stick to it.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-11 12:46am

Oh right, and the ass-clowns in the Canadian federal government who went 6000% over-budget on the gun registry are paragons of administrative efficiency

In comparison? Hell yes. Need I dredge up the 1,000,000 dollar outhouse the park service put in.

Again, you obviously don't get it. THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF PATCHWORK SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE PROVIDERS IS A COMPLETE FAILURE.

Complete failure? Not in total, despite much talk to the contrary the average person in the US gets health care. Hell if you go to the ER they are required by law to treat you even if you can't pay. While I find the system to be FAR from compotent, there is plenty of room to get worse.

It is incredibly expensive and horribly incomprehensive, with 40 million fucking people totally uninsured. Warning darkly that a socialized system might be less than perfect is hardly a disincentive to switch from the current disaster to such a system.

Less than perfect I can live with, a greater boondoggle than the current system, I'm not so sure about. To me this is a case of the devil that you know.

There is room to do much worse, the government has a track record of doing worse as the system gets bigger, and there are negatives to going monopsonic. Substantial gain is possible, weighted against substantial risk.

In essence, you're saying "unless you can guarantee that any new concept would work wonderfully, we should stick with one that's a complete failure." Great plan

No I'm saying there is a helluvalot of things that could be worse. Not to mention outright dangers in monopsony itself. Take reproductive health, on average the fundies have a significant say in the government at least 1/3 of the time, do you really want them to control what reproductive procedures the government will pay for? US courts work on a system of punative damages, exactly how big a fine would it take to be "punative" on a multi-trillion dollar system?

There is a helluvalot ways the situation could be worse if the implementation is botched to hell, for the time being I'll stick with the devil I know.

Prozac the Robert · Post by **Prozac the Robert** » 2004-09-11 08:17am

I don't think any state health system has a complete monopoly. There will always be people offering the operations that you can't get on the NHS.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-11 08:27am

Having a comprehensive national health care program that is run by the state does not and never will eliminate the private sector, as can be well seen in Finland. For the US, almost anything would be better than their current system.

Edi

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2004-09-11 11:02am

tharkûn wrote: To me this is a case of the devil that you know.

I have to day that I disagree with this concept as a policy towards government. The common love of this concept is one of the main driving factors that make the present governmental system what it is. Americans tend to vote for the status quo, to vote for the incumbent. If some one personally makes enough bad news or gets in enough of a mudfight that people start actually looking at the other guy, you might just get a real race, but otherwise we get the same idiot in the Senate for decades. If the common idea was that the current guy had to prove himself better than the last fool, or decisively better than the challenger(s), we'd have fewer stagnation issues.

As to health care, I think it looks like the Europeans/Canadians are winning this debate. The only thing I don't see is how we make such a transition. There may a long-term benifit to the economy (not to mention the obvious benefits to low-income individuals) through greater efficiency, but in the short term that's a lot of downsizing when such a bill passes. Furthermore, there's the trouble and cost of setting it up, educating the populace in how to use it, etc. Even if you could convince a majority that the current devil is so bad that it's worth the risk to switch devils, could you convince them that it's worth the cost when we're already dealing with a major deficit?