Rock 'em Sock 'em Health care

[Hugo]

So you think your unicorns can run faster than the curent crop of horses and mules?

No, but I know that a jet plane goes faster than any of them.

If we want to talk about things that are irellevant to the debate, let's talk about an economic philosophy taht does not reflect reality, and will not reflect reality.

Oh, it did before, and let us all hope it does again, or it'll be a bleak future for us all.

It's great that you have firm convictions and I respect your views, but if you want to start talking aboutthe free market will save health care, you should first explain how you propose to pull down the current political/economic system and rebuild the new one in its place.

I've never worried too much about that. Frankly, our current system of slavery is far too secure because most of the slaves are prepared to fight and die for it. I'm trying to educate people, and if enough slaves realise their plight, they might slip their chains.

Basically, if enough people reject the state, it will collapse, because its only recourse is violence, and should it resort to that its true colours become very apparent. The nature of the state is clear when you realise that it threw Henry Thoreau in jail, who was a committed pacifist. Basically, it took a man who had never done any harm to anybody and deprived him of his liberty because he would not give in to its demands.

The real danger is that we lapse into endorsement of statism and socialism, as the Germans did in the decades before 1945, and that is indeed where we are headed. But as a pacifist, all I can do is speak out against it, at least while I still can.

The fact that there's only 4 million people in a tiny landmass doesn't hurt either.

Why should it make a difference?

That's the problem with free market thinking: it tends to assume the market is the only factor to consider.

What are the other factors, exactly? There aren't any that the free market doesn't overcome. Explain to me why Taiwan, with its far smaller population and relative dearth of natural resources, or Hong Kong, with a smaller population and essentially nothing but rock, have become richer and more prosperous than mainland China.

I will tell you: free markets.

I guess you just read the whole book so damn fast that you forgot to read the quote below it from the GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.

Yeah, like I'm going to believe the Government of Canada on how great the Government of Canada is. Charles Manson thinks Charles Manson shouldn't be in jail either. Free Charles Manson!

Dream all you want of a Singaporean solution, you ain't gonna get it.

A dream that is far less elusive than efficient, high-quality public healthcare.

[Black Dog]

Oh, it did before, and let us all hope it does again, or it'll be a bleak future for us all.

When?

I've never worried too much about that. Frankly, our current system of slavery is far too secure because most of the slaves are prepared to fight and die for it. I'm trying to educate people, and if enough slaves realise their plight, they might slip their chains. etc.

That's swell. But kind of a cop out. After all, how do you exopect people to buy your miracle cure if you don't know if it's in pill or liquid form? Know what I mean?

Why should it make a difference?

Less area means there's less infrastructure required (physical and administrative), while a small population means there's more coverage to go around.

What are the other factors, exactly?

Human behaviour for one. This is especially relevant to health care because helath care is not a commodity that people can shop around for. If you're in a car accident and you need treatment stat, are you in a position to comparison shop? Not only that, but in health care, consumers are highly reliant on the providers of the service. Ever taken your car into the shop for an oil change and walked out because you "needed" new brake pads, taransmission fluid, etc? Now imagine doing that with your health.

[Hugo]

The guy's a radical.

My mind is free, and according to Thoreau, that's the most crucial battle in the war.

[CAGERATTLER]

http://www.web.net/~ohc/docs/030204.htm

[Hugo]

If you want a proposal on how the problem can be fixed in the narrower field of health care, I'll borrow Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedmans idea. Basically, the whole healthcare delivery system is auctioned off to private enterprise. Then the government issues vouchers to citizens, paid for from tax money, which they can redeem for healthcare. Standard vouchers for things which are regular, like checkups, eyeglasses, prescriptions etc. and extraordinary claims for unforeseen needs.

This system does have a few problems, namely, those giving out the vouchers are not spending their own money and therefore don't have any incentive to ensure that the money is being wisely spent, or spent at all. Phoney claims might well abound. The voucher system also does not truly create a price mechanism between consumer and provider. Therefore, the vouchers will need to be phased out over time. But the voucher system at least starts out on the road to free-market healthcare.

The next step is that each year, the government should announce that it will cut certain services or departments from the voucher programme. It would have to announce this in advance so that insurance companies could be ready to pick up the slack. It would also have to be careful to see that it does not, with interventionist policies, make a complete mockery of the insurance industry as it has already with auto insurance. At the same time, it would also have to cut taxes that were previously going towards vouchers for the axed services (it is unlikely that any present government would do this, rather, it would see the money as a windfall and invest it elsewhere), so that people who were receiving vouchers can buy insurance instead.

The problem here is that it is unlikely that the tax cuts would actually benefit the same people who end up paying more. To work, this would almost certainly have to be accompanied by a complete shake-up of the tax system, by removing all exemptions and exceptions, abolishing the regressive sales tax, and imposing a flat income tax. It would also probably have to be accompanied by tax and budget cuts elsewhere, since all tax income is currently pooled before being spent. The government would also have to stop fixing prices and wages within the healthcare system since these defeat market mechanisms.

Eventually, given political will and honesty, this system would deliver us to a completely free-market healthcare system that would, as in every other free market, give us faster progress, steadily falling prices and steadily rising quality.

Is this feasible? I would say so, and Milton agrees with me. However, it would not happen because of the political climate. The ignorance surrounding healthcare is staggering. Even on this forum (where people are generally better-informed than the public at large), most people have confused the US healthcare system with a free market - a huge and glaring error! Until this ignorance is rectified it seems unlikely that such a scheme would pass, and unfortunately the government (who benefits from the current mess) is unlikely to encourage the ending of such ignorance. Indeed, the ignorance is likely to get worse, as in Canada the government controls the education system as well as several of the nations most prominent media services. The ignorance ratio is the same in the free market media as it is in the populace at large, sadly, so unless one listens to the Dreaded Fascist Fraser Institute the same tired old claptrap will be trotted out ad infinitum. Even if some government could get the process started, there is no guarantee that the NDP might not get in power and completely undo everything - and a second time around, it might not work at all, since if entrepreneurs buy healthcare services and then have the government confiscate them later, they are unlikely to be suckered in again!

Of course, when taxes approach 90% of income and the government has assimilated most of the economy (with healthcare being the biggest slice of that) it might dawn on people that this is not the way to do things. But by then it will probably be too late, short of mass armed revolt.

[Chimera]

OK Hugo, I'll play along with you here for a minute. Let's say that this wonderful free market enterprise came into being in the health care sector. We'll even pretend that human greed does not play a factor in skimping out on services such as paying certified health workers (nurses) to increase the bottom line. Everything is wonderful, everybody is happy.

What happens when the next Black Tuesday comes to pass?

The ignorance surrounding healthcare is staggering.

I could not agree with you more.

[Argus]

If we want to talk about things that are irellevant to the debate, let's talk about an economic philosophy that does not reflect reality, and will not reflect reality.

You usually do.

[I Miss Trudeau]

A perfectly reasonable hatred of taxation. Taxation is theft, and I regard hatred of taxation as hatred of theft. When we embrace taxation as a society we have become a society of thieves.

Complete nonsense.

Again, I ask anyone to take up the challenge of defining taxation in such a way that does not also describe high-minded theft.

It doesn't seem possible, given your absurd ideas about "theft" and "slavery."

We need only look at the dismal poverty of nations that have actually done this to see that it is a nonsense.

Right. But what about the dismal poverty of the many nations who have been bamboozled into striving for free markets? Those nations don't seem to discredit the idea of free markets in your mind.

The huge gap between supply and demand in public enterprise leads to chronic inefficiency, which manifests itself as increased cost to the consumer.

Your theory does not do well when it crosses over into reality.

Why not? Competition in the private sector has led to cheaper and better food, cars, televisions, computers, shoes, clothes, household appliances, wall-to-wall carpeting, exotic pets, you name it.

Specualtion. There are a number of factors that could all account for improvement in products, chief among them being technological advance. But I'm sure you'll make the absurd claim that there would be no technological advancement without competition.

Find me an example where competition in a free market did not lead to lower prices and/or better quality goods or services.

Fast food. When McDonalds held a virtual monopoly on that industry in my area, the service was far better and fasr faster.

With several national competitors now in the market, the service is both atrocious and slow. Also the prices have risen dramatically.

No, healthcare is a service, like plumbing, veterinary care, dentistry, roofing, car repair, IT consultancy, etc. And in all those fields the free market has successfully delivered better quality at less cost over time.

Source?

So savings in the free market have never been obtained with, for example, new technology? All inventions from the spinning jenny to computerised inventorying systems have had absolutely no impact on prices?

No more so than the invention would in a public industry.

Government is unlike any enterprise since it is the exercise of arbitrary and coercive power. Business is the exercise of trade and co-operation. You cannot compare the two. Ever.

In the case of health care, business would be nothing but "the excercise of arbitrary and coercive power." Unless, of course, you believe that choosing to die rather than pay a health care provider is a meaningful choice.

[Argus]

The wait for CT scans, MRIs and other diagnostic tools is unacceptablhy long in this country, and has been for over a decade.

If that is the case, the simple answer is to raise taxes (or clean up waste) to purchase more equipment and hire more people to do the MRI's quicker.

Unfortunatly, there is an ideological hatred of taxation in this country, even when it is in everyones best interest to increase taxes.

As a side note, there is no evidence to suggest that private clinics could provide MRI's for less than the public system can.

I think the evidence is that private clinics have opened which don't charge the patient, but which take only OHIP fees. Somehow, on OHIP fees, they can do their scans and still make a profit.

Ultimately, capitalism is all about supply and demand. There is a huge demand. If the government stopped preventing people from meeting that demand we would have no shortage.

As for raising taxes, perhaps you've failed to notice, but taxes directed towards health care have been escelating massively for years, and despite vast increases in funding there have been no improvements to health care. Quite the contrary.

It's time to stop beating our heads against a brick wall. It's time to try something new.

[Argus]

And for the dreamers that seem to think we will be able to import a "european" style of healthcare, wake up.

U.S. suppliers are in the best possible position, due to close proximity and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to take advantage of healthcare opportunities as they come on stream.  In the past five years, U.S. manufacturers of healthcare products, services and technologies have successfully cornered the import market in Canada, satisfying over 75% of total demand.  With a strong federal and provincial financial commitment to healthcare, coupled with increased healthcare needs for a growing and aging population and a growing number of public/private partnerships, the healthcare market in Ontario will continue to be viable for U.S. suppliers.

I'm not sure why you believe it matters that the US is our largest supplier of medical equipment. The exploding costs of health care in this country have more to do with inefficiencies in the system than expensive machines. There is no reason to believe we cannot import a mixed, European style system and use it with as much success as they have.

[Argus]

Hugo, before you continue extolling the virtues of a private healthcare system, I would highly recommend that you read this book .  Private healthcare is not as pretty as right wingers seem to think.

<SPUTTER> As evidence supporting your position you... you... you're citing a

book by MAUDE BARLOW!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

BWahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Guest eureka]

I have no intention of looking for a source for the "watr" situation in England, Hugo. Nevertheless, my statement is accurate and reflects the likely situation where private business controls utilities of any kind.

The idea of private interest in the provision of services is an absurdity. Services are not commodities or consumer goods and they do not respond to supply and demand which is applicable only to the pocket book of a consumer.

Sometimes I wonder about you. Anyone who can claim that Nazi Germany was Socialist has to be a few bricks short of a load. Nazi Germany was Fascist.

Orwell said of Fascism that it was " the counter attack of Capitalism." That is perhaps the shortest and most insightful definition of Fascism that I have ever read. It says everything, including that it was an attack on Socialism.

And I am not going to tell you in what he wrote that observation.

As for how you attempt to twist what I write, it should be obvious since you do it and you do it every time I shoot down your arguments.

What you ignored was that I said that government provision of other than services does not work because there are a myriad factors that come into play. That has nothing to do with who can provide them for the cheapest cost: and it is not Marxism.

Or do you also need to be educated into an understanding of Marxism.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Then by all means, take the challenge. Should be easy, if this is just 'dogma.'

Challenge? You mean:

Again, I ask anyone to take up the challenge of defining taxation in such a way that does not also describe high-minded theft.

Already done, in effect. Taxation is a manifesation of the social contract. In societies with a clearly consensual social contract (such as Canada) taxation iswhat participants pay to support the shared objectives of their society.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Basically, if enough people reject the state, it will collapse, because its only recourse is violence, and should it resort to that its true colours become very apparent.

More dogma.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Somehow, on OHIP fees, they can do their scans and still make a profit.

There is a medicentre near my house that works in the exact same manner. Unfortunatly, it has misdiagnosed my girlfriend every single time she has gone there.

There is a huge demand. If the government stopped preventing people from meeting that demand we would have no shortage.

Did you even read the studies quoted in this thread? You are simply wrong on this point. Adding private clinics as an option makes the problem worse, not better.

As for raising taxes, perhaps you've failed to notice, but taxes directed towards health care have been escelating massively for years, and despite vast increases in funding there have been no improvements to health care. Quite the contrary.

Actually, the waiting times for a lot of procedures have been coming down. But perhaps that counts as "no improvement" to you. Why let the facts get in the way of ideology, after all.

It's time to stop beating our heads against a brick wall. It's time to try something new.

Perhaps. But the system you endorse has been tried. And it has universally failed. In every single case, it has resulted in increased costs.

[Guest eureka]

Taxes directed towards healthcare have not been "escalating" for a number of years. Taxes have been cut so that a greater proportion of current revenues - at the Provincial level - goes to healthcare.

However, th proportion of GDP expenditure is about the same as a dozen years ago. The Provinces are playing a game of cutting their taxes and pretending that health costs are escalating in order to have the federal government pay a larger share.

Pass the blame for their dereliction.

[Argus]

There is a huge demand. If the government stopped preventing people from meeting that demand we would have no shortage.

Did you even read the studies quoted in this thread? You are simply wrong on this point. Adding private clinics as an option makes the problem worse, not better.

Interesting how the French don't seem to realize this, or the Germans, or the Swedes or Swiss or Fins or Norwegians, or... actually... anyone but us, the Cubans and the North Koreans.

Why, if your truth is so self-evident, so immutable, so clearly proven, does NO ONE IN THE WORLD agree with it except one hard line Stalinist era state and a brutal thugocracy?

[Guest eureka]

Why don't you stop throwing out names of other countries as "support" for your boneheaded ideas when you clearly have no clue about their systems.

Most countries that you cite have no more private care than Canada.

[Argus]

Why don't you stop throwing out names of other countries as "support" for your boneheaded ideas when you clearly have no clue about their systems.

Most countries that you cite have no more private care than Canada.

They all have private health care. Almost every European country, including the nordic countries, has a mixture of government, union and employer run health care plans.

I guess they're all boneheads.

[Guest eureka]

So does Canada! The mixes may be slightly different, though and that is what is worth investigating.

[Argus]

So does Canada! The mixes may be slightly different, though and that is what is worth investigating.

No other nation bans privately supplied health care.

You can have a union health care plan in Canada, but for the most part it only works in those areas which are not covered by the government. It will pay for dentistry, for example. You can go to any dentist, get an operation done, and they will pay for it. They will pay you for prescriptions, and eyeglasses, but they are limited in what they can pay because government restricts what services can be supplied except through government.

If you want an MRI and can't wait you're free to pay for one in Germany, France, or anywhere else in Europe. But not in Canada (true we have a few such clinics anyway, but they are illegal, and only tolerated because most are in Quebec). And I believe because of this few suplimental union and employer benefits will cover them. Likewise your health care coverage will pay a couple of grand to have a dental operation, but can't pay to have a knee operation because no one is allowed to supply this service but government.

At least, in Canada. Not anywhere else.

Find me another country which prohibits doctors from taking money from anyone but government to do routine medical procedures.

[Guest eureka]

That is not entirely accrate, Argus. Those European systems except for Switzerland, are funded between 70 and 90% publicly. Canada is around 70%. The mix is different and that is what is at issue.

Who says that one mix is better than another unless you compare results. Some have better results than Canada but ours are not far behind. It may be that we have it right and that other factors come into the question. That is what should be questioned.

Incidentally, the average cost for the advanced nations is only 46% of the American and all rank higher in overall quality. And did you know that the third leading cause of death in the US is health care induced? That is from problems of the system such as Hospital infections and phsician error. That is what for profit, private systems bring.

[Chimera]

<SPUTTER> As evidence supporting your position you... you... you're citing a

book by MAUDE BARLOW!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

BWahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

WOW...

OH...MY...GOD....

I, I just didn't realise what I was doing I guess. Thank you very much for such eloquent prose in debunking the source.

Geesh,

Hey everybody, please disregard that source, in fact, maybe we should even ask to have the link permanently deleted from this site.

Heck, maybe we even ought to collect every published work of hers and burn it after that enlightening revelation.

Thank you once again for steering me away from the path to the dark side.

[Argus]

<SPUTTER> As evidence supporting your position you... you... you're citing a

book by MAUDE BARLOW!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

BWahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

WOW...

OH...MY...GOD....

I, I just didn't realise what I was doing I guess. Thank you very much for such eloquent prose in debunking the source.

Geesh,

Jesus God! You want eloquence against Maude Barlow? Let me give you a clue, sunshine. Barlow is from here. She is the only woman I know who makes Sheila Copps seem like a paragon of intelligence, refinement and sophistication. She ran for city council here, but even in the dumbass area of yuppies and bearded peaceniks where she ran she failed miserably. She is a rabid anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-porn, pro-Affirmative action, ultra feminist with no education. She is a brainless gadfly, a knee-jerk reactionary who is almost a cliche of all the worst elements of well-meaning but horribly self-righteous birkenstock clad, cheese eating socialists from the comfortable middle class suburbs.

[Guest eureka]

You are one bitter, angry man, Argus. How do you manage to ever even post to topic through your red eyes.