Free Health Care is Indeed About the Money

Originally posted by Wajoma
Doublespeak.

A majority forcing their values on a minority is not 'choice' and the smallest minority of them all is the indidvidual.

Deciding the extent of government action through a majoritarian voting process is the cornerstone of most democracies.

So, Wajoma, are you an anarchist or do you recognize the legitimacy of democratic governments?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Doublespeak.

A majority forcing their values on a minority is not 'choice' and the smallest minority of them all is the indidvidual.

If the government doesn't deliver, there are plenty of people who will take matters into their own hands. I don't like force any more than you do, but we live in a world where it exists. You have to accept that this is the way people are, you can scream force is wrong all you like, it's still going to be part of human nature. All you can do is regulate the way in which it's manifested.

It's either mob rule or mobs, accept it or move away from people.

Originally posted by Palynka
Deciding the extent of government action through a majoritarian voting process is the cornerstone of most democracies.

So, Wajoma, are you an anarchist or do you recognize the legitimacy of democratic governments?

Libertarians are not anarchists. I recognise the legitimacy of guvamint when it is confined to it's core reponsibilities:

police
defence force
judicial system

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, the whim of the mob needs to be limited by a binding constitution, like what the US almost had.

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
but never delivers.

You sure do speak in absolutes. What a crock.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Never delivers?
Never?

Glad someone else got that.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Libertarians are not anarchists. I recognise the legitimacy of guvamint when it is confined to it's core reponsibilities:

police
defence force
judicial system

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner, the whim of the mob needs to be limited by a binding constitution, like what the US almost had.

http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PhilosophyOfLiberty-english_music.swf

What's the alternative, the two wolves are left to starve and decide to eat the sheep anyway?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I don't think it ironic that she had to pay for her health care. Whether she's American or Canadian, she's going to pay for it one way or another: through the cost of health insurance, taxes, etc. Indeed, the only irony here is that in Canada, the government guarantees free health care for all, regardless of cost...but never delivers.

never? Canadian care never delivers? That's not even plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared#Health_care_outcomes
"Life expectancy is longer in Canada, and its infant mortality rate is lower than that of the U.S."

"In the World Health Organization's ratings of health care system performance among 191 member nations published in 2000, Canada ranked 30th and the U.S. 37th, while the overall health of Canadians was ranked 35th and Americans 72nd."

"Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans and show lower rates of many diseases such as various forms of cancer. On the other hand, evidence suggests that with respect to some illnesses (such as breast cancer), those who do get sick have a higher rate of cure in the U.S. than in Canada.[84]"

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years."


Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to portray Canada's as the panacea. Clearly they have some success with it. Better in aggregate than the US, or at least reasonably equivalent and good deal cheaper to boot.

However, there is one facet of the American health system that, on the whole, does pretty fabulously well. And that is, treating ermergency conditions.

But in three other extremely important ways the current system is utter disaster.
1). Treatment of chronic conditions.
2). Diagnoses of chronic symptoms, particularly those that aren't severe but with multiple symptoms.
3). Preventative medicine

Add in COST and you can understand why millions of Americans are looking for something better.

The bottom line is that doctors and hospitals aren't properly incentivized. A doctor in a private practice makes money every time you visit their office. It's in their best financial interest to get as many patients in and out of that door in a day as possible. Even if it means seeing a patient two, three, five times for the same malady. The natural emphasis is invariably on short-term solutions, quick diagnoses, and "process of elimination" of the easy cures.

I'm told that in Britain, doctors are paid based on a measurement of the aggregate health of the patients, and on the measured amount of improvement being made to that aggregate health (and possibly to certain classes of maladies).

This makes MUCH MUCH more sense. I'm not (necessarily) advocating universal healthcare. Whatever the form is, if it can align the doctor's/insurance/hospitals' financial interests better with the patient's, I think you will see much improvement in quality of care.

Originally posted by Sickboy

I'm told that in Britain, doctors are paid based on a measurement of the aggregate health of the patients, and on the measured amount of improvement being made to that aggregate health (and possibly to certain classes of maladies).

This makes MUCH MUCH more sense. I'm not (necessarily) advocating universal healthcare. Whatever the form is, if ...[text shortened]... erests better with the patient's, I think you will see much improvement in quality of care.

The best way was the old Chinese way.

Pay your doctor when you are healthy and do not pay him when you are sick.

Originally posted by Wheely
The best way was the old Chinese way.

Pay your doctor when you are healthy and do not pay him when you are sick.

What if you're just sick of paying him?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I wonder why Michael Moore didn't tell this woman's story?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300495064758477

"The answer — incredibly — is that Canada's bureaucratic health care system transformed me from a human into a number, put me on a waiting list and essentially told me to hope for the best."

this is from her article.

i must ask, did she think for a second of the numbers in front of her? that maybe someone in front of her needed surgery too and that she is no way more deserving than them?

in canada let's say she was number 13 on the list (no pun intended). let's consider what would have happened in america. if she would have had more money than numbers 1-12 she would have gotten ahead. if she had less money than the numbers below her, she would have kicked the bucket.

so yes, america's system is much better. if you have the dough, the cash, the greens. show me the money.

if anything, i think this article supports the theory the american health care is for the rich and screw the tiny person.

Originally posted by Wheely
The best way was the old Chinese way.

Pay your doctor when you are healthy and do not pay him when you are sick.

Erewhon revisited?

Originally posted by moho
Erewhon revisited?

Unfortunately I have not read Erewhon. It's like a number of classics of that time in that it's something you feel you should have read but never got around to.