Michael Moore - loving your enemy

Originally posted by Merk
I would disagree, healthcare is debated on a continual basis.

As for socialized medicine, we've seen how it works in Canada, we've no desire to have those kind of waits for surgery.

The problem being basic supply and demand. We all know what happens to demand when the cost of a service is zero. Socialized medicine needs to get beyond this problem before i ...[text shortened]... state is generally the best option, especially when it doesn't involve interstate commerce.

Actually, Canada doesn't have socialized medicine. It has socialized insurance. Sweden, Germany, Britain - they have socialized medical systems. And they're producing the healthiest and longest living populations on the planet.

And Canada's system, as bad as it is, is better than ours for the low income individual. It is the people with money who come here for care.

Originally posted by Merk
I would disagree, healthcare is debated on a continual basis.

As for socialized medicine, we've seen how it works in Canada, we've no desire to have those kind of waits for surgery.

The problem being basic supply and demand. We all know what happens to demand when the cost of a service is zero. Socialized medicine needs to get beyond this problem before i state is generally the best option, especially when it doesn't involve interstate commerce.

That's interesting, but the problem with a state-level solution is that you'd have working-class Americans flocking to that state undermining its services - in other words, the blue states would once again be subsidizing the red states. You'd have to pass state laws against outsiders using socialized medicine in Massachusetts; how that would impact on your constitution is hard to say, but by allowing such a vast private healthcare system to exist alongside it, you'd be in effect creating a tiny enclave of socialized medicine surrounded by private clinics which could undercut it. You'd also have the repercussions from states subsidizing the education of doctors trained to work for the socialized service dropping out to join the private sector.

Establishing a socialized health service is very difficult - but you can't do it by half-measures without seriously botching the job. In the end it's more than worth it - waiting times are easily eliminated as we've seen in this country over the last five years. The real issue is the model of socialized medicine you opt for: the French probably have the best, but even in this country it's far from monolithic - we have at least four.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Actually, Canada doesn't have socialized medicine. It has socialized insurance. Sweden, Germany, Britain - they have socialized medical systems. And they're producing the healthiest and longest living populations on the planet.

And Canada's system, as bad as it is, is better than ours for the low income individual. It is the people with money who come here for care.

Socialized medicine or socialized insurance, it doesn't matter. Its a socialized third party payer system.

I would rather have a system that sucks for the few. A system that sucks for everyone doesn't have much appeal to me.

Originally posted by Amaurote
That's interesting, but the problem with a state-level solution is that you'd have working-class Americans flocking to that state undermining its services - in other words, the blue states would once again be subsidizing the red states. You'd have to pass state laws against outsiders using socialized medicine in Massachusetts; how that would impact on your ...[text shortened]... ve the best, but even in this country it's far from monolithic - we have at least four.

It wouldn't effect our constitution. And yes, states would have to limit services to its residents only.

As for the private sector, the state would have to basically leave it in place and become the payer instead of insurance companies. In our case here, they're called HMO's and the suck. No surprise, they're a byproduct of government regulation.

The other question is how do we continue to grant powers to the federal government and reign it in. Perhaps you've noticed that throughout history, when a country becomes an empire, it has a strong central government. Perhaps you've even noticed an American trend over the last 70 years.

Avoiding that was the reason why our federal government was designed with limited, enumerated powers.

Originally posted by Merk
Socialized medicine or socialized insurance, it doesn't matter. Its a socialized third party payer system.

I would rather have a system that sucks for the few. A system that sucks for everyone doesn't have much appeal to me.

The point is, the socialized medicine opponents always point to Canada, which in the industrialized world is the second to worst - ours being the worst.

Originally posted by Merk
It wouldn't effect our constitution. And yes, states would have to limit services to its residents only.

As for the private sector, the state would have to basically leave it in place and become the payer instead of insurance companies. In our case here, they're called HMO's and the suck. No surprise, they're a byproduct of government regulation.

The ot ...[text shortened]... at was the reason why our federal government was designed with limited, enumerated powers.

Well, under the spending power Congress can spend money for any purpose it wishes, so long as it does not try to override the authority of the states. Other than that, there is no limitation on the spending power.