Reports that Barack Obama is prepared to concede the public option in the health care bill (with some perhaps vague hope that it might be reinserted in a conference between the House and Senate on reconciling inconsistent provisions) expose the difficulty any President faces in securing even an approximation to what are basic and threshold social democratic reforms in the United States.
Leaving aside the obvious attempt to articulate the health care plan with ‘right to life’ scaremongering through all the nonsense about ‘death panels’, we still have a textbook example of how culture and ideology can cause blindness to collective interests (and indeed self interest). No amount of rhetoric about the possibilities of self actualisation and choice over life goals has any meaning if there is sustained structural inequality in health outcomes (and therefore life chances), and if there is no real attempt to ameliorate this inequality through collective action by the state.
At The Global Sociology Blog, SocProf hones in on the reasons for the absence of any discussion of, or even awareness of, class inequality in American culture and politics.
Obama now faces the familiar dilemma of attempting to save political face through the passage of some watered down bill which will do nothing, and may even be harmful, given the capture of representatives and Senators by the private interests of health insurers. Progressives also face a painful dilemma – an oft repeated one: whether to be complicit in the passage of a measure whose momentum is now driven almost solely by political calculation or whether to take a stand on principle. John Odum poses this well. But it seems unlikely that conditions – under the current political arrangements – for the passage of genuine health care reform will ever be more favourable.
I think the interesting thing about this is the massive success of the blitzkrieg “Town Hell” strategy by grass roots groups that’s essentially made the Democrats blink. Given the success of this sort of strategy I can see a repeat happening down here in the near future.
On the upside, regardless of the embarressment/annoyance caused I am glad as much as I disagree with the teabaggers that Obama didn’t use “Free Speech Zones.” I hope for his term he resists that strategy.
So, USA – you believe in public schooling. Like… what’s the diff, dudes?
I can honestly say I watched the reports of those meetings thanking your choice of Deity for Antipodean social democratic traditions.
Change a word here or there, the name of the country or the political party or the name of the prez or PM or the particular issue and its all so interchangable with comment on any range of topics.
Everyone’s happy to get something for free, until they find out it isn’t free.
Especially big business. Oh wait a minute they don’t ever have to find out isn’t free.
The interesting feature of this fiasco is that the White House did not see the Town Hall scare-athon coming.
Given the energy and effectiveness of the Right Wing Noise Machine ever since Hillary crashed and burned in the early 1990s, Obama’s negligence and recklessness in failing to prepare verges on the deliberately self-destructive.
Internationally Obama is now Bush-lite and his domestic program is essentially dead in the water.
Remind me. What was Obama trying to achieve through his presidency?
I think that health care reform could have transformed the US in that you would have a healthier population and people would be fixed up before minor ailments cascaded into something more serious.
However the current system is cheaper. Don’t treat people for free when they start to get sick and then continue not treating them as they get sicker…it’s just Darwinism or God’s will at work then.
Also, with insurance companies they can save money by taking premiums from people until they get sick…then they can withdraw insurance. After all, their hands are tied. Morally and ethically insurers have no moral obligation to sick people, only to shareholders and investors.
The fact that ordinary and even upper middle class people can be bankrupted by what would be regarded as minor operations over here is of no consequence, the fact is funding a public system may increase taxes on the rich by as much as 1-2%. Unzcceptable.
The awful thing is…we will follow the same path eventually. Why should upper income earners here be paying for my medical procedures?
Oh and while I’m hoggin the thread…obviously it’s OK to bail the finance sector out. But if you’re poor and sick…screw you buddy! How dare you ask for a handout! I swear these guys never studied the events that led to the French Revolution. “The poor need surgery? Let them look at piccies of my nose job! Haw haw haw!”
Right on Tssk. The Yanks put Wall St in public healthcare soon as it sniffled, in first class digs too.
Ordinary working stiffs can go to buggery. What a bunch of plutocrats and elitists!
And to invert your question Katz: what is any President meant to do in the face of mass irrationality in post-reality communities? Obama will hardly be the first to fail, if he does.
tssk: the US government, under the current system, spends a similar fraction of GDP on healthcare to us.
Yes, American healthcare really is that screwed up.
That said, I don’t think the lack of a public option is as disastrous as has been made out. If they get universal coverage and community rating up, that’s a massive win.
Robert @10
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
Spending a little over twice as much as AU. Quoted source lists sources for data.
One answer is that a president who is interested in progressive reform might take some effort to understand the strengths and weaknesses of his opponents.
Then that president might choose and prepare the ground for the inevitable battle more carefully.
Then he might have some prepared positions to fall back to when his ambit claims look like failing.
It’s called politics. Obama appears to be almost entirely ignorant of Clinton’s failures.
What does Obama intend to do with his remaining 3.5 years of his first term? At this rate Obama looks like being a two-term president because he’ll offend no one and achieve nothing.
And our population is what…about the same as New york right? What a joke. Then again…John Galt never got sick! Stiff upper lip chaps!
Actually, Robert, Tsssk and Craig Mc it’s worse than that. Per capita they spend more than anyone else in the OECD, and arguably the world.
So not only is the US system total shit, they are getting ripped off blind for it. Absolutely nuts. Land of the free. Free to die, live in pain, and go bankrupt for a basic human right. Sign me up.
The meds I take for my colitis in Australia set me back about $50 for 200 pills. I have to take six of these babies a day. In the US, those same pills cost the patient a minimum of $5 each. That would mean I would spend $150 a week. Instead, doctors there are told to recommend pepto bismol, which is like treating a gunshot wound with Dettol. Crazy.
Veltyen: my comment referred to government spending on health. Their government-funded health sector (through things like Medicare, veterans, the active-duty military, and so on) chews up as much money, per-capita, as ours. The extra money that the US spends is through employers and individuals.
And they wonder why there’s such a drug problem in the US. Some are probably self medicating for pain management!
Rob – yes, spending a similar GDP fraction as AU *without* achieving a broad spectrum public option, let alone universal insurance cover, is a sign of how mind-bogglingly inefficient their system is.
What do these town hall hysterics imagine they’re defending?
Like I say, glad it aint us.
I just feel sorry for them.
What I truly don’t understand – call me mr smith if you will – is that in situations like this, and carbon trading in our own country – where the public is overwhelmingly in favour, polled time and time again demonstrating as much, the parties make this rehtoric part of their electoral platform etc etc. and then they back off.
What are they afraid of, truly? The public wants it, they voted for you wanting it. A bunch of gibbering loons manage to get a lot of air time, but the _public still wants it_, what are politicians doing? Man, opportunities for true reform are few and far between. Grab the bull by the horns man.
“And they wonder why there’s such a drug problem in the US. Some are probably self medicating for pain management!”
And I wonder what the deal is when you join the large crowd of the busted in jail? Maybe that is where you get some health care attention if you can escape the bashings, that is.
patrickg, the public may want it, but it’s not really the public that politicians are concerned about. They are concerned about the powerful vested interests that influence what the public thinks, that tell the public what to think.
You only have to look at what passes for the climate change debate over here to realise how this works. Even the ABC gives far more time to big business and the powerful than the token enviromentalist. All in the name of balance of course.
US domestic commentators I read could not understand Obama’s laid back approach to healthcare reform in leaving the consensus to Congress to come up with something acceptable. Now that consensus seeking has been hijacked. I agree with Katz that Obama has been blindsided and if he acquiesces then he’s next to useless. Even more amazing in the light of what happened to Clinton on the same issue.
It makes you wish he might have first tested the wind with a dry run on something a little less important but just as testy, say gun control.
But that’s the thing adrian, with all their air time, the spin doctors have remarkably little cut through. In Australia the public is still massively in favour of climate change mitigation, and same in the US with healthcare.
If Obama’s been blindsided, it’s been by his own party. The teabaggers and screaming fanatics aren’t nearly as much the problem as Harry Reid et al.
“Two-term President”, Katz? What else could he be?
Paul Keating made a similar observation in an interview with Kerry O’Brien earlier in the year. In response to a question about why the nationalistaion of the banks wasn’t on the table in the US, Keating stated that none of them want it on their resume that they naitionalised the American banking system.
Even though the political class has to appeal to public opinion to win power, they spend most of their time amongst polite company and socialists aren’t welcome amongst polite company.
A one-term president who went down fighting for something he believed in.
(One being the integer before Two).
Doesn’t matter now. Essentially Sarah Pailin is the policy decider now. And those that supported the Republicans can sit easy in the knowledge that while they may be (for now) a minority the US government has shown that their votes are more important. So, how long until our health system gets reformed to be like the US one?
Robert Merkel
One point on what you raised at #10.
Massive amounts of expenditure in the US is consumed in medical litigation. The average for obstetrics is around 2.5 million, with a 75% chance of encountering litigation. (I have mislaid the link, but the article was unclear on whether that was per year, decade or career)
An example of the kinds of awards.
Brain injury: – 28 January 2009
Source:
An Aurora, Illinois family agreed to settle a medical malpractice lawsuit they filed against Provena Mercy Medical Center located in Aurora. A Cook County Circuit Court judge signed the medical negligence settlement agreement for $6.5 million reported the Chicago Tribune. Court documents claimed Roberto Morales, Jr., born on April 7, 2001, at Provena Mercy, suffered a brain injury while doctors and nurses were delivering him. The attending obstetrician and the labor and delivery nurses administered the drug Pitocin to the baby’s mother. The lawsuit filed against the hospital, doctors and nurses alleged they failed to respond to the baby’s distress which caused a brain injury. brain injury lawyers by JusticeNewsFlash.com.
We may complain doctors boards are a closed shop, but it does seem a necessary evil to keep lawyers out of medicine. Yet nowhere in Obamas health policy is legal reform mentioned, I can only think because he didnt want to be seen as helping “wealthy doctors’ over “poor victims”. Thats a huge mistake, once the US government becomes the responsible party for malpractice how will the system cope?
http://blogjobs.biz/2009/07/08/tort-or-tale-how-medical-litigation-is-stopping-health-care-reform/
This last link is from the US government and outlines how effective law reforms in some states have been in lowering the cost of practicing medicine.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/mlupd2.htm
Yet it isnt part of the 1000 page proposal?
Much of the “overtesting” of patients (which adds to expense) is in order to tick the boxes to ward off any possibility of a negligence claim, not what the doctor feels is needed.
Meanwhile if you go to the other extreme of the British NHS, you have bureaucratic machine allowing/denying treatment based on their own arcane variables.
Both systems fail to serve the public as well as they should, the US because it is overrun with lawyers, the NHS because its overrun with “managers” and public servants.
Obama appears to have failed comprehensively to sell his product. He would have been better off to promise a bare bones standard of care for the uninsured, then moved to expand it later, instead he proposed to take away peoples private insurance, and magically keep the same or better standards of care. Without extra cost… in a country where many distrust the government to run bugger all.
I can only think it was hubris or ignorance that allowed him to think that would get through intact.
The Australian system isnt to bad, but does display a worrying trend towards the worst of both models. (early stages).
“Remind me. What was Obama trying to achieve through his presidency?”
- hopechangey all delivered smoothly and eloquently via TOTUS (Teleprompter OTUS). Nothing of substance except no new taxes for those earning less than US$250,000.
“Right on Tssk. The Yanks put Wall St in public healthcare soon as it sniffled, in first class digs too.”
- hardly, it was more like a coronary requiringa triple bypass with the patient in danger of stroking out at any moment. We looked intothe abyss of global financial collapse – nota sniffle.
“What are they afraid of, truly? The public wants it, they voted for you wanting it.”
- they are afraid of the polling which is showing both Obiwan and the Dems getting on the nose. Mid-term elections next year with a number of Dems looking shaky already.
“It makes you wish he might have first tested the wind with a dry run on something a little less important but just as testy, say gun control.”
- Obiwan went out of his way during the campaign to say that he supported gun ownrship rights. Do you think he lied?
Wow, such insight, Katz, but one-term Presidents are generally considered failures, whereas successful Presidents are re-elected to a second term. Maybe things are different here?
Successful at what? A reformist president might prefer to be defeated fighting for his principles.
George W. Bush served two terms.
Your next task Patrick is to define “massively in favour” in real dollar terms. i.e. how much they are personally prepared to pay to have their stated preference.
Mole gets to the heart of the health-care system’s problems in the US. There’s no point switching all the lawyers from the private purse to the public purse. Legislate them out of the game altogether. Little chance of that when both parties (Democrats more so) are basically country clubs for tort lawyers.
Patrickg:
The problem is a variant of this one, as eloquently described by Paul Norton.
Essentially, there’s a broad majority in favour of action, but there are well organized but relatively small minorities intensely opposed who can shift just enough votes – or in the USA, shift campaign funding and thus alter votes, to scare politicians.
It’s worse in the US, because you don’t even have to nobble an entire party. You can just buy off a key Senator or two.
Tssk@16 And they wonder why there’s such a drug problem in the US. Some are probably self medicating for pain management!
That is incredibly interesting, I never thought of it that way but you’re probably absolutely correct, for a great many people.
Again, I dont get it. The US pre-tertiary education system is far MORE publicly-oriented than ours. There, any private schools are essentially for Religious fringe groups only – eg the Amish have them. Why is that not “socialism”, Mr Town Hall Nutjob? Whats so different about health?
Id say any system in which 30% dont have any cover is in a fully-fledged crisis, as bad as Wall St – and clearly needs a public bailout.
Helen and tssk I found a little bit of recent info on drugs and lack of healthcare in the U.S.A. jails. I gather many who self medicate end up incarcerated and are then just left to suffer. The short article that I link to, for the following informative quotes, also has some very sad comments attached to it from relatives of the jailed looking for help.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/01/16/many-in-us-prisons-lack-good-health-care.html
“Largely due to the war on drugs, the U.S. prison population has increased fourfold in the past 25 years, surpassing any other nation in the world in number of people incarcerated per capita….”
“Of these roughly 2 million inmates, about 800,000 suffered from a chronic condition that generally requires medical attention: diabetes, hypertension, a prior heart attack or a previously diagnosed cancer, among a few other diagnoses,”
I’d say it’s the opposite. A mile wide and an inch thick. A majority thinks something’s a good idea as long as it’s only discussed in vague motherhood platitudes – pretty much what Obama forged his career on.
That bullshit doesn’t float once you get the job and have to turn it into costed legislation.
Then the ugliness (and there’s plenty in the boondoggle) is revealed in all its glory to the electorate who reel in horror. “My taxes will go up?” “I can’t choose my own doctor?” “My employer-provided policy will be taxed?” “The deficit will be what?” …and so on. So it doesn’t take long for that inch to wear through and the mile-wide support to become mile-wide opposition.
So much for “massively in favour” – most of the electorate now favours the Republicans on Health-Care, and the proposed legislation needs health-care itself.
I am enjoying the irony of the ultimate Community Organiser being gazzumped by communities organising themselves (and then being accused of not being real – “astroturf” and being either over dressed or under dressed).
Craig Mc that final link is a joke. Given all the emotive pictures of Obama in medic cap and the socialist implication I am not surprised the polling has gone south. You must be able to do better.
Craig, I define massively in favour by people asking, “Are you in favour?” and people saying, “Yes.”
Given how eager you right wingers are to accuse those on the left of denying the public of any agency/intelligence, I’m intrigued to see how quickly you can turn this around for your pet topics.
Strange as it may seem, I tend to believe people when they say “yes”. But anyway, your bullshit analogy is completely wrong.
People are prepared to pay. Of course, I could turn this around and ask you to get a survey where the question is “Faced with catastrophic change that will end the majority of human life on this planet, cause the extinction of millions of species, etc etc… Are you for climate legislation?”
Oh and by the way, your precious Rasmussen has been push-polling for Republicans since the eighties. Try harder.
I hate to meddle with the childhood fantasy that every wish comes for free, but in the real world choices come with consequences. It seems the US electorate is only now hearing about the consequences and the numbers say it doesn’t like them. At least Joe2 can read a poll.
Your definition of “massively in favour” is a recipe for a lifetime of disappointment. This guy thought the locals were “massively in favour” of his friendship.
But anyway, your bullshit Crikey poll (tautology alert) completely underlines my point.
Would I be prepared to pay? I suppose – how much? That might affect my answer.
Er, that’s OK sir, we’re not asking that today (or EVER).
It’s like putting forward a business case which is missing the costs and prices. Utterly meaningless. You can get away with that during a glib, superficial election campaign, but not when you have to make legislation.
Craig, it’s a newspoll, straight from the belly of the beast. Amazing that you seemingly know both the price and value of everything proposed ever.
Ugh, I don’t know why I bother engaging. I direct you to my previous comment in regards to climate.
We do at least, agree on the necessity of litigation reform over there.
Katz,
Yeah, it’s very, very disappointing and also that they couldn’t re-energise their election campaign model to fund and organise the obviously needed campaign to get healthcare reform up.
I haven’t been bothered to look at detail of the proposed changes, however thinking back to the double attempt it took to introduce universal coverage into Australia – there are indeed powerful conservative forces that need to be overcome, but then once it’s bedded down..it’s the complete opposite. (So much for the all bare-faced lies told in this country twice, Craig Mc.)
By 1996, Howard had to repeat endlessly in that campaign, that he wouldn’t touch Medicare to get elected in the very first place.
It was the one policy that kept Hawke/Keating in, and one the policy that Howard had to pretend to love to get elected. Once in Howard tried the death by a thousand cuts but he never went head on.
I’m with Paul Burns, I just feel very sorry them. Imagine living in a country where so many people weren’t getting proper medical treatment as a matter of course. This is where you are supposed divide the first world from the developing world.
And I know we can quibble about our system, but faark. I work at one of this country’s best children’s hospitals, a world class teaching and research institution where everyday very sick children from across NSW are treated equally on a case by case basis, by some of the most dedicated and highly trained medical staff anywhere.
There are tears and tragedies, and thankfully in most cases ‘happy endings’ however all, without one skerrick of a thought of ‘ability to pay’ entering the equation.
Of course, there are on-going funding issues, as I said in terms of our on-going quibbles (quibbles compared to the US and other developing countries systems), but overall, it’s uplifting, inspiring and ultimately it feeds our entire society with the clear knowledge that this is a proper and just society, that this is a country of the fair-go, and that no matter who you are, if you turn up at our public hospitals, kids or otherwise, you will receive treatment and in > 95% times it means quality first world care.
There aren’t too many issues that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Australians all agree on, but public hospitals, and Medicare since it was introduced are the two. Then again, there aren’t too many issues where the difference can mean on-going suffering or early death on an entirely personal level.
I dunno about the “nothing’s free” routine Craig.
What are the productivity costs of 30% of your people not having adequate healthcare? Especially when most of your real competitors provide for theirs. Who knows, its not generally “costed” by economists. ‘Enormous’ is a good starting guess.
And secondly, as always in these debates, do libertarians really imagine that wages outcomes do not reflect the prevailing tax settings?
Let me put it this way: your taxes suddenly go down, so you can “self-provide”, and thus your wages are up. But I’m you’re employer. Am I going to give you the same pay rise this year? Probably not, probably less. And the next year too. Net result – your so-called ‘tax cut’ progressively goes up the wazoo AND your public provision via tax just left town.
I’m not sure you’re better off, even allowing for the inflationary aspects of wage rises.
Well that makes you as qualified to be in congress as anyone there now.
Lawyers uniting the world!
Ya know, it’s certainly no crime to have a poor grasp of the situation in a foreign country. Lawd knows I have a rather poor grasp of reality in Australia, as do most of the people on earth. As regards the US, it’s a condition shared by all humanity excepting about 350 million.
So please don’t take it personally when I tell you, as I must, that most of the comments here quite happily seat themselves in the “not even wrong” sector, pretty much of their own accord; and many come under the heading of “not even stupid”.
There’s a serious discussion to be had about the state of US health care — and it isn’t at present being had, and may never be, (and if it were to be had, it could well yield conclusions very different from what you prefer), but not for any of the reasons put forth here.
To do an anatomy of what’s actually happening would take an extraordinary amount of time, and I’m not up to the task at the moment. I’d simply ask people to question their premises about US politics, and question whether you really know what you think you know.
Now let’s all talk about that Agricultural Ministry scandal in Burkina Faso, eh wot?
The US Government spends vast amounts of money (some reports indicate almost 30%) on private sector bureaucracy and administration. Conceivably, if Obama was willing to kick a few heads, he could reform the entire system without spending a cent more, by excising the fat cats from the picture.
expose the difficulty any President faces in securing even an approximation to what are basic and threshold social democratic reforms in the United States
That’s because the United States is a liberal democracy, not a social democracy, and while there’s so much as a skerrick of individualism left in the American psyche let’s hope it stays that way. If you want social democracy then move to France, Canada or the UK and see if you get better health care. (But hey, at least being on a waiting list might make you feel like someone else is taking responsibility for you while your condition worsens.)
SocProf hones in on the reasons for the absence of any discussion of, or even awareness of, class inequality in American culture and politics.
Because most Americans don’t give a shit about ‘class’. That’s a concept you lefties are obsessed with hanging on to so you can use it to justify collective action. When America was created human kind moved beyond that. But the idea that every individual is sovereign is a little too noble for you lot.
Almost 30% of what? The US GDP? Their national budget? Their national expenditure on health care? Is there one of those reports you can link to that will clarify this?
If you want social democracy then move to France, Canada or the UK and see if you get better health care.
Actually, tens of millions of Americans would get far better health care if they moved to a supposedly social democratic country, like the ones you listed. Since they can’t all do that, perhaps their elected representatives could take their votes into consideration.
That’s a concept you lefties are obsessed with hanging on to so you can use it to justify collective action. When America was created human kind moved beyond that. But the idea that every individual is sovereign is a little too noble for you lot.
It’s a bit rich for fetishists of pseudo-philosopher Rand, and those who think money-grubbing and shopkeeperism amount to tragic heroism to start lecturing others on what’s ‘noble’. If the individual is, as you say, ‘sovereign’, maybe corporate shills and republicans might value the bodily integirty of these individuals, and ensure that they have access to health care on a par with every other developed nation.
Word, Lefty E. Craig Mc – listen to the man, because he’s on the money. Why did Toyota chose Ontario over the Southern United States to open a new factory?
And that’s not all. When people scrimp on the education dollars, you have this sort of hassle.
Social democracy saves you money, folks.
Almost 30% of what? The US GDP? Their national budget? Their national expenditure on health care? Is there one of those reports you can link to that will clarify this?
Here you go:
The United States spends more than three times as much on health care administration per capita as Canada, according to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by advocates of a national health care system.
The study found that health care bureaucracy cost Americans $294.3 billion in 1999, and that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31 percent of total U.S. health spending, compared to 16.7 percent in Canada, where health care is funded by the government.
http://www.nursezone.com/nursing-news-events/more-news/Study-Calls-US-Health-Care-Bureaucracy-Costs-Unwieldy_28816.aspx
Here’s more:
“As costs rise, one out of three American’s health-care dollars are going to waste and inefficiency,” said report co-author Larry C. McNeely II, a U.S. PIRG Health Care Advocate.
Wasted dollars include inappropriate and unnecessary care, inflated drug prices and administrative bureaucracy, McNeely said. The total cost in waste in 2007 for insurance bureaucracies, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and providers was $730 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/01/28/skyocketing-health-care-costs-could-double.html
By assuming that the market will behave like Dumbo’s magical feather, and get things to fly, you inadvertantly incentivise needlees administration, unnecessary treatment, and all the rest of it. It’s basically a racket that some incredibly stupid and deceitful right wingers are trying to re-brand as ‘freedom’. It’s really quite ‘noble’.
An estimated 70 to 90 per cent of cancer occurrences in the US have environmental causes.
The drug and insurance companies are desperate to defeat any move towards socialised health, as remote as such a possibility may be, not least because such a system in its greater rationality could decide to spend more money on addressing the environmental causes of cancers rather than simply spending the health dollar on diagnostic, surgical and drug treatments which accept cancer as a given.
Thanks THR. The expenditure isn’t what the US government spends but the percentage of what US people spend on their private healthcare which goes in bureacracy and administration. I think that Obama’s argument is that if the US government provided a national health scheme they’d be much less wasteful than that. I haven’t done the research but I wouldn’t be surprised if that was right.
I never thought I’d say this, but…please listen to j_p_z @ 47, and think about what he had to say… (and I say this as an Ozzy that just spent a crazy US Presidential election year in NYC)
Thanks for that little snippet, Bat. I know that it isn’t your custom but can you provide a link to substantiate your claim?
Also can you provide a link that shows, should such a statistic be true, that it is not any different in any comparable industrialised country?
Actually, tens of millions of Americans would get far better health care if they moved to a supposedly social democratic country, like the ones you listed.Since they can’t all do that, perhaps their elected representatives could take their votes into consideration.
And hundreds of millions, without any exaggeration, would be worse off. Perhaps those elected representatives are listening after all.
Funny, I thought you collectivist freaks were all about the greatest good for the greatest number. You guys get more self-contradictory by the day.
f the individual is, as you say, ’sovereign’, maybe corporate shills and republicans might value the bodily integirty of these individuals, and ensure that they have access to health care on a par with every other developed nation.
Mmm, less is really more. Spoken like the true commie loser you are. There is nothing in your whole crap philosophy beyond simple socialism regardless of how you try to dress it up or whatever label you choose for yourself.
The vast majority of Americans have health care better than every other developed nation. This debate is over the minority that don’t.
By assuming that the market will behave like Dumbo’s magical feather, and get things to fly, you inadvertantly incentivise needlees administration, unnecessary treatment, and all the rest of it.
And, of course, no government program ever has ‘needlees administration, unnecessary treatment, and all the rest of it’. Socialism is, after all, renowned for efficiency and delivering superior outcomes.
Enlighten us, then, Mercurius, rather than telling us we don’t know enough what we don’t know.
Socialism is, after all, renowned for efficiency and delivering superior outcomes.
Actually, dollar for dollar, virtually every nation with ‘socialist’ health care is vastly more efficient and produces better outcomes than the US model. I’ve already supplied you with figures documenting the monstrous wastefulness of the cavalier private system in the US. Grow up, and stop expecting millions of US citizens to suffer for the sake of crackpot ideologues like yourself.
Socialism is, after all, renowned for efficiency and delivering superior outcomes.
Actually, dollar for dollar, virtually every nation with ‘socialist’ health care is vastly more efficient and produces better outcomes than the US model. I’ve already supplied you with figures documenting the monstrous wastefulness of the cavalier private system in the US. Grow up, and stop expecting millions of US citizens to suffer for the sake of crackpot ideologues like yourself.
“The vast majority of Americans have health care better than every other developed nation. This debate is over the minority that don’t.”
Care to please back those statements up, Michael Sutcliffe?
Care to please back those statements up, Michael Sutcliffe?
Page 103 of ‘Atlas Shrugged’, and the latest by Ann Coulter.
Actually, dollar for dollar, virtually every nation with ’socialist’ health care is vastly more efficient and produces better outcomes than the US model.
How come Canadians, who have what is potentially the model for social democratic health care keep going to the US because their system lets them down? And that’s not to mention the many average people without life threatening problems who don’t want a year on a waiting list. How come Canadian politicians do this despite needing to be seen to support the Canadian system? How come the US is such a destination for ‘medical tourism’?
Nick at #64, see some of the links in my post above.
The Canadians spend less on health care per capita than the US. Nobody denies that the US has some great facilities and specialists, it’s just that few can afford them. To say it again, if you look at outcomes versus money spent, the US has a shite system for everybody except rent-seekers who profiteer from it.
Sorry patrickg, no can do. j_p_z’ message, which I can only second, is “enlighten thyself”.
From what I’ve seen, health care in the USA, on average, is both worse than most Americans think, and better than most non-Americans think. There’s actually plenty of subsidised and low-cost medicine around, a dizzying choice of high-quality doctors, and hundreds of millions dollars of free or cost-price medicine given away by drug companies to low-income and unemployed Americans. You don’t always hear about them because they’re non-government programs. An awful lot of the “looking after” in the States gets done by non-profits ie. people who aren’t civil servants.
That said, there are also all manner of horrifying mix-ups, ghoulish insurance company behaviour, and more. It’s a ‘heaven or hell’ system at the moment.
And don’t be too hasty in judging the way Obama is playing the politics. He plays a deeper game than most give him credit for. About 16 months ago plenty of people were ready to write him off in the Primary race, too, or don’t you remember?
The last people who “misunderestimated” Obama included the Clintons and the GOP. Don’t make their mistake in thinking it’s all over.
OK, THR, at least we’ve agreed on the quality of US health. I take issue with the ‘it’s just that few can afford them’, in fact he majority can afford them, but I’ll let that pass. I agree with the ‘outcomes versus money spent’ – the US is inefficient. It’s a lot to do with regulatory meddling in the name of delivering ‘equality’, just as the sub-prime crisis was brought about for the most part by regulatory meddling in the name of getting poor people into cheap housing. Also, US doctors are highly paid for their services (possibly the highest paid people in the US) compared to many other nations where doctors are arguably abused when their many years of study, sacrifice and hard work are taken into account. However, the US does have work to do here.
For the record, I do think Canadian health does have many good points in terms of providing health care for the poor. In particular, I personally believe that in terms of government provided health care, they utilise the private sector with public funding to deliver very good outcomes for those who otherwise couldn’t afford that standard.
“The vast majority of Americans have health care better than every other developed nation. This debate is over the minority that don’t.”
Care to please back those statements up, Michael Sutcliffe?
Anecdotal evidence from one other developed country, Canada, and an article about health tourism (which wrote: “In turn, more and more U.S. hospitals are also marketing their services toward these lucrative patients, whose high-tech care tends to be pricey and is commonly fully paid by patients’ governments, covered by their insurance or paid for out-of-pocket.”) aren’t satisfactory.
Do your own research and put up an argument, it’s not that hard. It took me about 30 seconds to find those articles. If you don’t want that then continue to live in ignorance. You deserve to get the sub-optimal outcomes that come your way.
The structural elements of the American system are almost unbelievably stupid. No sane person would design a system where huge swathes of health insurance are explicitly linked to employment (indeed, are part of the wage), and yet that is what wartime wage controls and post-war union demands have left them with (wait, did I say sane?). adrian is correct on his second point: the machinery of American politics is essentially captive to vested commercial interests, and very obviously so in the case of health policy. It would take a President with far more political and moral authority than Obama to straighten it out. Or a President with far more political nous.
“Let me put it this way: your taxes suddenly go down, so you can “self-provide”, and thus your wages are up. But I’m you’re employer. Am I going to give you the same pay rise this year? Probably not, probably less. And the next year too. Net result – your so-called ‘tax cut’ progressively goes up the wazoo AND your public provision via tax just left town.”
If you are right then you would expect nominal wages growth to stall as income tax rates are lowered. And yet in Australia successive income tax cuts ran in parallel with mildly accelerating annual growth in the wage price index (at least, that’s my recollection). How would you explain this? I agree that wages reflect the prevailing tax settings, but I think you’ve focused on entirely the wrong taxes.
BBB
Micheal @ 66,
Are you sure you want to start comparing stories about people being denied healthcare?
Bloody hell Desipis, those links are beyond belief.
Michael Sutcliffe: the United States is a bigger source than destination for medical tourism. And isn’t it ironic, with all the whinging from the right wing set about illegal immigrants taking all the emergency places in hospitals. Then the Mexicans have to deal with 1 million free-loading gringos from California alone a year. But I guess it’s fair; Mexico isn’t bankrupt.
Mark B. says:
[STROCCHI VINDICATION ALERT]
I remain skeptical of Obama’s Hopey-Changey rhetoric. Although any half-way decent admin would represent a massively hopeful change from the serial catastrophes of the Bush admin. So far I was right about Obama’s leeriness about a “Big Target” social-democratic program. On 02 Nov 08 I predicted:
I think these predictions have stood up pretty well. Particularly the ethnological politics, evident in the Sotomayer nomination and the Ricci case.
Also, I was right on the specifics of health care policy. I predicted that Obama would not be able to pass a progressive health care policy in his first term. (His progressive policies might stand a better chance in his second term if he plays his political cards right and the REPs continue to spiral into ideological chaos. It all depends on how much right-wing white reaction there is to Obama’s ethnic pandering.).
The trouble for progressives is that although there is a great negative public opposition to the hard Right wing policies of Bush REPs there is no great positive public support for broad Left wing policies of Obama DEMs. Most majority voters are not that keen on spending trillions of tax dollars on “community organizers” running minority make-work programs or some such.
Racial division cripples US social-democracy because voters want redistribution to stay “all in the family”. A lesson multicultural social-democrats would do well to take home.
I don’t mean to sound snarky here, Mercurius, but a trip to the US does not make one ‘enlightened’. What you’ve ‘seen’ has no more or less legitimacy than what anyone else here – including those I disagree with – are writing.
Now, if you were a health professional, it would be a different ball game.
From what I’ve ‘seen’, US Medicine is fine if you’re rich or poor. Unfortunately everyone in-between gets nailed like a floorboard. If you have any money, you can guarantee you’ll lose it trying to get treatment. Once you have none, treatment will still come.
Talking about free meds from NGOs et al is like talking about charities in Australia in relation to the welfare system. They do a tremendous amount of work, and, yes, good, but to act like they are in any way a substitute for the system itself is extremely misleading.
Are you sure you want to start comparing stories about people being denied healthcare?
No, I don’t want to compare stories. Do you think I would have any trouble finding a story from any number of social democracies to much you one to one? In fact, I suspect I could probably match you two to one if I could use multiple countries, but that mightn’t achieve much. My point on calling out Canada was to show that lots of people coming from a social democratic health cross into the American health system voluntarily because they believe they’ll receive better care. Which would go against what the left insinuate is the standard of American health, for example, in the comments above on this thread.
Your articles linked above, sad as they all are, reminded me of the Nathan Wilkes story mentioned here. He’s at the rally because his son was born with hemophilia and he was approaching the US$1 million dollar cap on his insurance policy. I’m sure he was frightened, but then the article mentions quite some way down the page that he found further insurance for US$6 million! And if that didn’t work, by divorcing from his wife (due to the American tax system being based on families which I agree is a little illogical) his son could still qualify for Medicaid. Somehow I’m not sure how the system failed here? (BTW, If my children were sick, I’m sure my wife and I would agree to divorce to help our kids out if that is what was required).
The question here is with the 300 or so million Americans, would they better if they were all put under the UK or Canadian public system? I think the reality is the vast majorty i.e. over 200 million of them as an educated guess, would be worse off.
Down and Out – I didn’t see where that said ‘the United States is a bigger source than destination for medical tourism’. Can you point that one out?
But regardless, that doesn’t surprise me that Americans travel oversees for health care. Health care in America, like all first-world countries, is expensive. Doctors get paid a lot. There are lots of regulations, tax and the risk of lots of legal action. As the aricle says:
What does this prove? 1. That health care is best provided in a vibrant market (instead of government delivered solutions) as markets work as shown in the article through people voluntarily choosing them when given options, and, 2. people will travel for health care and this is a good thing because they get the care they need at a cheaper price.
Down and Out – I didn’t see where that said ‘the United States is a bigger source than destination for medical tourism’. Can you point that one out?
Elementary, Michael. Elementary. The article mentions at least 1,000,000 people leaving from California (one state out of 50) to Mexico (one country out of 170+) for health care per year. Ergo: there are far more medical tourists leaving the United States to distant shores. How many medical tourists travel to the United States a year? A million from Canada per annum? Utterly unbelievable. I’d know. Mum is a Canadian-born retired nurse, and she keeps in contact with ex-colleagues and family back in the provinces.
If you are wondering, there are figures for the number of annual medical tourists to the US. Forbes gives a figure of 60,000 to 85,000 patients per year, which is pathetic. Since the title of the magazine is “U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip”, and the magazine is right-leaning, I seriously doubt they under counted the numbers.
Health care in America, like all first-world countries, is expensive.
Utterly untrue. Not about America – but about the “Health care in other first-world countries is expensive”. When I started living in Sài Gòn in 2003, I was shocked at the prices the “Western” clinics were charging for a medical appointment – $100 US a basic consultation. That was three times the price I had to pay for a GP in Oz before any government rebate came back.
Oh, it was an implied comment. Thanks for clarifying that one.
So the poor in Vietnam have good health care?
So the poor in Vietnam have good health care?
Mediocre, rather than good. They seem to be very good at the preventative side; malaria is far rarer than 20 years ago. And for their paltry GDP/capita, they punch above their weight in life expectancy: now about 71 years – comparable to somewhere like Latvia, and in excess of Russia. But their hospitals are grimy – not so much in the operating theatres, but in the waiting rooms – sometimes with two patients to a bed.
The real problem is that for such a supposedly “socialist” country, it doesn’t use the power of the state to cheapen things for its citizens. For example, there was a very poor woman who did housework at our place – basically because my wife took pity on her. Husband run out on her and her two kids for a younger woman, etc. Then her son gets head injuries from a motorcycle accident, and the surgeries end up costing her the equivalent of 2000 AUD. That’s about twice the annual GDP/capita for the country at the time, and god knows how many times her annual pay.
As I said medicine in the country can be expensive. That’s the sort of situation where I reckon Vi?t Nam needs its own real Medicare system like Australia, where a central state can use its powers to barter with the drug companies. Instead of what often happens in that country – drug companies bribe ministers not to barter too hard, letting drugs be sold at inflated prices, and journalists blowing the whistle on the whole affair going to jail.
If the problem is currently ministers taking bribes from medical companies and putting whistleblowers in jail, what makes you believe having more state power and influence in the equation is what needs to be done to fix things?
“Oh, it was an implied comment.”
Michael, that 60,000-85,0000 figure came from the same article you linked to previously. Did you even read it before posting?
Moreover, Bumrungrad International hospital in Thailand treated 55,000 US citizens in 2005. That’s a single hospital treating ~75% as many people as travelled to the US from the entire rest of the world for treatment.
Your 30 seconds of research aren’t leading you to make the most educated of guesses.
“1. That health care is best provided in a vibrant market (instead of government delivered solutions) as markets work as shown in the article through people voluntarily choosing them when given options”
International treatments are not provided solely by private hospitals.
“2. people will travel for health care and this is a good thing because they get the care they need at a cheaper price.”
Yes, frickin’ ideal that people, predominantly US citizens, should have to travel halfway across the world, and away from every member of their family and friends, to receive life-saving medical treatment – for the one and only reason that they can’t afford it in their country of birth, which is predominantly the US – the nation the WHO ranks as having the world’s 37th best healthcare system.
if you spent $30 MILLION a day every single day for 2000 years it would still not equal to obama’s $23.7 TRILLLION in financial bailouts
… the main reasons why people get poorer are because of higher taxes and inflation.
We’ve all heard the stories/seen the docos on so many Americans needing to go to Canada for either treatment or affordable medicine. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
Personally I never bother with US politics, you couldn’t come up with a more corrupt and morally or ethically bankrupt place if you tried. The real tragedy with the United States is so many millions of it’s inhabitants think it’s great. I’ve spoken to plenty of middle class/poor people who trot out lines like “If you’re unemployed/homeless why should you get welfare/health care?”. Truly staggering.
The fish rots at the head.
I am starting to think that the patient may have already carked it and there is nothing that Doc Obama can do to revive her.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8206433.stm
over here in rural Netherlands my limited dutch means my news fix is CNN. One USA screamer at a “town hall” said “People from EU come to USA to get decent health care they can’t get at home” – what sort of bullshit do these people get fed?
Biggest single group of bankcruptcies in usa is healthcare debts- off the top of my head 0z spends around 8.6% of GDP -usa around 16% – usa has some worse than 3rd world outcomes in some areas.
“2. people will travel for health care and this is a good thing because they get the care they need at a cheaper price.”
Yes, frickin’ ideal that people, predominantly US citizens, should have to travel halfway across the world, and away from every member of their family and friends, to receive life-saving medical treatment – for the one and only reason that they can’t afford it in their country of birth, which is predominantly the US – the nation the WHO ranks as having the world’s 37th best healthcare system.
This “cheaper price”, which includes air fares and accommodation, would not be affordable by people like my family.
What makes you believe having more state power and influence in the equation is what needs to be done to fix things?
Because I believe that because a Medicare system works fairly well in Australia, and something like that would be nice in Vi?t Nam, Michael. In addition, the problem here is not excessive state power (Australia is a stronger state than VN) but misuse of the state power they have. A weaker state won’t make things better – look at Cambodia next door, for the love of god.
Without wanting to really have a go into the figures, Id be loath to try and use the medical tourists argument to hard on either side.
Cosmetic surgery tourism is a fast expanding business, and lets face it if you lived near the Canadian border and could get free medical treatment with an hours drive youd consider doing that as well. (the same way A&E departments are abused by some here in Oz to cheap to go to a doctors)
In addition many of the illegal’s in the southern states might also skew the list of “foreigners using American medicine”. (
I suspect figures being used on both sides here might be on wobbly ground using these as a buttress for their positions.
Im unable to view this myself but apparently its some wingnut from Fox saying the “NHS is a breeding ground for terrorists”.
Hate to impose but can someone grab a look and see if its as bad as it sounds?
It’s pretty bad, Mole. Like here, there’s a doctors shortage in the UK, so they have to import doctors from foreign Muslim countries. The “genius” of the Fox piece is to blame the shortage solely on the supposedly low salaries the NHS gives doctors. Never mind the lengthy medical training time as a deterrent, artificial scarcities in medical schools, and that the US has no shortage of foreign doctors itself.
It goes downhill from there. If I was a journalist or a spin-doctor, I would find its professional deception enthralling. But since I’m neither, I turned it off in the second minute out of its five minute length.
Down and Out of Sài Gòn
Thanks for taking a “hit for the crew”, Im stuck behind a filter that prevents youtube for a few more days, but with a title like that I couldnt resist posting it.
That reminds me…the other insanley ‘good’ thing in favour of the US system is the it keeps the wage demands of carbon resource units…er…sorry employees low and decreases their labour mobility.
For instance I was pretty sick last year and had to reduce my working hours. I could do this despite the financial hit because I’d saved up a lot of money. Yay me.
If my insurance was tied to my work pay my freedom to reduce my hours or even to leave work for a bit would have been serverly curtailed. And I’ve seen plenty of US threads where people have complained about crappy working conditions only to finish up with “but they pay my insurance so I can’t leave yet.”
It’s a win for the insurance industry and more importantly a win for employers. Again if you are not sick or injured and have the money you’re fine!
I’d better go off to read some real truth courtesy of Ayn Rand before I get too old to wrap my head around it!
Regarding Mr Sutcliffe’s attempts to argue from only those anecdotes which suit him, perhaps he will find these facts interesting:
-both Australia and the UK have higher life expectancies than the USA;
-both spend a significantly smaller percentage of their GDP on healthcare (about half as much).
You’re paying twice as much for a worse result. And “twice as much” refers to percent of GDP. Given the far greater absolute size of your GDP you should be able to achieve some economies of scale, and in that light the result looks even worse.
I can’t understand how people like Michael Sutcliffe can go on year after year battling against the remorseless tide of reality.
Their ideology is like a religion without the spirituality, ideals without idealisism and fantasy without the fantastic.
and the USA’s infant mortality rate is higher than Cuba. LOL.
Sutcliffe, you need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid. It will make you fat, and that will drive your medical bills through the roof.
Actually Americans as individuals are quite aware of economic inequality and in recent decades voting has become increasingly polarized on class lines, but the institutional structure makes reform extremely difficult. Aust voters were concerned but confused about health care in 1972-73 but then rallied behind Medibank once introduced.
I didn’t even last a minute, Down and Out. That was batshit-insane.
I see your point Tim, but am also sure “LOL” wasn’t quite what you were looking for. Maybe [headdesk] or something.
True, it’s no laughing matter, Sean. But the irony does my head in.
I can’t understand how people like Michael Sutcliffe can go on year after year battling against the remorseless tide of reality.
Because he is a neolibertarian objectivist techno-optimist.
Jesus, Ayn Rand fanboyz shit me to tears.
I liked the artwork on his website, though, Down and Out – it has that brutalist Soviet-Nazi look to it.
You know what else astonds me with these Town Hall meetings? Not only are opponents not herded into “free speech zones” miles away (thank God) but they are able to carry their firearms about openly.
Nice subtle message there. Second ammendment rights aside it’s a neat reminder. As one right winger said during the Bush recount “just remember guys…we have the guns.”
Sean,
Are you really comparing apples with apples there? Is total per capita / per unit of GDP spending a relevant measure here? There are huge numbers of very rich Americans spending very high (by UK and Australian standards) amounts of money on healthcare delivered by private companies, resulting in outcomes as good or better than anywhere else in the world. I don’t think we ought to care much about that. Rather, we ought to care about the lack of per capita spending (and, in particular, public per capita spending) for healthcare for the poor, who, needless to say, are suffering from very poor health outcomes. To say ‘paying twice as much for a worse result’ is to miss the point by a million miles, I’d suggest.
BBB
“…is to miss the point by a million miles, I’d suggest.”
No no, liebchen. Missing the point by a huge margin is the whole purpose of the exercise.
Yoo-hoo, gang, I’m over here! Wait, no, I’m over this-a-way!
Doesn’t matter. They’ll all be tuckered out in about two minutes anyway, and we can start all over again tomorrow.
Kinda makes you wonder who it is that signs my paychecks, eh, wabbit?
The fix is in—from the good guys.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/when_health_care_does_become_a.html
Honest to God, this is a repeat of Obama’s defeat of the Clintons last year.
The Republicans have the old fashioned narrative structure on their side, but so fucking what.
The old fashioned narrative structure can’t overcome real political momentum. Just remember that the next time you see Prime Minister Peter Costello visiting President Hilary Clinton in the Oval Office.
So what? Are you aware that people in the UK and Australia may also pay extra for “deluxe” health care if they so choose (for want of a better word), and do?
My comment was in response to Mr Sutcliffe, who sought to argue that the US system is better on utilitarian grounds, ie greatest good for greatest number. The life expectancy (and infant mortality) stats say he is wrong. So much for a humanitarian argument. Economically, health care is a cost, like security. It is not directly productive. The huge amount of waste that must exist to get a worse result from twice as much spending is a drag on the US economy.
Also, the amount of public money spent per capita (see graph in previous comment) is about the same, yet many in the US are uncovered, many of those who think they are covered will have claims denied when their own health crunch comes, and so on.
“So what? Are you aware that people in the UK and Australia may also pay extra for “deluxe” health care if they so choose (for want of a better word), and do?”
Yes, my points are simply that (a.) rich Americans typically spend more and get more than their UK and Australian counterparts, (b.) per capita spending is a rubbish measure in this context because it is inclusive of all the expensive (by UK and Australian standards), best-in-the-world healthcare that rich Americans are buying, (c.) no one should be concerned that rich Americans are paying a lot of money to get best-in-the-world healthcare, (d.) everyone should be concerned about the deal that poor Americans are getting.
I’m happy for (a.) and (b.) to be refuted though. Perhaps the rich don’t skew the numbers that much.
“Also, the amount of public money spent per capita (see graph in previous comment) is about the same, yet many in the US are uncovered, many of those who think they are covered will have claims denied when their own health crunch comes, and so on.”
A powerful argument against further state intervention, I’d have thought. The American political system simply isn’t up to it (if it gets that far, which it seems it won’t).
BBB
BBB,
(a) it depends what you mean by “rich”. Upper middle class Americans (and their families) customarily get medical coverage as part of their employment package. The question of the amount the spend by the employee for this coverage is therefore nigh impossible to compute.
(b) the medical cover expenditure of these UMC folks is almost certainly higher than their UK or Australian counterparts. The cost of administration and cross subsidisation would be difficult to compute (although it is undoubtedly high).
(c) their employers may be very concerned given the fact that medical coverage of employees constitutes a large chunk of the operating costs of many businesses. For example, I have read somewhere that medical coverage added $1500 to the cost of every GM car manufactured. (GM has recently declared bankruptcy).
(d) why? (Absent generalised love of mankind.)
BBB – Public Vs Private spending – the private is very large as you guess – but also the government spending component is larger than the OECD average and larger than all but Norway and Luxemburg on per capital public spending
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb//y/images/oecd_2007_health_gdp_public_private.gif
and they don’t have a great deal to show for it
bbb -rich americans don’t get any better healthcare than rich australians or any australian who pays about $3 ks a year insurance. you get bypass at Epworth its as good as a bypass at Mayo clinic [or as good as on the public list at the Alfred ] even if you are Bill Gates or a lefty school teacher in oz.
Not many countries seek to emulate the usa system.
Ah, that ol’ American Can’t-Do attitude that has so inspired the world.
Congrats to Triple J’s Hack program for talking to Cliff May to get some balance from a US perspective. He talked about how much better the system was compared to Canada.He makes the point that the big issue is that poor people have to rely on government helathcare which is poor so why would that be good for the well off as well? He also talked about the massive grassroot movement and that maybe Obama should move in baby steps to prove he knew what he was talking about. I for one am glad we’re moving away from ‘guts based’ decision making.
tssk, you are also operating under the delusion that the well off can’t pay extra for extra care in countries like Australia and the UK. I do, and I’m not very rich at all. The way it works is this: say you have to have an achilles tendon re-attached, and that is covered by public health. If you want to have it done in a private hospital, you still get public money, and then you pay the difference. In Australia, your public health tax is also reduced if you have private health insurance.
Also, there is actually only a small but noisy astro-turf movement, and their arguments are all either weak as piss or straight up lies. Polls show the majority of Americans in favour of a public health option.
I know. I need to be better at telegraphing my sarcasm. Then again it’s always interesting to be exposed to new views.
Look dude I can’t re-read all 118 comments from the beginning! And yeah irony sometimes goes missing in typeface. That’s got me into trouble before today.
Sorry.
Sean: “Ah, that ol’ American Can’t-Do attitude that has so inspired the world.”
An Australian pointing out that the American political system is incapable of efficiently and effectively maintaining a universal public health system (should such a system be introduced) is an example of the American can’t-do attitude? Are you OK?
BBB
I’m fine thanks.
Why can’t they? They’ve embarked on massive and successful public ventures before.
OK…somewhat related…anti Obama protestors are now carrying assualt rifles to these meetings? What the f…? I know all about 2nd ammendment rights but surely this is more about intimidation and point scoring.
If anti bush protestors had carried water pistols to an appearance of a republican senator they would have been dealt with..heck..someone last year got tased into submission for raising his voice when asking a question to Dem Al Gore. What on earth is going on?
Here’s an interesting find from Tom Tomorrow via Twitter.
http://www.thismodernworld.com/blog/lifemaghealth.jpg
Plus ca change!
Here’s another interesting article. I know you all hate the philosophy Daniel Hannan espouses (and I won’t even mention Fox), but consider the stats he puts forward on waiting times and success rates. Also consider his comments on the elderly and the number of state employees in the system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcWlHTRcTE
Daniel Hannan? The man with an “interesting methodology”, who mentions “Lancet and BMJ papers [but doesn't give any cites]?”
Whose thesis RE the British health system is refuted by at least one edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association?
You’re right, his work is interesting.
An alternative to the public option:
Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/health/policy/01swiss.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em
It involves forcing private comapanies to do things for the public despite their business model, and doctors are occasionally complaining they can’t make a buck – so the the LP crowd should be able to support it with collectivist gusto! And it would be a whole lot more effective and cheaper than BarryCare over the long term.