Health care in America. ⇒
7 September 2005, the wee hours
More American's need to make their voices heard when it comes to Healthcare. It's not just for communists. People should be able to see a doctor if they are sick. Something as basic as that shouldn't be a privillage.
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
I read somewhere a month ago that of the 29 “developed” countries in the World, the US and Mexico are the only two that don’t provide (some form of) universal health care.
(Aside: Is Mexico a “developed” country?)
by Ryan on September 7 2005, 1:18 am #
Well said.
by Sunny on September 7 2005, 1:33 am #
It depends on what you mean by “privilege” and “basic”.
Romania, for example, offer “free” universal health care. I say “free” in quotes because it’s actually funded by taxes. There’s no free lunch. Anyway, even taking this into account, I’d rather be sick in the US rather than Romania.
Medicine is an economic good: it has value, it is a rare resource… in other words there’s a minimum price we must place on it.
In places like Sweden (the stereotypical example for lefties) the problem is queues. You have to schedule tests (such as X-rays) weeks in advance… that’s what happens when something with a cost is given away for free (financed by redistributive taxation). It’s what’s called “the tragedy of the commons”. In socialism, economic calculation is impossible, therefore proper planning and taxation is impossible.
I wrote more on this. Taxation is not the solution, it is the problem.
by Gabriel Mihalache on September 7 2005, 9:33 am #
I’ve never been to Romania, so I am confused. Would you rather be sick in the US because you assume in that in the US you could afford treatment? Or is the treatment you would get in Romania worse than no treatment at all? If it is the former case, that’s all well and good, but there are plenty of people who can’t afford treatment and they shouldn’t be left out in the cold.
What exactly is the point of living in a state if we don’t help one another?
by ramanan on September 7 2005, 10:47 am #
Gabriel,
You make valuable points. I believe this has been argued at Funkaoshi before as well. Maybe Ram can dig it up.
In Australia there is universal health coverage but usually to see a specialist you need to wait almost 18 months (imagine a kid with asthma). Of course you can pay for private insurance and get faster private care.
As much as I hate a welfare state, it is necessary that we have some basic form of universal health coverage. Of course examples such as Sweden are completely ludicrous. Just because it works for a few million doesn’t mean it will scale for 350 million US residents. But its worth trying as Gladwell points out.
The other problem with the Sweden example is that although $5 heart transplants are sweet, the exorbitant taxes they pay really blows. Your lives are basically run by the State. I am sure the Left loves that.
So in other words, I would like a plan that provides a sort of basic coverage but allows folks the choice of upgrading to a private care if they can afford it. This will help the poor and unemployed while provide options for the well to do.
Let’s not forget that some sort of national plan would require a national id card. Thats another can of worms that needs to be left for another day.
For the uninitiated, “The Tragedy of Commons” is an essay by Garret Hardin. Worth a read.
[ed. A small, earlier, discussion here.]
by Sunny on September 7 2005, 12:22 pm #
Actually, I would argue the opposite. Those who can afford it should pay far more for the basic level of health care (to subsidize the poor and unemployed) and should not be able to opt for better private care (so they have a stake in keeping the public system high quality).
I think the health care issue is tied to the larger issue of how you conceive of society. Are the police/military/fire brigade, for example, there to give poor people a basic level of care and the rich a cadillac level of care? Why should it be different for health care? (Or education, I might add…)
Paying high(er) taxes doesn’t mean that the State runs your life. We are the State. On the other hand, the lives of people who pay for private care truly are run by insurance companies.
by Mahi on September 7 2005, 1:07 pm #
Who said “police/military/fire brigade” should be in the public domain anyway? The discussion if a good should be in the public or private domain is very important but the issues are far less clear cut as you’d like to suggest.
By your generalization, then there’s no reason for the production of food to be any different from the police. In fact, all means of production, according to you, should be state-owned. That’s the text-book definition of Marxism.
“Paying high(er) taxes doesn’t mean that the State runs your life. We are the State.”
Who is this bizarre entity called “we”? And does it have more rights than the total sum of our individual rights? And if “we” decides you must die, then are you going to walk willingly to the gallows?
You are, da facto, putting your life in the hands of bureaucrats, with this collectivist rethoric reminiscent of early Soviet Union (seriously!)
“On the other hand, the lives of people who pay for private care truly are run by insurance companies.”
No. State taxation is compulsory. Being the client of an insurance company or another or none at all it’s your choice.
Why do people insist that only bureaucrats should choose? Why do they appeal to the self-contradictory notion of collective-responsibility before they even gave a chance to personal responsibility and individual rights?
by Gabriel Mihalache on September 8 2005, 9:10 am #
Not all means of production should be nationalized. Private industry should be allowed to make mp3 players and running shoes and bubble gum because they aren’t actually all that critical to society.
You can’t have a democracy without a sense of collective goals. We collectively decide on the general direction of our society when we vote. I am not putting my life in the hands of bureacrats (though what is so wrong with that, I might add). Bureacrats administer government programs. Our elected officials take responsibility for the bureacracy but also set government priorities. If we don’t like the programs or the way they are administered we turf out the politicians. This isn’t a Soviet style dictatorship.
Also, the choice of insurance or none that you speak of is not a true choice. As Gladwell points out in the article this post was about, many Americans can “choose” to accept health insurance, but only if they chose to stop buying food or paying the rent as well. This idea has been coming up a lot recently during discussions of the impoverished in New Orleans who “chose” to stay behind even after being told to leave. If they have no money, no car and nowhere to go, how is it an actual choice?
Out of curiosity, do you think that anything is a collective responsibility? (defence of homeland, environmental stewardship, etc etc?)
by Mahi on September 8 2005, 4:51 pm #
If only we would all put our faith in the voodoo magic that is the free market—it alone can solve all our problems.
Hell, I’m moving to Bolivia right now! Or maybe Argentina.
by ramanan on September 8 2005, 5:40 pm #
I say “free” in quotes because it’s actually funded by taxes. There’s no free lunch…Taxation is not the solution, it is the problem.
I agree that health care is not “free”. But you need health care. You are going to pay for it somehow (or end up sick). So does it really matter how you pay for it – [a] taxes [b] your employer’s health insurance [c ] health insurance paid for out your pocket? [a] and [b] are implicitly out of your pocket, while [c ] is explicit. [b] is just an indirect tax and [c ] is an indirect indirect tax. Either way you are being “taxed”.
Moreover, with [a] I’m a “slave” to the government “bureaucrats” and with [b] and [c ] I’m a “slave” to my health insurer’s “bureaucrats”. So don’t fool yourself into thinking private health gives your freedom.
In Australia there is universal health coverage but usually to see a specialist you need to wait almost 18 months (imagine a kid with asthma).
Certainly, public health care is no panacea, but this argument is reversible because private health care has its share of significant problems. (i.e. Problems with (certain implementations of) public health are not (necessarily) a strong argument for why it “wrong”). For example:
In 2003, the United States spent 15.3 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on health care…Although nearly 45 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens…Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. [1]
Similar to Kottke’s link, [1] gives lots of points why the American system is failing millions of Americans and causing significant health and economic problems.
Are sick and indentured people good for society either economically or morally?
Would you pay slightly higher taxes so things like flu vaccines could be provided to millions of your poor fellow citizens, saving thousand of lives a year? (Arguably a tragedy on par with disasters such as Katrina, Tsunami, etc.)? Would this preventive medicine make more economic sense for society? Would a larger percentage of immunized citizens decrease the likelihood of you (or your family/friends) getting sick from the flu (because it spreads more slowly)?
Do you believe in fundamental human rights? (e.g. Are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unalienable and self-evident rights?) The lack of accessible and affordable health care will definitely impair liberty and pursuit of happiness if you are saddled with debt (see [1]) and if you are unlucky then the lack of (quality) health care will take away your life. What services/functions can a government/society provide that are more essential than health care? (I’m implicitly assuming that the burden of providing needs that individuals/families are unable to provide themselves should be shifted to government/society – But if this is no so, are we any better than selfish/amoral “animals”?).
by Ryan on September 9 2005, 3:09 am #
There is more on this topic in a recent metafilter thread. Ryan and Mahi have summed up my feelings on this topic nicely.
by ramanan on September 9 2005, 2:28 pm #