|
You know what's funny? When Americans tot off a list of the NHS's failings, as if we Brits always think it's perfect, and as if the American medical system never has c&~%-ups.
Nationalised Health Care isn't perfect, but it is substantially better and cheaper then the current American model.
This reminded me of something on the other thread, how some folks thought that defending the current system or being pro-american was wrong somehow.
I dont' get this. I'd expect most of Western Civilization to argue that their country is the greatest on Earth. I mean, I see flaws in the American system, but I don't see any better.
I'd expect you to defend the NHS and the Brits in general Uzzy. Just as I defend the US system.
That said, I don't see how your system is better. I mean when's the last time someone fled ~to~ Canada or the UK for treatment? Sure there are some procedures that are better/more accepted in other countries; for example I believe Europe is farther ahead than the US on ceramic spinal replacements, and I think the British 'golden BB' approach to cancer should be adopted here post haste (even better when paired with the US's research in metasitization (sp?) problems).
But it's my understanding the majority of innovation still comes from this side of the pond, and that's a benefit of our 'inefficent' heath care system.
Well, no, I think you misunderstand the UK psyche. None of us think the NHS is perfect, nor do we see it as not needing reform. I would prefer a more responsive NHS that was better at chronic care (based on my experience of it). But what I do like is the fact that come what may, I am entitled to healthcare and my ailments won't go untreated. They might not be treated on the timescale I want (depends on severity, and acute care in the NHS is generally pretty good) but they will be treated in the end. I think for most UK people, we find the notion that if you cannot pay for healthcare you therefore won't get it uncivilised. And in any case, it is economically inefficient - sick people cannot work and pay taxes and contribute to the economy, so the country (any country, actually) should have a vested interest in keeping the workforce healthy. It is cheaper in the long run.
So I would say the difference is that we are used to our own systems, not that we think the UK is the greatest country on earth (we gave up jingoism like that a while back). And there is plenty of innovation going on in the UK (and elsewhere) too - the US doesn't have a monopoly on that. Many people come to the UK for treatment - we actually do have a private healthcare system here, it just is used for relatively minor stuff - but since you can get it quicker and cheaper in India and if you are inclined to pay (which I have no problem with, by the way - I just have a problem with the poor not having access if they can't pay) you might go there instead.
|
I'd expect you to defend the NHS and the Brits in general Uzzy. Just as I defend the US system.
That said, I don't see how your system is better. I mean when's the last time someone fled ~to~ Canada or the UK for treatment? Sure there are some procedures that are better/more accepted in other countries; for example I believe Europe is farther ahead than the US on ceramic spinal replacements, and I think the British 'golden BB' approach to cancer should be adopted here post haste (even better when paired with the US's research in metasitization (sp?) problems).
But it's my understanding the majority of innovation still comes from this side of the pond, and that's a benefit of our 'inefficent' heath care system.
Ok. Firstly, I'm getting my figures from the OECD Health Care at a Glance 2009 publication, which is quite an authorative source.
The first point is that the US spends 16% of it's GDP on Healthcare, compared to the OECD average of 8.9%. Interestingly, around 7% of the money spent on healthcare by the US is public money, I.e, spent by the government. The UK spends 8.4% of it's GDP on Healthcare, and can cover everyone.
The US life expectancy is 75.4 years if you're a man, 80.7 years if you're a woman. This compares to the OECD average of 76.3/81.9, or the UK's 77.3/81.7. Infant mortality rates have decreased in the US since the 1970's, but are still above the OECD average.
You have 2.4 Doctors per thousand people in the US, compared to the OECD average of 3.1, or the UK's 2.5. You do have more nurses then the OECD average though, 10.6 per thousand people compared to 9.6 for the OECD, and 10 for the UK.
Not all bad news though. You've got very good cancer survival rates, with a 67% five year survival rate for cervical cancer and a 90.5% rate for breast cancer. You've also got the most MRI and CT scanners per capita, save for Japan. Which is quite impressive really. The UK can do a lot to improve long term survival rates for cancer.
Those are the figures. You spend almost double what we in the UK spend on Healthcare, and we can manage to cover the entire population. Statistics wise, there seems to be very little to seperate the UK or US, save for long term cancer survival rates.
Now, as for innovation, that comes through funding. Is it impossible to up the funding for R&D? Going by overall funding for scientific research, the US spends 2.7% of GDP on R&D, compared to the UK's 2.2%. But there's nothing stopping the UK increasing the funding to health research in particular.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting on jingoism,
I am a big fan of 'my country right or wrong' But that means its mine, right or wrong. (for example, we're wrong on the Faulklands. They're yours, not Argentina's)
I don't think it's jingoism to say 'we're the best, even though there are places we can be better.' There's a difference between pride and arrogance after all.
As to infant mortality, there's been some discussion of what the definition is.
Is that funding for government spending, private spending, or both? Here's a NCPA study that discusses medical innovation in the US. I don't know which 'side' the NCPA stands on, so I don't speak to more than it validates my arguement.
Gods I wish all discussions could remain this civil ;-)
The US life expectancy is 75.4 years if you're a man, 80.7 years if you're a woman. This compares to the OECD average of 76.3/81.9, or the UK's 77.3/81.7. Infant mortality rates have decreased in the US since the 1970's, but are still above the OECD average.
My question to you is what is the life expectancy between the U.S. and Europe when violent crime and American obesity are taken out of the equation? If we don't know that, there can't be a fair comparison.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250...
How do you figure that? I came up with 411410.38 and that is assuming that you are 40 years from retirement, that your wage (and savings) increases at 4% per year and your retirement account grows at 5% per year. Of course, given this steady inflation, that 400k isn't going to last you very long ... about 4 years if you try to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living.
* Note to self: increase retirement savings *
|
|
The US system (so I understand) is unfortunately a bit biased towards over-treating, which is why it costs so much. That's partly because physicians get a fee for every treatment they perform, and because the threat of lawsuits means that physicians tend to run batteries of tests for unlikely (but still possible) ailments on the off-chance they miss something and get sued. Also, drug costs are rising rapidly because the drug companies control the market much more than in the UK (being a virtual monopoly supplier means that the NHS can dictate much more the prices it pays, and it won't buy treatments that don't meet cost-benefit criteria) and this is affecting the public provision in the US too. The "market" in heathcare doesn't exist in many places in the US because many hospitals and specialists enjoy local monopolies.
The UK system isn't perfect - as I said above, chronic care is relatively poor, and if you have something which is unpleasant but not lethal then you can end up waiting (though waiting times have gone down a lot over the last decade or so). It can be fairly user-unfriendly (my wife is pregnant - she gets to see the midwife when they are available, not at our convenience, for example). There are issues with hospital infections in some places, although that is also partly due to the splitting of cleaning and patient care in some public/private partnership hospitals (a funding wheeze where a private contractor builds and runs the hospital infrastructure while the NHS provides healthcare staff and pays the company a long term rental). However, based on my experience of their treatment of my mother about six or so years ago, I would say the NHS works reasonably well, better at acute care, worse at chronic. As such, I'm relaxed about paying for it in my taxes.
|
|
Interesting on jingoism,
I am a big fan of 'my country right or wrong' But that means its mine, right or wrong. (for example, we're wrong on the Faulklands. They're yours, not Argentina's)
I don't think it's jingoism to say 'we're the best, even though there are places we can be better.' There's a difference between pride and arrogance after all.
As to infant mortality, there's been some discussion of what the definition is.
Is that funding for government spending, private spending, or both? Here's a NCPA study that discusses medical innovation in the US. I don't know which 'side' the NCPA stands on, so I don't speak to more than it validates my arguement.
Gods I wish all discussions could remain this civil ;-)
Well, we haven't entirely given up jingoism - we still hate the French, but it's mutual so that's alright. And I'm glad we agree on the Falklands, especially now it looks like it has oil! More broadly, it's a bit more nuanced - we don't really see anyone as better or worse, more different. With a country made up of four separate nations, and having owned and given up large portions of the globe and suffered a consequent decline in global importance, I think many British are less, I don't know, impressed by everyone, including ourselves. I think it is fair to say the country at large has issues with it one way or another, and our national psyche is in large part a reaction to our loss of Empire. Or something.
Uzzy's figures look more accurate than mine, but I think they contain both public (the vast majority in the UK) and private (a lot less in the UK - you only use it for trivial stuff to jump the queue on the NHS, like I did for my gall bladder, and most people don't have it; if I had something serious, I would go NHS and anyway I doubt I am am covered).
|
|
My question to you is what is the life expectancy between the U.S. and Europe when violent crime and American obesity are taken out of the equation? If we don't know that, there can't be a fair comparison.
Well, the UK has lifestyle problems in terms of obesity too, so leaving them out might actually be more distorting. Also, healthcare systems (especially national state-run ones) can have an impact on lifestyle choices (I understand a good case study for this is Finland, where a protracted government campaign convinced them all to eat well and take lots of exercise - don't know the details but I bet it's out there somewhere on the web) so again you might miss some of the effects of the healthcare system if you removed that. On violence, while I don't know for certain I would expect most mortality (death) and morbidity (illness) to be driven by other factors, even in America (and we do murder each other in the UK too from time to time) but yes, if that isn't the case that may skew things.
Well, the UK has lifestyle problems in terms of obesity too,
|
The U.S. Treasury is broke. Medicare and Medicaid - the current goverment-run healthcare services for some of our citizens - is also bankrupt and poorly run. The rates they pay at are so low, most medical providers consider the compensation a case for charity and take it anyhow to support needy people in thier communities. So:
1 - The Federal Goverment cannot afford another super-expensive entitlement program.
2 - If they did start to run one, it would in all likelihood be as poorly run as Medicare/Medicaid and the Post Office.
Competition and the free market can and will find a way to improve on the situation - as it always has - if Government will stop interfering in the way they do business and confine itself to regulating safe practices and breaking up trusts. Lawsuit reform is also a vital way to make it more affordable for medical providers to do business without having to charge high rates just to protect themselves from outrageous and frivolous lawsuits.
That's my opinion.
I am always curious about opinions like this, regarding U.S. entitlement programs such as Medicare. On the one hand, they complain that these programs are "super-expensive." On the other, that they don't pay enough money out for the program to work right. Likewise, they complain it is poorly run, but ignore the fact that the program is wildly popular among the elderly who rely on it. Accordingly no serious proposal has been made in ages to eliminate it. (Ditto for conservatives' other favorite whipping boy - social security. Just look what happened to Bush's attempt to monkey with it if you want to know what people really think about its worth.)
As for the post office, it's possibly the best example of a well-run government agency. It receives zero dollars in direct taxpayer funding, instead operating with user fees. It's cheap, it's fast, and it's accurate. And if you disagree, you can always send mail through FedEx or UPS (which no one does, except for packages, or where special services are required).
Interesting on jingoism,
I am a big fan of 'my country right or wrong' But that means its mine, right or wrong. (for example, we're wrong on the Faulklands. They're yours, not Argentina's)
I don't think it's jingoism to say 'we're the best, even though there are places we can be better.' There's a difference between pride and arrogance after all.
IMHO, to say "my country is great" is pride. To say "my country is the best" is jingoism, because it is statement of superiority. Qualified, potentially, by whatever comes after, but superiority nonetheless.
There can be many great countries, but there can only be one "best".
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Interesting on jingoism,
I am a big fan of 'my country right or wrong' But that means its mine, right or wrong. (for example, we're wrong on the Faulklands. They're yours, not Argentina's)
I don't think it's jingoism to say 'we're the best, even though there are places we can be better.' There's a difference between pride and arrogance after all.
IMHO, to say "my country is great" is pride. To say "my country is the best" is jingoism, because it is statement of superiority. Qualified, potentially, by whatever comes after, but superiority nonetheless.
There can be many great countries, but there can only be one "best".
Greg
I'm glad we agree Greg, there's only one best, and it's here :P
I'm glad we agree Greg, there's only one best, and it's here :P
Yep, that's exactly what I meant.
But, in all seriousness, this is just the kinda thing that the Canadians I know point to when we talk about American jingoism. The "absolutism" of American pride. Maybe we're too modest for our own good, and we love our country and are very proud of it, but I don't know anyone who goes around saying "we're the best".
Except after olympic gold medal hockey games, that is. :)
Greg
You are wrong. I like the armed forces. Putting bullets into bad guys is a good thing. As for police, I like them too, but I still have a private security firm monitoring my house. Fire departments are filled with great people, but I still went out and bought fire extinguishers. Private companies provide those, you know. Some of us don't wait around for government to come fix our problems.
With such a stand point, i assume your also against the maintiance of a standing army and police force, as well as educational system?If you believe no one is 'entitled to the product of anothers labours', tell me, how would a society based upon this grounding treat some one who has no way of earning such (for instance an orphan), if no one is willing to provide for that individual? I can see only one logical outcome to what your argueing.
Regardless, my fathers treatment does not come from 'entitlement', it is the outcome of engagement in society. He has payed for the education of many individual, along with their health care, security and welfare. They are simply now returning the favour.
If only admiral Ackbar had been with you, he could have warned you. ;) (sorry if this seems flipant, but i am in a laugh or i'll cry mood today.)
I suspected you might be a fan of the military and the police.
Every one in your society benifits from the 'entitlement' to protection of national soverenty and provision and enforcement of 'rule of law', yet not every one contributes to it equally. In fact it is a fundimental element the rule of law that you are entitled to its benifits and held accountable by its constraints, regardless of your provision of support to the upkeep of it.
Why is it that you consider this acceptable, but not the provision of health care?
Individuals cannot purchase and operate fire engine, the costs are prohibitive. They can buy fire extinguishers. Why is it that you don't purchase the protection of a private fire fighting service?
How would my society treat an orphan? It's called charity. Wonderful thing. It allows people with an overdeveloped sense of guilt to take care of those orphans. Meanwhile, I'll get to build my business and donate an entire building to house them. But you still don't have the right to take the product of my labour away from me. That's still called slavery.
"If no one is willing to provide for that individual?", i didn't add this for no reason. Charity can't plug all the holes. Anyone who has ever worked for a charity can tell you this. What happens to the child, who the charities cannot reach?
I'm sure your father is well-engaged in society. I am, too. I provide a service that people want to use. For my skill, I am rewarded. With those rewards I can pay for my son's education, I can donate to whatever charities I wish, and I can do so without you dictating where my charity goes.
What if you and every one else chooses to give it to the photogenic orphan, rather than the elder, who used all they ever saved, paying for the treatment of her husbands cancer, because a health insurance company has used a legal loop hole to get out of paying?
People are not able to make big picture choices about charity, they are terrible at choosing to donate, where it is needed.
There's still the matter of my philisophy. If you are okay with enslaving others, where does that slavery end? Why not just cut out the taxpayer and directly enslave doctors and nurses? "You're a doctor, you must perform surgery on these people, and if you don't we'll put you in jail."
Sorry, but the national health service does not 'enslave' anyone. You apply for a job with it, or a private hospital, or an agency that supplies staff to either or both of the above, or you join the NHS, and also provide a private practice.
If you refuse to do your contracted job, the result is the same in all of these, you loss your job, your professional organisation might also black list you, but they arn't the government. No one goes to jail, for refusing to work in the NHS. The same is not true of those who work in the military. You join the military and they own your arse for as long as your a serving member. But i don't hear you calling the military slavers.
I don't force you to provide me food, shelter, clothing, or a job. You don't get to force me to provide you those things.
It's called mutual respect. I'm surprised more people don't possess it.
No one forces me to provide them any of those things. Since becoming an adult, I chosen to live in the United Kingdom, if i didn't want to pay for those services, i could emmigrate to a nation that does not have them as part of its social contract.
Personally, consider it more respectful to say, 'you are my neighbour, your troubles are my troubles, i will help you.' And i find it reassuring to know that they will do the same for me. The government is the tool we choose achieve this with greatest reach and power.
True, but we're winning by a good margin.
Well, the UK has lifestyle problems in terms of obesity too,
That you might be, but obesity is a health issue, and efforts to reduce it and control it fall within Health spending in this country.
Removing Obesity, unfairly bias the question of who provides more effective health care. How about we ask you remove scottish life expectancies, because of glasgows eating habits and heroine issues, and all statistics related to roma and irish traveller communities.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Death Star Superlaser arguments
+1. That was absolutely brilliant.
I'm glad someone defended the Post Office. Everyone loves to dump on the Postal Service, but if you look at it, its really a fantastic service. When someone in Miami, FL can spend 50 cents to send a letter to West Bumble, Alaska, and have it get there in a week, that's value!
And only recently, with the emergence of e-mail as a major communication tool (and spam!) has the organization begun to lose money.
|
|
I'm glad someone defended the Post Office. Everyone loves to dump on the Postal Service, but if you look at it, its really a fantastic service. When someone in Miami, FL can spend 50 cents to send a letter to West Bumble, Alaska, and have it get there in a week, that's value!
And only recently, with the emergence of e-mail as a major communication tool (and spam!) has the organization begun to lose money.
+1
Given that I work at a hospital, I will toss in my two coppers. Personally I sit in the middle of this arguement. I know a couple of people that have been screwed over by insurance companies, but I have no faith in the government to do this right.
One reason come from trying to make the state and federal governments pay the hospitals. Currently, the federal government pays only a fraction of Medicaid/Medicare and the state government pays the rest. If the state refuses to pay the full amount, there is little a hospital can do to force them. Before the economic problems, The hospital I work at had actually filed a federal lawsuit to try to get the money owed by the state. I am not sure where that lawsuit is at now.
So, if hospitals cannot get the money they are owed now, will they get it under the new system? I don't know.
|
|
True, but we're winning by a good margin.
Well, the UK has lifestyle problems in terms of obesity too,
You clearly haven't measured my waistline lately.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable.
Under the current system of hethcare in the USA there are a number of people making A Lot of money, and they want to keep making A Lot of money. These people are willing to spend lots of money to spread lies and mistruths and fear in order to keep the status quo.
|
Under the current system of hethcare in the USA there are a number of people making A Lot of money, and they want to keep making A Lot of money. These people are willing to spend lots of money to spread lies and mistruths and fear in order to keep the status quo.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable.
This is the second one of these kinds of replies on this thread. Why is it that people who don't feel a certain way about something feel the need to try and speak for those that do? If your only reply is "because they're jerks", then don't reply.
This is the second one of these kinds of replies on this thread. Why is it that people who don't feel a certain way about something feel the need to try and speak for those that do? If your only reply is "because they're jerks", then don't reply.Under the current system of hethcare in the USA there are a number of people making A Lot of money, and they want to keep making A Lot of money. These people are willing to spend lots of money to spread lies and mistruths and fear in order to keep the status quo.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable.
I guess a simple responce might be that, 'they do it, because in come cases its true.' There are some examples, for instance in the resurgant climate changes debate, where very clear lobbying against the grain of evidence exists. The marshal institute (and its founding members on tabacco smoke) or where the lobbying is very clearly purchased by business. I don't know if it is the case here, but what IMnotbob is talking about certainly does occure in other areas of discussion.
That said, Imnotbob, i really would rather that those who's views do not mesh with mine be allowed to speak for themselves. If you disagree with them, debate the point, but please don't answer for them.
... i really would rather that those who's views do not mesh with mine be allowed to speak for themselves. ...Do our views not mesh? ;-)
I think we've come a long way. And I do hope the best for your father.
Oh, i am sure we have agreed on something...sometime....cant remember what :P
It been really weird. Because i am based a fairly long way from basildon. Still haven't been able to get the full details on how bad the attack was. Add to this the fact that Dad has been kicked out by his partner, much of today has been about sorting out housing with the social worker.
I am not designed to be able to deal with all this, thank goodness for the nanny state, because frankly, without it, right now i would not be able to take care of him(i'm just not good enough at life). Some positive news, i have gotten my dad to agree to revisit the possiblity of treatment for his alcholism. Now all i have to do is find a system of treatment that involves neither god, nor other addicts.
One of the biggest, but perhaps unconscious, issues with setting up a national health care system in the US is the fact that once an entitlement program such as that is put into place, it becomes almost impossible to dismantle it. So if later it is discovered that the system is causing more harm than good, it is too late to do anything about it on a fundamental level.
One of the biggest, but perhaps unconscious, issues with setting up a national health care system in the US is the fact that once an entitlement program such as that is put into place, it becomes almost impossible to dismantle it. So if later it is discovered that the system is causing more harm than good, it is too late to do anything about it on a fundamental level.
That is actually a fairly interesting point. The only responce i really have right now is that, nothing worth doing has ever been without risk. It also says something about the differences between the UK and the USA, how much the term 'entitlement program' actually grates on the english ear. I don't think i would be speaking out of turn to say that none use english posters use that terminology in casual political discussion.
|
|
The main problem is not so much the entitlement, it seems to me, as the cost of the entitlement, i.e. the soaring cost of medical bills and insurance premiums. Obama's reforms don't really deal very well with that so I certainly understand the reluctance among many who favour low taxation to jump on that bandwagon. However, broader reforms to address costs would probably be a good thing, given that universal health care in the UK is cheaper than patchy healthcare in the US. Arguably, if Obama had done more on that front (which probably would have upset the tort lawyers lobby - wait, what was Obama's qualification again?) then he wouldn't be having the problems he is having now in convincing people on cost. This is probably a situation where you probably could have your cake an eat it, if you get the numbers right, but that isn't what is being proposed, unfortunately. (And, it should be added, a cheaper healthcare system would probably have a poorer patient experience, at least in terms of attentiveness, flexibility, and so on.)
A couple of points continue to brushed to the curb in health care debates; TORT reform and knocking down barriers created by state regulation. The argument aginst them is that they won't raise enough money to 'fix' the system in its entirety so why bother? I ask why the heck not?
There are other things that could be fixed but they too get ignored because they're not big enough. Why? *sigh*
|
|
The argument aginst them is that they won't raise enough money to 'fix' the system in its entirety so why bother? I ask why the heck not?
There are other things that could be fixed but they too get ignored because they're not big enough. Why? *sigh*
Sometimes I feel like we're not actually addressing the problem. Aubrey pointed to what really seems to be the problem -- the actual cost of our health care. We're talking about taxing the people to cover this. We're talking about the government paying for it. But we're not actually talking about reducing the cost of health care. Having the government pay for this won't change this fact. And (in theory) the money that they would need to raise to pay for this would need to come from somewhere. The cost needs to be addressed first.
So, for me, it's not so much "why bother?", but more "why are we addressing the symptom rather than the problem?" It feels like we're applying a band-aid to fix a heart attack.
The argument aginst them is that they won't raise enough money to 'fix' the system in its entirety so why bother? I ask why the heck not?
There are other things that could be fixed but they too get ignored because they're not big enough. Why? *sigh*
Sometimes I feel like we're not actually addressing the problem. Aubrey pointed to what really seems to be the problem -- the actual cost of our health care. We're talking about taxing the people to cover this. We're talking about the government paying for it. But we're not actually talking about reducing the cost of health care. Having the government pay for this won't change this fact. And (in theory) the money that they would need to raise to pay for this would need to come from somewhere. The cost needs to be addressed first.
So, for me, it's not so much "why bother?", but more "why are we addressing the symptom rather than the problem?" It feels like we're applying a band-aid to fix a heart attack.
True, but I would gain some confidence in the 'fixers' if they had the guts to tackle the small problems too. Baby stepping, while they diagnose the proper course for the big problem.
I guess a simple responce might be that, 'they do it, because in come cases its true.' There are some examples, for instance in the resurgant climate changes debate, where very clear lobbying against the grain of evidence exists. The marshal institute (and its founding members on tabacco smoke) or where the lobbying is very clearly purchased by business. I don't know if it is the case here, but what IMnotbob is talking about certainly does occure in other areas of discussion.This is the second one of these kinds of replies on this thread. Why is it that people who don't feel a certain way about something feel the need to try and speak for those that do? If your only reply is "because they're jerks", then don't reply.Under the current system of hethcare in the USA there are a number of people making A Lot of money, and they want to keep making A Lot of money. These people are willing to spend lots of money to spread lies and mistruths and fear in order to keep the status quo.
I don't understand why it is, that you think a private system, is preferable.
Yeah, this is pretty much it.
That said, Imnotbob, i really would rather that those who's views do not mesh with mine be allowed to speak for themselves. If you disagree with them, debate the point, but please don't answer for them.
The people I am speaking of are not here, and I am basing my opinion on what I have seen and/read elsewhere.
If I spend my entire working life making $7/hour (@40 hours per week, that equates to $1750 per year into a retirement account when you take out 2 weeks for unpaid vacation/sick time, etc), I would have over $2 million by the time I retire. Not bad, eh? But our wonderful Social Security system will pay (at most) $675/month, or just over $8000/year in 2010. You'd have to live 250...How do you figure that? I came up with 411410.38 and that is assuming that you are 40 years from retirement, that your wage (and savings) increases at 4% per year and your retirement account grows at 5% per year. Of course, given this steady inflation, that 400k isn't going to last you very long ... about 4 years if you try to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living.
* Note to self: increase retirement savings *
The stock market has returned 10% over the past 85 years. 50 years of work (age 18 +50 = 68). Someone who manages his whole life to earn no more than $7/hr didn't go to college.
But let's say your $411k is right. That still means one has to live for 50 years to collect the same amount from Social Security. Not too many 120 year olds running around. And if you were earning $7/hr your entire life, it's really doubtful that you took that great care of yourself anyways.
lots of stuff
I have a nice garden. Love home-grown tomatoes. When my neighbor comes over to steal those tomatoes, I can do one of two things:
1) I can go over and take my property back, likely causing him immense pain in the process, or
2) I call the police, and they get to show my neighbor that he does not, in fact, have the right to take my stuff.
Is there something I'm missing? Your comment about me being a 'fan' of the military and the police seems to have something more behind it. Or maybe it's just that legendary dry British wit.
I cooked a wonderful dinner for my wife tonight. Herbed polenta, fantastic meatloaf, some homemade bread. Do you really think "society" has a right to any of the food I created for my family? If I turn around and sell that meal, why does society then have a right to that food?
The orphan in your example . . . why are you not taking care of it? You demand that I do so, but make no move yourself.
Your government does, in fact, enslave people to pay for the NHS. Someone has to pay all those doctors and nurses. You are. And you don't have a choice about it. If you think you do, I'm sure your national revenue service will disavow you of that notion quite quickly.
And if it's okay to take money from taxpayers to pay for another's health care, why not simply cut out the middle-man and force doctors to do the procedures? You'd actually make it more efficient, since you wouldn't have to pay all those revenue agents.
Try liberty. It's refreshing.
|
|
I think you are being a bit silly, to be honest, and not making a whole lot of sense. I can understand that you believe in a minimalist state, and that is fair enough as a political and philosophical position. But all this stuff about enslaving people is actually ruining your argument. States levy taxes and one of the basic principles of taxation is that everybody has to pay their due in order to pay for the services they enjoy from the state. The level of those services (and consequently the amount of tax to be levied) is decided (roughly) via the democratic process, so if you want to go for a minimalist state you can vote for it. In the UK, the public is overwhelmingly in favour of state provision for healthcare, and has consistently voted for such. That healthcare does not involve enslaving anyone - doctors and nurses get paid, drugs are prchased from drug companies, patients get treated. I'm not sure what propoganda you have been reading but as far as I can tell there is no enslavement involved. If you don't want it, you can vote against it. But it is your duty to pay the tax levied - no system can genuinely survive people paying the taxes they feel like paying, since plenty of people feel like paying nothing. That duty goes hand-in-hand with your right to vote. That enslaves no one, it simply provides the democratically elected government the funds it needs to exercise the mandate it has been given by the people.
One of the biggest, but perhaps unconscious, issues with setting up a national health care system in the US is the fact that once an entitlement program such as that is put into place, it becomes almost impossible to dismantle it. So if later it is discovered that the system is causing more harm than good, it is too late to do anything about it on a fundamental level.That is actually a fairly interesting point. The only responce i really have right now is that, nothing worth doing has ever been without risk.
I have to say, that is a pretty weak response. Yes, there will always be risk, but it is the foolish person that does not carefully and deliberately try to minimize that risk. As the adage goes, "Look before you leap."
And if it's okay to take money from taxpayers to pay for another's health care, why not simply cut out the middle-man and force doctors to do the procedures? You'd actually make it more efficient, since you wouldn't have to pay all those revenue agents.Try liberty. It's refreshing.
LOL WHAT?! I haven't laughed this hard in a LONG time. Thanks man!
Zo
Well, I was gone to bed but thought that I would add this bit...
For 2008, I haven't seen the 2009 results, 45% of all those who file federal income tax returns do not end up paying federal income tax. They receive as a refund all that they put in, and even more in some cases.
So, roughly 55% of the population pays all the federal income taxes. How does this compare to our overseas posters?
I have to say, that is a pretty weak response. Yes, there will always be risk, but it is the foolish person that does not carefully and deliberately try to minimize that risk. As the adage goes, "Look before you leap."One of the biggest, but perhaps unconscious, issues with setting up a national health care system in the US is the fact that once an entitlement program such as that is put into place, it becomes almost impossible to dismantle it. So if later it is discovered that the system is causing more harm than good, it is too late to do anything about it on a fundamental level.That is actually a fairly interesting point. The only responce i really have right now is that, nothing worth doing has ever been without risk.
It was pretty late and i was pretty tired, it was my gut responce on a point that i actually found worth while, it was never going to be a strong argument under such conditions.
lots of stuffI have a nice garden. Love home-grown tomatoes. When my neighbor comes over to steal those tomatoes, I can do one of two things:
1) I can go over and take my property back, likely causing him immense pain in the process, or
2) I call the police, and they get to show my neighbor that he does not, in fact, have the right to take my stuff.Is there something I'm missing? Your comment about me being a 'fan' of the military and the police seems to have something more behind it. Or maybe it's just that legendary dry British wit.
I'm no stephen fry, but i have my momments.
The only thing 'behind it' is that your responce was predictable and i find the logical inconsistancy amusing.
To claim that nationalised health services enslave the people,
but also supporting military and police service, which are payed for in the same method, with the same levels of opt out.
It is inconsistant and funny as all hell.
I cooked a wonderful dinner for my wife tonight. Herbed polenta, fantastic meatloaf, some homemade bread. Do you really think "society" has a right to any of the food I created for my family? If I turn around and sell that meal, why does society then have a right to that food?
There are hundreds of other options, other than your false dicotamy.
You can writ off the loose and build a higher wall, with razor wire on the top, or you can find out why they are stealing from you and solve the problem. If they are stealing your food
The intervention of the criminal justice system is hugely expencive.
If you had to pay for the arrest, prosocution, and incarseration of your neighbour, it would cost you thosands of dollars(actual costs are much higher). If the reason your neighbour is stealing, if because their income is not great enough to provide them with shelter, food, water, sanitation, education and healthcare, and you can, for $2/day, provide them with enough additional food that they no longer need to steal from you, it would be year before it became more cost effective to call the police than to provide for your neighbours.
As it is for the individual, so it is for the society.
The orphan in your example . . . why are you not taking care of it? You demand that I do so, but make no move yourself.
I am, i give 2% of my current poverty level income to charity and have worked directly for charities providing front line services. But that is neither hear nor their. You haven't explained how a system of charity can be ensured to provide either a constant revenue stream or ensure that funding goes to where it is needed, as opposed to where it is fashionable to send it.
Your government does, in fact, enslave people to pay for the NHS. Someone has to pay all those doctors and nurses. You are. And you don't have a choice about it. If you think you do, I'm sure your national revenue service will disavow you of that notion quite quickly.
The government no more 'enslaves' me when i am taxed for medical services, than it does when it taxes me for the military or the police.
I have a choice in both cases. I can live within the society, and gain the benifits of both, or i can leave this society and join a different one where the priorities of the society are different. Why is that such a difficult concept for you?
And if it's okay to take money from taxpayers to pay for another's health care, why not simply cut out the middle-man and force doctors to do the procedures? You'd actually make it more efficient, since you wouldn't have to pay all those revenue agents.
If it's okay to take money from taxpayers to pay for military, why not simply cut out the middle-man and force soldiers to fight? You actually make it more efficient, since you wouldn't have to pay all those revenue agents.
Try liberty. It's refreshing.
I have Liberty. In fact, by choosing to support the national health service i am better off than i would be in america, as i get health care, and i pay less for it.
Try pragmatism. It's Refreshing.
you missed option #3 - talk to them and ask WHY they took your tomatoes. explain why you are not happy about it, keeping ownership of your feelings. possibly make a friend in the process, and eventually agree to a fruit-barter system, where they can swap some of their courgettes for your tomatoes
Um, no. If they wanted the tomatoes, they should have asked. Theft is wrong. Don't steal. Especially my tomatoes.
So the next time someone steals, I'll simply be more efficient and take the law into my own hands. Yeah, that'll work.
You still don't seem to understand the concept that no one is entitled to the product another's labor, whether that be tomatoes, widgets, or health care.
And charity does work, quite well. Far more efficient than the government model. I asked why you don't take ownership for the orphan that you demand I care for. You didn't answer. There's the problem with your argument: if it is so very important to you, why are you not doing it? No, instead you need someone with a big stick to make sure that I do what you want me to . . . nope, not gonna happen. I have a child, and he's my priority, not an orphan that even the leftists don't want to take care of. Charity has existed for thousands of years, and works quite well.
Years ago, soldiers were forced to fight. In the United States, it was called the draft. Turns out that conscription isn't the optimal way to create a good military. But the left still insists that we use force to pay for others' health care (among other things).
And you don't "pay less" for health care. Someone else is paying the cost. You get fantastically high taxes, and demand that those with more pay even higher taxes without benefit to them, and you end up with a government model that denies medicine to people. What do I get? Far better emergency services, better outcomes of chronic conditions, and the best thing: freedom to choose my medicine.
Have you noticed that your arguments rely on the assumption of force? In your ideal society, it seems like an individual isn't allowed to do what is best for himself, instead being subservient to whoever wields the biggest stick. In my perfect society, there is no big stick.
No one has the right to the product of another's labor. If you believe that you do have the right to it, you believe that slavery is justified. Sorry, that flies in the face of hundreds of years of liberal thought. I can't explain it to you in any simpler manner. You do not have the right to take the tomatoes in my garden, and you do not have the right to force me to give tomatoes to my neighbor. Those tomatoes were grown with my effort, not yours. Learn to respect others. They do not exist to serve you.
We wanted it easier to be qualified to buy a home. And we got it. Not only did we get it, the federal government required institutions to give loans to people who "qualified". And so financial institutions gave the people what they wanted because of the federal government.Then MANY of these "qualified" people foreclosed on homes that the government forced institutions to accept -- and ironically they blamed the financial institutions. So now the government is giving to the people what they are asking for -- again -- and now only the patient person can get a home loan. And "qualified" has again taken on new meaning. (And the documentation is more confusing than ever. But that's progress for you.)
Some critics of the CRA contend that by encouraging banking institutions to help meet the credit needs of lower-income borrowers and areas, the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending. We have not yet seen empirical evidence to support these claims, nor has it been our experience in implementing the law over the past 30 years that the CRA has contributed to the erosion of safe and sound lending practices.The architects of our economic meltdown are the finance industry, which did it deliberately, and the bipartisan decision to refuse to govern and effectively protect us from such predatory lending scams as embodied in the repeal of the Glass-Stagall Act in 1999 and the immunization of credit default swaps from regulation. It wasn't the state that made banks write bad loans. They did that all on their own.
Why did they do it? The banks offered big bonuses if you signed a pile of loans and then pretended that by spreading the risk over credit default swaps that it would never come back to bite anyone. So being rational economic actors, loan officers went out with glee and wrote piles of NINJA (No Insurance, No...
I'm curious; do you expect the public/private interaction in the senate bill that gives half a trillion dollars in direct subsidies to private health care mega corporations to be more effective and less corrupt than what happened with the financial meltdown?
You do not have the right to take the tomatoes in my garden, and you do not have the right to force me to give tomatoes to my neighbor. Those tomatoes were grown with my effort, not yours. Learn to respect others. They do not exist to serve you.
By this ridiculous sort of reasoning, you don't have a right to your tomatoes either. Your argument is facile at best, and destructive at worst. No offense. We live in a society, and the social contract is not a one-way street.
Zo
Zomb - I think Doug lives in an entirely different universe to us and, the concepts of a fair go, egalitarianism, community, social justice do not filter though to his "user pays" utopian dystopia.
Doug - I am glad you live in the US you scare me - I dont want you living near me. Zomb said no where that there is force all he said it is a service that you pay for like, roads, water, the police the fire department and defence.
I do not understand where you get the slavery thing from.
I get the faint whiff of troll from you Doug, I don't know if you are deliberately misreading the Zomb or just have a problem understanding what he is saying.
I think one of the main problems for US citizens - is that it appears to be an extra expense, when those of us with universal health care are actually are paying less proportionally for that health care.
Also there is a fear of restriction of Trade for medical services. Private medicine thrives in Australia, I managed the office of a medical practice specialising in workers compensation and medical legal reporting, the Psychiatrists that worked at the practice would charge $800 AUD for a 45 minute consultation and report. Court fees were just as huge.
The other thing is that our US friends seem to think that universal health care is meant to replace the entire health system. It is not it is there to provide adequate care to those that can afford to do so pay for the best. We still have medical insurance and in fact if you earn more than a certain amount and do not have your own medical insurance you pay a Medicare levy to encourage you to get your own private insurance.
I don't think anything more constructive will be gained from this conversation to many people are set in their ways and unwilling to try something different even if the current model is not working. - so I may pop in to see what is said.
Matthew Morris - I think that the myth of American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny is a topic for another thread. A very interesting topic but one that would degenerate into a flaming mess as, national pride is a insecure and prickly thing, easily wounded and prone to lash out at even legitimate but tough questions.
The US does that too. In fact, it used to be really good at it. That was thirty years ago now. Since then the progressiveness of our taxation has declined incredibly.
See this where our governments differ we scale our taxes on how much you earn. The rich pay more because they can afford too.
|
Health services are expensive everywhere from America to Australia to the United Kingdom. The right wants people to pay for the use of health services and the left wants to help those who unfortunately cannot afford to access health services.
If a country will let someone suffer because they cannot afford treatment, is that not inhumane? The Australian government has recently lent AUS$250,000 to a woman to receive a new liver. She now has a second chance at life. May be government should have told her too bad and turned its back on her?
Basically, do you want to live in a society that is unable or unwilling to take care of the welfare of its citizens? I would think that health services should be accessible by all (and I do not mean plastic surgery for that convenient boob job) when there is a genuine need.
If you believe that no one has a right to free medical services then that is a sorry view of the world. The US needs a universal health care system that caters to those who cannot afford high insurance premiums. No one in a developed country should remain untreated when they need medical treatment.
A society where there is a pay for service system for front line services has failed (we pay for those services with our taxes and should not have to pay an additional fee) to address the needs of its citizens. I pay my taxes so I expect to be able to call emergency to receive attention from one of three crucial services: ambulance, fire or police. What? Do I have to pay additional money for a badge so the local fire department will stop and put my house out if it is on fire? Do I need to have an additional payment to ensure the police will come to my aid if a crime has been committed?
Zombieneighbours - All the best to your father.