Healthcare Hypocricy?

[kcshocker11]

SICKO!_Term used to describe a failed healthcare system- from Micheal Moore movie SICKO!!

[SubGod22]

So you're holding up an insane man like Moore to make a point? Isn't he the one who said that Cuba had a better health care system than the US?

[WuDrWu]

SICKO!_Term used to describe a failed healthcare system- from Micheal Moore movie SICKO!!

I'm still not understanding your point. Insurance is paying for his healthcare. Why is it failed?

[RoyalShock]

So you're holding up an insane man like Moore to make a point? Isn't he the one who said that Cuba had a better health care system than the US?

He made a whole "documentary" on it, where he went to a hospital reserved for the privileged and foreign visitors, ignoring the care received by average citizens.

[SubGod22]

He made a whole "documentary" on it, where he went to a hospital reserved for the privileged and foreign visitors, ignoring the care received by average citizens.

I thought it went something like that. I heard a passionate speech the other day from Ted Cruz's father about Cuba and the gov't takeover of everything. I believe he gave it over the summer at an event in Texas.

[1979Shocker]

The one thing about the ranking of those countries is I think it makes a difference as to their populations. Most of those countries have population sizes equal to some of our states. If our population was the same as some of those countries, we would probably be ranked higher.

[RoyalShock]

For those still saying there's no evidence that jobs are being negatively affected by ObamaCare, here's a nice little list. Actually, it's far from little.

A list of cuts

[RoyalShock]

The one thing about the ranking of those countries is I think it makes a difference as to their populations. Most of those countries have population sizes equal to some of our states. If our population was the same as some of those countries, we would probably be ranked higher.

And how many of those countries regulate wages and salaries of healthcare workers and providers?

I'm sure the US could move up that list, too, at the expense of liberty.

[WuDrWu]

And how many of those countries regulate wages and salaries of healthcare workers and providers?

I'm sure the US could move up that list, too, at the expense of liberty.

And how many of those countries are charged to defend, rescue, support, bail out etc etc the entire world? That might be a bit of a factor in where money can be spent. Also, how many of these countries spend the money we do developing the medicines and techniques the US does?

[RoyalShock]

And how many of those countries are charged to defend, rescue, support, bail out etc etc the entire world? That might be a bit of a factor in where money can be spent. Also, how many of these countries spend the money we do developing the medicines and techniques the US does?

Yep. Price controls rarely get mentioned when discussing the low cost of medications outside the US.

[WuDrWu]

I'm still not understanding your point. Insurance is paying for his healthcare. Why is it failed?

I don't want this to get lost because I'm still not sure what @kcshocker11: is upset about in that story.

[CBB_Fan]

And how many of those countries regulate wages and salaries of healthcare workers and providers?

I'm sure the US could move up that list, too, at the expense of liberty.

The US does have higher salaries for most positions, though that is not always the fault of big scary government. I laugh at the idea that the US has more "liberty" because we pay our doctors more though; freedom is not measured in dollar bills. However, if we are going to judge people solely by their economic freedom, we need to get to get a more complete picture. Looking at the facts, both our doctors and our general populace has less economic freedom than their European counterparts. Let me explain what I mean:

Here is a chart showing average compensation for specialists, general practitioners, and nurses in most of the world. And yes, US healthcare professional make more money. But what chart doesn't tell is the debt needed to get a medical degree in the US. As you can see here, the average debt for a US medical school graduate is $161,000, with over 3/4 of the students graduating with at least $100,000 in debt. Meanwhile the cost of entry in European countries is much lower, or even non-existent.

So while US healthcare professionals make more, they give a large portion of that back to pay off their debts. And now look at what our healthcare system does for the economic freedom of the average citizen in the US. To jump straight to the point, medical bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. Simply put, the high cost of healthcare (along with rising consumer and college debt) is killing the American middle class.

So to say that we are more free because we pay our doctors more is simply incorrect. If we account for our high medical debts and bankruptcies from the high cost of our healthcare, we find that the US's system is prohibitive to economic freedom.

[SubGod22]

Here's a map of how the ACA prices are expected to be effected by state. It was done by the Society of Actuaries

[RoyalShock]

CBB_Fan, no one is getting judged "solely on economic freedom."

Also, please explain to me how, if the cost of entry into a profession is non-existent to the individual, who is footing the cost? Are medical degrees found in boxes of Cracker Jack? Or is the government, through taxation (money taken from an individual or entity under threat of fines or imprisonment) fully or partially subsidizing the cost? Where is the economic freedom in that? Governments don't grant freedom, only privilege. It's important to understand the difference.

[CBB_Fan]

CBB_Fan, no one is getting judged "solely on economic freedom."

Also, please explain to me how, if the cost of entry into a profession is non-existent to the individual, who is footing the cost? Are medical degrees found in boxes of Cracker Jack? Or is the government, through taxation (money taken from an individual or entity under threat of fines or imprisonment) fully or partially subsidizing the cost? Where is the economic freedom in that? Governments don't grant freedom, only privilege. It's important to understand the difference.

See, here's the thing. You are looking at things from a philosophical standpoint, and defining financial freedom by a completely different metric (how much the government takes versus how much the consumer has to spend). My opinion is that philosophy and politics cannot coexist; only the most pragmatic and sensible approach should be used. You find offense in the fact that European governments use higher taxes to pay for social benefits; I don't care what system or mechanism is used, only the final result.

This is one reason why politics in America is completely dysfunctional. Both sides think only about trying to justify their philosophy, and they argue more about semantics, definitions, and gaffs than they do sound policy, which is one major reason why our government has been ineffective (or downright destructive) going back to the beginning of the millennium.

So when I look at healthcare, I don't care the morality of government social programs, or slightly higher taxes. Those don't matter to me unless they actually have big picture consequences. To me, what matters is:

A) How much healthcare actually costs, both for the individual and to the government
B) How the healthcare system affects the economy, especially in regards to how it affects individual financial freedom (defined as how likely it is an individual will be financially ruined by high healthcare costs)

Everything else is secondary. To me, the question is not about big or small government, it is about the efficacy of the system used, period. And in virtually every regard the US system is a dumpster fire, considering the amount of money spent on it each year. We spend more, we get less, and neither consumers nor healthcare professionals benefit (though the latter is mainly the fault of another failed system, our higher education).

I don't care about the abstract evil of big government in this case; I care about the fact that the average US consumer is one injury or illness away from financial ruin (and that isn't just the people without insurance). If I thought a free market system would eliminate that, I'd advocate for it, but that simply is not backed by empirical metrics.

You see completely caught up in the idea that a less effective system is justifiable if it meets your personal philosophy. Many in America share the same view, or we wouldn't have the current system. But I simply cannot agree with that line of logic. I quite firmly believe that the only justifiable system is one that works, and across the world what works are systems that rely on government control and financing (this also applies to higher education).

At the bare minimum I'd advocate for a Swiss-style healthcare system: compulsory, non-profit based insurance (minimums set by government) with additional supplemental plans that can be for-profit. This is similar to the broken system of Obamacare, but there are some critical differences between the two that makes the Swiss plan a much better alternative than the job destroying, high cost Obamacare.