Off topic: Single payer health care

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 11, 2009

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Here I was recently treated to an interesting display of Darwinist logic.

A commenter demanded that I provide proof that in a single-payer health system like Canada’s, older people are being abandoned to die. Another suggested I just shut up about it.

Sorry. Go here for how bad it can get.

It’s a matter of simple logic, really. Sarah Palin’s death panels are alive and well in Canada because we have a single government payer health system.

I don’t care what you think of Palin. But this much I know is true:

If the government is the only entity permitted to open a new bed in a hospital, this is what happens: You have a 55 year-old high school math teacher (Old Lady Smith*) and a 75 year-old retired high school math teacher (Old Lady Jones).

Who gets the bed? Who gets shunted off to die somewhere?

The obvious solution is more beds. But if only the government can pay …

The big problem with single payer government systems is that everyone is into government’s pocket for anything from an Olympic skating pavilion to new benches in the public park.

Only a few people have serious core health care issues, and they are usually diverse. So the lobby is small, fragmented, largely unheard.

Hey, if you can figure that one out, you are smarter than some of our commenters/trolls/ex-trolls.

The last time I took a politics test, I flunked “right wingness”, which is fine with me. I am talking about a practical issue. In Canada, Old Lady Jones isn’t legally allowed to just make her own arrangements, assuming she wants to be 85 or so before she pegs out.

I was intrigued by the difficulty some Darwinists had understanding her problem (= she needs a hospital bed but can’t legally pay for one), when it is a matter of simple logic.

Maybe they overdosed on “natural selection” and “the mind is an illusion created by neurons”?

*No, Old Lady Smith is not old by my standards, but that is how the teens on whom she forces algebra regard her. They can’t believe she ever had a life, even if she has a husband and six kids, which pretty much guarantees you would have a life.

Meanwhile, “Now, class, please turn to page 63 …. Factorials.”

Comments

I mean she (or you) would be looking at $40 a month –at least for my zip code for a 24-year-old female. You know, something else I don't think young people or their parents consider. The cost for insurance -- probably through a mandated requirement to buy it -- will rise considerably for the young under a single-payer plan since the criteria will no longer be based on risk but on the need to fund the system which will invariably increase since the market will not be there to constrain the inevitable growth in bureaucracy.tribune7_{October 15, 2009
October
10
Oct
15
15
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PST}

#61 French healthcare, WHO says, “best in the world” nationalized healtchare system in deep debt. They don’t know how they’re going to pay for rising cost. If France has a problem with the cost of its healthcare then where does that put the US? France spends 11% of GDP per capita on healthcare. US spends 16% of a higher GPD per capita. In France it is the government who has a problem paying. In the US it is individuals and employers and government. Healthcare costs money. It is no secret. The trick is to get as much as possible from that money and distribute the results equitablty.Mark Frank_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PST}

I propose several measures to alleviate America's healtcare problems. 1) Remove American Military from around the world, from all corners of the world. Let Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines and every other nation defend itself with their own military and their own money. Transfer all cost savings to cover current unfunded liabilities in medicare, medicaid and social security for the American people. 2) Stop funding all other nations, mainly third world nations with medical care, food, medicine and water treatment. Transfer all savings to Americans. We've given trillions to the world. Its time we take care of our own people. And let the world take care of itself. Maybe Japan, China, Russia and Eurupe can do half of what America has done to save lives around the world? 3) Stop Americans funding abortions around the world. Transfer money back to American poor for healthcare. 4) Stop funding democrat donors favored projects, like George Soros's investment in Petrobas, Brazil. Instead, provide low-cost loans for Americna projects, not Brazilian or other nations. 5) Start charging more money or taxing all drugs and patents that America creates to all other nations. We own the majority of clinical studies, research, discoveries and medicines in the world. Yet, the American people pay more for their drugs than other nations like Canada. Canadians, French, Brits, Japanese should all have to pay the same as Americans. Any nation that copies our drugs illegaly shall be cutoff from the world by our stronger defenses as a result of not protecting the whole world from evil tyrants and communist. The rest is domestic and already known. We allow more competition in all states. For example, I can get a cheaper Humana plan, but a friend of mine cannot get it in another state. This is government controlled sanctions against Americans. We need to free our nation for competition, not limit it by government controls. And of course tort reform, where Mississippi and Texas are already seeing lower cost and more doctors flowing into their states. There, that should do it. Anyone else with ideas on how to save American lives and money? I think the world is grown up enough to take care of itself now, don't you? Without the evil American empire? They can hire Obama after he finishes. If the world clamors so much for a marxist loving leader, they deserve it.DATCG_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PST}

2004 report on waiting time in Canada... Waiting to die DATCG_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PST}

As for France, Canada, French healthcare, WHO says, "best in the world" nationalized healtchare system in deep debt. They don't know how they're going to pay for rising cost. Socialized debt Canadian care enslaves people? Government forced care, Seeking other solutions 15,000 die in French heatwave disaster... No 1. healthcare in world lets 15,000 die Adverse events cause up to 24K deaths a year "The Canadian Adverse Events Study reports that "adverse events” in Canadian hospitals result in 9,000- 24,000 deaths every year ("Universal Problems..."). Nonlethal events keep Canadians in hospitals for a total of over a million extra days per year ("Universal Problems...")." Tax rates of nations...
In 2007, America's average personal tax rate was 28.3 percent of the GDP compared to Canada's 33.3 percent, Germany's 36.2 percent, England's 36.6 percent, and France's 43.6 percent. Japan's tax rate equals that of the United States, but its debt last year was 170 percent of its GDP, three times more than that of the United States ("Obama's Health Care...").*
It appears that government healthcare does not solve anything. It merely forces a one-size fits all plan on everyone but the Political Masters of Society.DATCG_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PST}

Listen to that video above as the young "liberals" clap when they hear grandma or grandpa can die.DATCG_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PST}

The stuff some people say on here is rich. A government tax-payor healthcare system? Since when does anyone trust the government to do anything? The truth about government healthcare by one of Obama's advisors... We will let you die "you young healthy people, you're going to have to pay more" and "by the way, if you're very old, we are not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of months of your life because its to expensive, so we're going to let you die" These cretins are deciding who will live in die, because afterall, they're smarter than us. My grandmother under their watch would have died several years early because she would not be allowed all that new technology.DATCG_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PST}

avocationist--It simply isn’t affordable at all times of life for all people. In many cases with young people -- and I'm not saying your daughter falls into this category or judging her if she should since we were all that age once -- it's not a matter of affordability but priority. I mean she (or you) would be looking at $40 a month --at least for my zip code for a 24-year-old female. It wouldn't be the greatest plan but it would save her from bankruptcy or life-long debt in the event of a serious event which is your concern. And it would still give her a lot more freedom in choosing her care than a single-payer plan. And if you want to cut the cost of private insurance even more you can push to end the the mandates states impose on insurance carriers in their coverage. If you are looking for a bare-bones policy to bail you out in the event of a catastrophe -- which again is what you seem to want for your daughter --it would be nicer and cheaper to get one that doesn't cover birth control, mammograms and alcoholism. And of course, if you do want those things an insurance company would be glad to include those in a policy. Or if you want government to cover those things, it would still be less damaging than a single-payer take over.tribune7_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST}

Mark Frank Surely the objective of a health system is to fix the body not to give the doctors a good salary? EXACTLY!!! Which is why insurance is a rather minor part of it. Which is why it is puzzling -- unless you are a cynic about it, which is probably the most reasonable thing to be -- that all Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama are talking about is insurance.tribune7_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PST}

"So instead of, well, her paying for her own insurance — or you paying for it — you want the young married couple who is now doing the responsible thing by having their own insurance to start paying for her’s?" It simply isn't affordable at all times of life for all people. I want a single payer, tax-based system, that she and I will pay into all our lives, but which if a person is between jobs or not fully employed at some time or other, does not mean they are out of luck if they need medical care. I would be willing to have a public option, but I don't see how insurance companies can really ever compete with a not-for-profit system, which is exactly what we should have. 30% overhead and our lives in the hands of faceless corporates whose eye is on the bottom line - that is worse than government any day. Oh, and I most certainly do question the motives of politicians - especially those whose campaigns have had significant contributions from the insurance companies.avocationist_{October 14, 2009
October
10
Oct
14
14
2009
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PST}

And does anybody even consider what the purpose of insurance is? It’s not to fix the body/car/house but to make sure that the person who fixes the body/car/house gets paid. Surely the objective of a health system is to fix the body not to give the doctors a good salary? So if market driven insurance makes sure the doctor gets paid, but the body is not fixed, then something else is needed in addition to insurance.Mark Frank_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PST}

The fear here is that the very good things in our system will be taken over and destroyed by fools and thieves. . . .Oh, I thought they already had been! Heinrich, the government yes. Health care not yet.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PST}

Mark Frank -- Obama is talking everything including single payer, and it's pretty clear that's what he wants and the suspicion is that any reform will be a stepping stone towards that goal even it should not be obtained. Actually I am not sure that number of doctors (and consultations) is a very good measure of a health system They provide a far, far, far, far, far better starting point than the number of uninsured in determining the quality of medical care. And does anybody even consider what the purpose of insurance is? It's not to fix the body/car/house but to make sure that the person who fixes the body/car/house gets paid. Once you look at it that way, the whole debate changes.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PST}

#47 (cont) I am not sure that the number of consultations is a very useful measure of doctor productivity.What counts as a consultation? How long are they on average? How effective are they? Is a doctor who has many rather aimless consultations with a pregnant mother more productive than one who has one or two good ones? Actually I am not sure that number of doctors is a very good measure of a health system - but you raised it. What really counts is results and we have already seen how very hard it is to get a good measure of these. There is no evidence that the USA is outstanding compared to other industrialised nations and it is far more expensive.Mark Frank_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PST}

#47 As I understand it, the Obama plan is to continue with privately provided health services but expand the scope of insurance and regulate it more. This is far more like Germany and France than the UK and Canada.Mark Frank_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST}

Oh, I thought they already had been!Heinrich_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PST}

Heinrich, maybe Germany's system is fine and I shouldn't be picking on it when I have Canada and U.K. in mind. The fear here is that the very good things in our system will be taken over and destroyed by fools and thieves.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PST}

Very good post, Mark Frank and I thank you. Under the Obama plan will the U.S. be more like Germany or France, or Canada and the U.K.? If anything, there is a real concern that what an Obama plan will do is cut back on the number of doctors/nurses. He certainly has done to address it. Everything Obama, Pelosi and Reid talk about involves containing costs, not providing service. And there is another integral part of the debate that goes along the number of doctors and that is their productivity. Here's chart from nationmasters.com showing that U.S. doctors see significantly more patients (three times that of Sweden) than any other devolped nation other than Japan, which is off the chart. Can anybody enlighten us as to what the Japanese health care system is like? Nakashima-san are you there? And Mark, since Canada's system doesn't seem to be shining anywhere, is there any attempt to reform it to one more like Germany?tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PST}

I want health care for everybody. My objections to government-run systems (single payer or otherwise) is that centrally planned systems give you fewer doctors treating fewer patients per day i.e. less health care. Doctors per 1000 people Germany: 3.4 France: 3.37 Sweden: 3.3 Norway: 3.1 Netherlands: 3.1 Denmark: 2.9 Australia: 2.5 United States: 2.3 New Zealand: 2.2 United Kingdom: 2.2 Canada: 2.1 Nurses per 1000 people Netherlands: 13.4 Switzerland: 10.7 Australia: 10.7 Norway: 10.3 Canada: 9.9 Germany: 9.6 New Zealand: 9.6 Denmark: 9.5 Austria: 9.2 Sweden: 8.8 United Kingdom: 8.8 United States: 8.1 Japan: 7.8 France: 6.7 Italy: 5.2 Source: http://www.nationmaster.com (edited to remove countries that are not comparable e.g. very small)Mark Frank_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PST}

I want health care for everybody. My objections to government-run systems (single payer or otherwise) is that centrally planned systems give you fewer doctors treating fewer patients per day i.e. less health care.
Many health care systems are not centrally planned: for example the German system is based on private health insurance, but access is guaranteed. There will never be a perfect solution, but you seem to prefer a high throughput of care, at the expense of a large number of your fellow Americans (15% uninsured, of which 8.9% are unable to get their costs covered - source). I wonder - how far would you allow inefficiencies to build in the system if it meant that treatment could be targetted at those who really need it?Heinrich_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PST}

Heinrich -- (hm, I guess it puts to bed any claim that the US is a Christian nation). Shouldn’t we be protecting the weak? One of the problems with this debate is claims of moral superiority being substituted for thought. The motivations for the supporters of the various health care reforms seem to be solely a desire to feel warm and fuzzy and not solve a real problem. Putting ink on paper does not give you health care. I want health care for everybody. My objections to government-run systems (single payer or otherwise) is that centrally planned systems give you fewer doctors treating fewer patients per day i.e. less health care. The problem on which the bureaucrats and politicians concentrate is health insurance. A much better metric than the number of uninsured to use by those seriously concerned about the expansion of health care services would be the number of active doctors and the number of patients seen. And it puzzles me no end why nobody seems willing to question the motivations of politicians the way Obama questions the motivations of doctors.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST}

Heinrich -- In Europe it is (largely) by seriousness of the ailment, and cost effectiveness of treatment. It's demand without supply. If you want treatment you have the "right" to it, but if the resources aren't there you are not going get what you want/need no matter how much a "right" to it you have. And of course if the patient waits long enough he will not need treatment. Central planning never works for service provision and hoping for death is the worst form of rationing.tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PST}

But there are many millions of uninsured, like my lovely 24-year-old college grad daughter who are not going to be poor all their lives. So instead of, well, her paying for her own insurance -- or you paying for it -- you want the young married couple who is now doing the responsible thing by having their own insurance to start paying for her's?tribune7_{October 13, 2009
October
10
Oct
13
13
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PST}

Marduk (#41) 1. Ms. O'Leary's first name is Denyse, not Denise. 2. In written English, the names of countries and their residents are capitalized, as well as the names of important historical events and undertakings - for instance, "Europeans," "Canadians," "America," "Manhattan Project" and "American," to quote a few of the words you forgot to capitalize. 3. I'll borrow a phrase of yours. "Note that the most capitalistic nation is the one" that initiated the Manhattan Project. 4. If any nation does eventually discover a "cure" for "human stupidity," I wouldn't mind betting that it won't be an Old World country. 5. Your phrase "engaged in empire" makes absolutely no sense. You can engage in empire-building, but not in "empire." By the way, "empire" is a countable noun. 6. The total cost to the U.S. since 2001 of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is approximately $920 billion. See http://costofwar.com/. So much for propping up capitalism. 7. Here's one final thought on human stupidity: people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.vjtorley_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PST}

It's true that the poor are well treated, and so long as they intend to remain absolutely poor all their lives they should be OK. Because they do get a bill. But there are many millions of uninsured, like my lovely 24-year-old college grad daughter who are not going to be poor all their lives. If she has the bad luck to wrack up a large hospital bill, it will wreck her future. And of course she works. Lots of people work hard but don't have insurance, and lots of people make 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 dollars an hour. Frankly, the pharmaceutical companies have the medical schools under their thumb, and work hard to diss anything but chemical drugs, all of which have side effects, many of them monstrous, and are not a route to health. Calling them by the word 'therapy' is disingenuous. They insidiously destroy health. and I really don't buy that unless their are huge profits their will be no incentive for further research. All this fearmongering about having the govt take over health care. We have a very functional set of govt run programs that no one in their right minds would want to do without, or have to buy insurance for. Fire. Police. Post office. Roads.avocationist_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PST}

Wow. So in Europe, health care for the middle class is rationed to every thing. The rich, of course, always can find a way right?
I don't think it's done in that way. In any health system with finite resources there will be prioritisation. The problem is how it is done. In Europe it is (largely) by seriousness of the ailment, and cost effectiveness of treatment. In the US it is by income and current health (all those people being refused insurance because of pre-existing conditions). The important issue, I think, is how the prioritisation is done. The US system seems fundamentally unfair in the way the poor are refused help, unless they want to bankrupt themselves (hm, I guess it puts to bed any claim that the US is a Christian nation). Shouldn't we be protecting the weak?
And they still have to pay. Nope. They are treated regardless.
Yep. They are treated, and then get sent the bill afterwards.Heinrich_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PST}

As a Canadian I find it hard to reconcile Ms. O'Leary's words with anything that I have experienced with regards to our health care system. Now, that is certainly only my experiences and not a scientific study, but her views seem to come from far out of right field. As someone mentioned above regarding France, in Canada if a person needs a bed they get a bed.Winston Macchi_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PST}

I have a hard time being too concerned about the pharmaceutical companies profits, As do I. I am concerned, however, about persons having an incentive to create, produce and distribute useful pharmaceutical products. The less profit (and more hurdles) the less incentive. I was this rather indisputable principle was universally recognized. I wish something else that was more recognized is that those inclined to enter government are often (maybe even mostly) motivated by a desire to rule than to serve. And/or to have an easy income, of course.tribune7_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PST}

Heinrich --Wow. So in the US, health care for the poor is rationed to emergency care. Wow. So in Europe, health care for the middle class is rationed to every thing. The rich, of course, always can find a way right? And in your system they get the added benefit of feeling warm and holy while giving the shaft to everyone else. And they still have to pay. Nope. They are treated regardless.tribune7_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PST}

tribune7 @ 16 -
Everybody in the U.S. has access to health care via emergency rooms. It’s by far not the most efficient, or inexpensive, way but it is still a far more compassionate means of “rationing” than is done in Europe i.e. make them stand in line and hope some of them die off before its time to treat them.
Wow. So in the US, health care for the poor is rationed to emergency care. And they still have to pay. jerry @21 -
“It seems deeply uncaring: how else are you going to ensure that everyone in your country has access to health care? Or don’t you worry about the poor and needy?” I do not think this is accurate. The US is known for the quality of its health care. People come here from all over the world for it. Nobody from the US is running to Canada for health care.
If you have insurance, health care might be good. But...
Being uninsured does not mean one does not get medical care. It means that one has to pay for it yourself or get public assistance if you cannot afford the cost of the medical care. Medicaid takes care of most poor but some people fall through the cracks.
Health care is so expensive, the poor and needy can't afford it. Medicaid should help, but I have a friend who is uninsured, and she would have to be earning less than her rent to qualify for it (this is in NYC). She has mental health problems, but no way of getting treatment, because she can't afford in, and there aren't many psychiatrists in ER. Because of this, she couldn't work full-time. So she's stuck.Heinrich_{October 12, 2009
October
10
Oct
12
12
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PST}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply