Private Mars Rocket II

One of the things that shocked me most when I moved from the UK to the US was the level of acceptance of the situation when it comes to healthcare.

For me, as you might have been able to tell when I lost it over at Rand's blog, this is a moral issue. Not having a guaranteed level of healthcare for all is not morally defensible in the modern world and certainly not for the richest nation on Earth.

Even worse, I can't understand why Rand et al are happy with a status quo that has them spending almost twice what the UK pays for a service that isn't universal and doesn't work for huge swathes of the population.

He's bilious enough on issues of Space Policy when he believes he's right and you're wrong, but on these moral issues he comes over as downright unpleasant.

From:

Rand, unpleasant? Never! /sarcasm/

Yes, Rand can be both unpleasant and extremely certain of himself. I read him because he keeps up on space issues, but his politics and moral compass are irritating.

From:

Pretty much the same here, and when he keeps on general space issues and policy I enjoy his stuff. The problem is I can't handle the politics and the "other stuff".

He also has a couple of blind spots around Space Tourism which are irritating, especially as he's not really prepared to discuss points on which he's made up his mind.

I suspect the two problems are related.

From:

a status quo that has them spending almost twice what the UK pays for a service

Cite?

for a service that isn't universal

Why is this desirable?

doesn't work for huge swathes of the population.

Cite?

From:

jetfx.livejournal.com

More is spent on health care in the United States on a per capita basis than in any other nation in the world.[1][2] A study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that while the U.S. spends more on health care than other countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Healthcare) (be sure to check out the WHO report the article is sourced from)

2. Because it makes economic sense. It's cheaper to have preventative healthcare, and single payer healthcare is acutally paid for by employees through taxes, removing the strain from employers. Plus, one large system benefits from economies of scale - less administration, bulk purchasing power, etc. Also there is less incentive to cut people off from necessary care because profit is more important.

3. 45.7 million Americans have no insurance (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf) at all, and at least 16 million are underinsured. 37% of Americans reported (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2007/Nov/Toward-Higher-Performance-Health-Systems--Adults-Health-Care-Experiences-in-Seven-Countries--2007.aspx) avoiding medical care because of cost, and 42% with chronic conditions said the same.

From:

Jetfx pretty much gets it.

But to be specific: cite? JFGI eh? (Try OECD Healthcare Spending) - this one one the first of many hits:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/146992-comparing-u-s-healthcare-spending-with-other-oecd-countries

Why is a universal service desirable?
There are so many reasons it's hard to start. There are the purely economic ones - the US is spending more than anybody else for pretty much the same results. There are moral arguments: is it a right or a privalege. There are practical ones: epidemiology doesn't care if people are insured or not.

Doesn't work?
Cite? Cite for what? The data on the late of cover in the US is pretty widespread. But, instead, how about this. A scene NOT from Africa, but from the heart of LA.

http://losangelesgreens.org/2009/02/la-greens-health-care-event-feb-18-7pm.html

Doesn't this make you angry? It does me.

From:

Anybody who argues against health care reform

Reasonable people do not dispute that there are problems with health care in this country.

From:

Then reasonable people need to stop bitching about "death panels" and propose some actual solutions.

Sorry if that seems pissy, but this is a moral issue.

Not making a decision is a decision - a decision to do nothing, and keep the status quo.

From:

Then reasonable people need to stop bitching about "death panels" and propose some actual solutions.

If you think the people bleating about death panels are reasonable you need to upgrade your reading list.

I suggest Megan McArdle at The Atlantic for someone who is a) reasonable b) intelligent and c) puts her arguments across with facts and logic.

Sorry if that seems pissy, but this is a moral issue.

All the more reason to slow the heck down before somebody gets hurt. The poor have gotten a sack of shit for thousands of years: do we need to pass legislation this week to alleviate their suffering?

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.

From:

If you think the people bleating about death panels are reasonable No, but the reasonable folks aren't saying much.

I've read McArdle - so far her argument boils down to:
1) Unless the USA subsidizes pharma, nobody will make new drugs and devices
2) Big Government Cooties (in a nice and reasonable way)

I have to admit, the irrational part of me hears "slow down" in the same Southern drawl used for the same argument during desegregation. In part that's because the politicians (not you, I note) advocating slow down really don't want to do anything.

The more rational part of me hears slow down and says, "how much slower can we go?" We started hearings and meetings on this in January, after an extensive discussion during the election.

Lastly, we're not ripping up the current insurance system - we're modifying it, and adding an option. It's relatively low-risk.

From:

I've read McArdle - so far her argument boils down to:

Those work for me. I likes me my cheap medicine and I am not a big fan of the government.

But we've been down that road before, you and I.

The more rational part of me hears slow down and says, "how much slower can we go?" We started hearings and meetings on this in January, after an extensive discussion during the election.

I didn't hear a discussion during the recent election. I heard a lot of rabble-rousing and general foo-faw.

Eight months is not a lot of time to remake a national health system.

I like the Federalism idea: different states do their thing and in time it will become obvious what's a better choice.

This seems to have worked pretty well for (example) concealed carry laws, no?

From:

The real problem is that healthcare works through large scale risk pooling NOT insurance.

A small state would be screwed up against a large one.

While the NHS can be basic, the maths work. The 60 million people of the UK have free universal healthcare delivered for 40% less than the people of the US.

There's practically no difference in life expectancy, the British have similar obesity rates, it's a large and reasonably diverse population pool.

From:

Except we pay twice as much per capita as everybody else, so it ain't cheap.

What nobody has answered for me is why the USA needs to subsidize the rest of the world's medical development costs.

From:

Not to mention that a LOT of medical innovation still comes out of other countries even with the less money.

Innovation isn't going to stop.

From:

baron-waste.livejournal.com

Anybody who argues against health care reform needs to explain what they are prepared to do

Kill. Kill. Kill until my arms are weary, until the slain litter the ground, until the rivers run red. Hunt the hapless humans to extinction.

That'll fix it.

From:

sinthrex.livejournal.com

Good luck with that.

From: