Pretty straight forward question.

I was listening to the Radio this morning and Harry Reid went on a rant about how people who don't want universal health care are the same as people who did not want to abolish slavery. So I was thinking about that, and the white elephant in the room that the Democrats are not really talking directly about is a 100% social issue that they believe everyone should get health care provided by the government.

So I want to know black and white, where people here stand. Even if you think we should have medicare and government programs to help the poor, that does not mean you think everyone should get free health care.

Feel free to qualify your answer either way.

Short answer: Health Insurance is NOT a right

It's funny that the guy who said opponents are in favor of slavery thinks that some Americans have a right to the labor of others without paying them, under threat of punishment.

man this is awesome. this might have to turn into a facebook status.

Yeah, I'm against slavery, but I'm for firemen (who I don't pay but who work for me). Man, I'm such a contradiction!

Also, I don't like the phrasing of your question, since the term "right" is very loaded and, really, has no universally accepted meaning.

You should ask, "Would this country be better off if we had a universal system of health care, and in what ways would it be better, what ways would it be worse, and what would be the best means form of this universal heath care system?"

Fireman presumably are not forced into that line of work. Under Obama-care, companies and individuals would be forced to provide services to people at prices they do not agree to.

Certainly you are not saying that having a career option as a fireman is the same as telling an existing professional "do it our way or switch careers"?

To anticipate your follow-up to that, you are getting into further questions of consent and rule of law that are probably beyond the scope of this forum, but I'd be happy to engage if you wish.

Equally short answer: But it should be.

I disagree -- a right is something you are entitled to that the government must guarantee for you. For example, the most commonly made distinction is driving -- we are always told, driving is a privilege, not a right.

In the context of the health care debate, we start getting into issues of positive and negative rights. We have many negative rights -- those rights that just require others to not bothers us. The right to privacy, the right to free speech, the right to choose a religion. Where we starting getting into troubles is with positive rights -- those rights that actively require someone to give you something. You can never legitimately have such a right, because such a right is a demand for others to serve you -- in effect, that you owe a part of your life to random strangers, just by virtue of being born.

So that's the long answer to the quiz question.

I don't know if you believe that, or were just pointing out that short answers don't mean much. I'm guessing you don't really believe it, because it seems to go against much of what you believe in.

Henry pretty much answered it, but I didn't want to go back to the positives and negative of various forms of universal health care. I wanted to know if people here thought it was a "right" deemed through law, bill, or other means that this country should provide free health care to all citizens.

If you do fine, if you don't then the other discussion needs to continue.

I think we have advanced to the point where we can do it. We both have discussed at length the health care plan proposed in that article posted by FCP Bob. That article lays out the framework for a plan which would allow us to offer catastrophic coverage to every American (which is what they really need) and ensure that no one is bankrupted by health care costs.

Of course to do so, we would have to allow a true free market system to apply to all other health care expenses. That seems like a fair compromise to me.

Your point about positive rights and negative rights is well taken but, on the whole, I think people are better off letting some be granted a positive right or two just by being born.

My answer to pokerbum was that the Constitution clearly does not give people a right to health care. So that takes care of that (sorry poor people). But I think we have reached a point in our evolutuion as a society where we can afford to do this and therefore we should. And the trade-off should be that non-emergency procedures go back to solely being a transaction btw doctor and patient.

So, to answer the OP, no.....there is nothing in our laws that states that health care is a right. That is easy. But, if we have the resources to put a system in place that takes care of everyone.....should we? I think we should.

OK, good answer. The question then is how we provide it, from a practical point of view, and, depending on how it's implemented, is it then a right? Let's say that poor people can get free care through a certain program. Is that a right? If so, can I make myself temporarily poor, and get free care? Can I pay off my half million dollar house, stash my money in a box, and claim no income? What if I am able-bodied and there are jobs in my field available, but I like living over mom's garage and getting free health care? If it is a right, the answer to all of those is yes, but few people would support such a program.

So while I agree with you that a rich society can care for their poor, I think declaring things rights that clearly are not rights is a bad way to go about that.

I just hope you realize that this ^ is impossible.

This is why my question is better. The question as stated makes it too easy to dodge the real issue at hand with discussions about types of rights and things like that. My question forces the reader to actually talk about health care in a concrete way.

It is practically impossible (because a variety of things would have to happen----health care companies being rendered obsolete despite their lobbyists throwing cash at everyone, the American people understanding that they are better off paying more for a checkup because it will be offset by not having so much deducted from each paycheck, everyone agreeing on what the dollar trigger would be for catastrophic care, how much we would have to ration end of life care, can we get private insurance companies to fill the voids that will arise, etc, etc.)

But, theoretically it is very possible.

Well, if you want to get into practical questions rather than theoretical, I think the correct starting point is:

Are there any examples of government services being provided more efficiently and effectively than free markets? Are any centrally planned societies more successful than free market societies?

Do we have any examples of highly regulated industries that were deregulated within our country? Was the result better or worse than before? Were prices higher or lower? Was there more access and choices or less? Was innovation greater or less?

Do we have examples of industries that were previously relatively free market that were moved to highly regulated? What was the result?

EDIT: In case you didn't guess, I have looked into the answers to these questions, which is why I opposed a federal takeover of medical care.

My point was that the existence of a government implies control over the lives of its citizens. It implies that there will be jobs directly funded by the government, such as firemen, and that there will be rules and restrictions placed on jobs not directly funded by the government.

All regulation of industry in a sense "forces people to provide services" that they wouldn't necessarily do in a vacuum. That doesn't make the regulation evil. The regulation is bad if the net cost is worse than the net benefit (in whatever way you decide to measure those).

Again, my point was that in order to call Obama-care slavery, you have to be consistent and call everything else the government does or imposes slavery. Which is fine, if you're an anarchist and that's what you believe, but one has to be consistent.

(Also, I apologize for going on this mini-rant as a response to a funny joke that you made. The humor wasn't lost on me, contrary to what my desire to set the record straight may imply)

I believe it is not even theoretically possible at the federal level, questionably possible at the state level, and very possible (and probably desirable) at the community level.

Harry Reid is one despicable human being. There is not a line he won't cross to try to push this shit through.

So anyone in opposition (as well as those who do not like Obama) are rascists? What a soulless cocksucker.


Funny how they feel the need to rush this crap through and criticize those who want to wait and debate and try to get it right, yet when the Afghanistan troop surge issue came up it was ok then to wait and debate and try to get it right?

blah blah blah....


so depressing

While I appreciate your desire to dive into the theoretical, I would again argue that this avoids a direct discussion of heath care, which, as I perceived it, was the original intention of the OP.

Also, I'm not sure what an example of a "centrally planned society" would be versus a "free market society." Do you have an example of each so I know what you're talking about. The only things I can come up with right now are:

"Centrally planned": Every country, except maybe Somalia

"Free Market": Somalia

Um, they have been debating health care a lot longer than they have been debating Afghanistan.

Also, anyone in opposition to the Iraq War (before 2006 when everyone woke the fuck up) was an un-patriotic douche who did not support the troops.



Your selective outrage is delicious. -Sue Sylvester

Rush it through? Haven't they been working on it since the Spring? It was in committees for months, went to debate on the floor, and now is back in committees.

How long do you actually want it to take?

Or by your anger at "rushing it through," are you really mad at a republican system (small "r") where you don't get a direct say in how the final legislation comes out, but rather it has to be processed through representatives in committees?

I think legitimate government rules do not place restrictions on jobs that honest people do not place on themselves. A good rule of thumb on deciding whether a particular piece of legislation is moral or appropriate or fair: would this law make honest people stop doing what they are doing? If the answer is yes, the law is illegitimate and should not be passed.

Honest people are happy to fund community services such as law enforcement and fire departments. We are not so happy to tell doctors "you must work for less than you are worth because some bureaucrat thinks you charge to much".




No worries, points made via humor are just as legitimate discussion for debate as any others. Otherwise, we'd have to kick BG out of here.

I am for free health care for everyone over 40 to be paid by everyone under 40 for this generation to see if it works out.

If after this 40 year experiment it is found to work, then we should continue it.

Oh and I am also for a similar program for cigars...and bacon

Sorry, I fully disagree. I do not think that plan is theoretically possible. (I am making the assumption that the same level or better health care is needed to consider this a possibility) The very first reason, and I don't think it needs to go any further is, if the government is in charge of all catastrophic care, where will the incentive come from to create better drugs/treatments for life threatening diseases, illness and injury?

Whomever cures cancer or aids or whatever major disease that is plaguing our race, will be doing it partially to be altruistic, and also to make a shit ton of money. If that incentive is not there, why would "most" people dedicate their lives and lively hood to doing work that will get them no personal gain?

Now I have your answer, the governement will provide that monetary incentive. I'll even give you a current example, they offered 40K to someone to find 10 balloons using the internet. MIT did it in 9 hours. They did it for the money, and the recognition.

Now I'll give you my counter argument. What happens when someone in the government determines they will fund X but not Y. Well guess what, there will be nobody to do the research on Y. That is the problem, it always had been.

Even though there is dishonesty and unethical practices from insurance and drug companies, bottom line is, cures and remedies for diseases are getting made and made better all the time. And it is because of the promise of a gigantic windfall for the company taking that risk.

Centrally planned countries are countries where a majority of commerce is controlled by the government. Examples: Cuba, North Korea, former Soviet Union, Venezuela.

Free market countries are countries with strong rule of law and strong property rights. Examples: US, Canada, most of Europe.

Of course it's all a matter of degrees.

Somalia is not a free market because they have no property rights and no rule of law.

A couple simple questions for Americans that really aren't very simple.

Why is it that every other rich country in the World provides some level of guaranteed health care for everybody and the US doesn't ?

Why are Americans so clinging to a system that is arguably the most inefficient in the World ? One unit of health care in the US costs far more than the same unit does in other countries. ( I realize that the current proposals from the Democrats are going to do nothing to change this ) I find it hilarious that all the anti-gov't people harp about the inefficiencies of governments while one of the largest advantages of the public health care systems in places like Canada is that far less money is spent on bureaucracy here when compared to the US.

Why do Americans call their system free market when I would argue that there are a high number of places in the system where the market is distorted by it's very structure. The AMA distorts the free market. Lack of cross state insurance competition distorts the free market. Capital intensive hospitals have a natural monopoly effect in many places.

I think the US is basically screwed when it comes to health care as your current system needs to be blown up before it bankrupts your country.

I think most countries are fiscally screwed to a large extent by rising health care costs and every country has hard decisions to make.

But what if the Doctors through a system of their having a strong union with large barriers to entry are able to charge above market clearing rates due to their monopoly position ?

Nor are health insurance workers. That is why it (obviously) isn't slavery.



No, just like fireman, they can go into another line of work.



We tell fireman the same thing. If you don't perform your job in a way that meets our standards, you must switch careers.

There's no substantive difference. There is just disagreement with what the standards should be for health care.

And crappy pirates. Somalia has terrible pirates. Ask Cartman.


Guapo,

What happens when a private company decides to fund research for X and not Y? Those kind of decisions are made all the time. I dont think it would be a huge difference. Things that are needed would get funded and if things that were needed did not get funded the public outcry is supposed to remedy that.

I admit there is no perfect system. But I think the system I am proposing would be an improvement over the current system and the proposed rehaul.

Also, the best thing about the plan I am speaking of? All ICU treatment is handled by one company, the government. That means standardized forms and computerization.....which will cut clerical errors by well more than half. Right now every company has a different form so there is no computerization which leads to tons of errors.

Because the rest of you suck. If everyone else jumped off the Empire State Building, would you jump off the Empire State Building? (or should I say the CN Tower?)



I'm not sure how you are measuring efficiency. Based on several stories of experiences with the Canadian system just from member of FCP, combined with all the others that have made the news, combined with the Canadian govt's own statistics, efficiency does not seem to a very good description of the system there. Lowering prices by not giving people the care they need is, to me, sort of the opposite of efficiency.




I agree with all of these, and more. We call it a free market, though, because compared to the rest of the world, it is one. That's why we invent something like 90% of all new pharmaceuticals and new devices. But yeah, there are serious problems that need to be fixed.

One point, though, hospitals don't have "natural" monopolies. In many states, medical providers have tried to create alternatives to big box hospitals, but the hospitals have too much political clout and shut them down. One of the things that is starting to gain steam is "specialty hospitals", where they just do one thing. They don't need 8 stories of staph-infected beds. They may just take up a single floor of an existing medical center or other office building. Where such care is allowed to compete on a level playing field, they are having great success, proving, once again, there are no natural monopolies. There are only bad rules that make unimaginative people think there are no alternatives.



The only part that is bankrupting our country is Medicare, and I'm all in favor of blowing that up. Well, OK, maybe not blowing it up, but dismantling it methodically and fairly.

Then doctors who aren't part of the union can undercut them. If the union is legally enforced, as with the AMA, then we need to fix that problem instead of piling more bad rules on the problem. The AMA is a political entity, and as such, should be disbanded.

We don't exactly tell firemen how to do their jobs, basically we just tell them "here's the salary, as determined by markets, and you just need to put out fires." If cities pay too little, they don't get firemen. If they pay too much, taxpayers complain.

Obama-care is threatening to tell doctors "sure markets would let you charge $30,000 for that, but we are only going to let you be paid $20,000. If you don't like it, you can throw away your 16 years of schooling, and oh, good luck paying off those loans."

Yes, that is a huge difference.

But we already do. It's completley ineffective the way it's set up now.

I am not against some reform on the health care side, but what has been proposed is not the answer, not by a long shot.

Also, what is the measurement of cost of health care vs. quality of health care in the other countries and what % of GDP or even % of a persons income.

When the federal government says no, case closed, drug not developed, people die.

When company A says no, companies B, C, D, E, and F recognize the market and proceed.

A thousand little experiments will always produce better results than one big one.

Well this depends. If the FDA says no, then case closed people die (but the assumption is the FDA has a reason to do so).

When the government health care says no, people will just have to buy it themselves. People who cannot afford to do so will have to rely on charities and payment plans (or perhaps even a private insurance mini plan that covers a number of designer drugs not covered by Federal healthcare). There are ways to deal with this.

Also, I find the idea that the federal government would be denying incentive to life saving drugs left and right ridiculous. This might happen in very small number of isolated cases but for the most part the R+D wings of these big pharma companies make research decision years in advance by carefully weighing the potential market for a drug against the potential costs and the likelihood it could pass the FDA.

I do not think this would be a big problem. Just another small problem that can be handled with thought and possible help from small scale private insurance.

Of course we do. You just happen to be unfamiliar with all the regulations there are on fireman. For example, we regulate what they wear, what equipment they are allowed to have, what kinds of emergencies they are required to respond to, how often they have to tune up their trucks, etc.



Part of the reason I got in to this is because I can't tell if you were being intentionally hyperbolic or you really don't see the difference between this and slavery. They are not legally nor morally equivalent, and clearly there is no conflict in supporting one and not the other. I mostly enjoy your position on this, but if your position fails to make this kind of distinction then it's not something I can get behind.

It is impossible for the government to support all R&D, because when things first come out, they are very expensive. So if someone invents a drug that adds 2 years to a person's life, but costs $100,000 per year, the government has to decide -- spend $100,000 on everyone, or $100,000 on nobody. We know what that decision will be, and the drug will die on the drawing board. This is how all technology enters society -- very expensive at first, with the early adopters paying the R&D costs. There is zero chance that the government can effectively decide which R&D is worth paying, because we usually don't know that answer until many years later -- and that's with full time people devoted to figuring it out. Bureaucrats long removed from markets and medical care have even less chance.

Of course I was being hyperbolic; my position is more in line with the couple of response I gave to LLY. But I do think that hiring a fire department compared to telling doctors how much money they can make is about the same leap as telling doctors how much they can make compared to actual slavery. They are all along the Road To Serfdom, with "hiring firemen" at 1, "federal bureaucrats determining doctor salaries" at 5, and "slavery" at 10.

The assumption would be that those full time people would in many cases be hired by the government (since they have assumed so much added responsibility in paying for everyone's catastrophic care). So, the odds would be about as good then as they are now.

Also, drugs are not measured in such a fashion. That example breaks down in the real world. No drug is trumpted as "it will add two years to your life". It will be pitched as "this will help disease/condition x in this way and is therefore worthwhile." And smart people (both bureaucrats and the qualified people they appoint to committees) will make those decisions.

Cane I am somewhat shocked at the faith that you put in bureaucrats from any background to do whats best for people and not themselves.

Just wait 20 years, he'll think differently.

I think what is best for bureaucrats and what is best for the people are often intertwined.

I am always amazed at the faith that you and others have in businessman and CEOs.

I know a fair number of people who work in the lower and middle levels of DC so maybe I am just biased.

So the government is going to hire tens of thousands of people? And what about the small start-up companies? If I come up with a new medical breakthrough that I work on in my garage, does that guarantee me a federal job? Or will they pay my start-up costs? Or will my idea be thrown in the garbage can of history? Those are your choices. Saying "a federal bureaucrat will magically acknowledge the wisdom of my eccentric vision and fund it for me" is not a real world choice. That's just a technocratic fantasy that died with the fall of the Berlin wall.

And your way of saying the benefit of drugs is not materially different from my way of saying it. Basically, we have an expensive product of uncertain value with very high cost. That is where most technology starts, whether it is scanners, drugs, or other medical care. That is reality. The government cannot get into the business of funding every cockamamie idea that anyone has; but if it says we'll only fund the ones that some bureaucrat thinks is worthwhile, then all those other ideas die on the drawing board. Innovation requires that millions of bits of information be assembled accurately in real time. In all of history, only one system has ever provided that information to entrepreneurs and dreamers in a timely manner. Hint: that system doesn't involve filling out federal paperwork.

Bob, what exactly do you consider Medicare, Medicaid, and various other state sanctioned bodies such as CoverColorado?

The thing that you apparently don't understand, is that there is already guaranteed healthcare for everyone, if they choose to pursue it. It's just not free, which is what you're seeking. Right?

In Colorado, lower income people can be eligible for medicaid, elderly are (mostly) taken care of by medicare, and CoverColorado and other state sanctioned bodies cover literally everyone else who needs it.

There are two crises in our heatlhcare system, cost and access. Obama has chosen to attempt to fix the access crisis, which affects about 15% of Americans. I feel that most of us who are opposed to obamacare wish that he'd do at least something to address the crisis of cost, which affects closer to 85% of Americans.

Whatsayyou?

Right around the time that you accept that Tony Romo can't get it done in December?

But history has proven you wrong, on both counts. Bureaucrats, like everyone else, have their self-interest in mind. In the case of congress, that means influencing legislation to favor those who would help get him re-elected. In the case of mid-level bureaucrats, that's to keep their heads low and not make any mistakes that generate headlines.

In the case of businessmen and CEO's, it's to make a profit. How do they make profits? Two ways: the first is to lobby for massive federal takeover's of their industry so that they can rig the rules in their favor. This is what is happening in health care right now. The other way to make profits is to give consumers good things at good prices.

The choice doesn't seem that hard, but America seems to have trouble giving up on its fairy tale belief that people with perverse incentives will somehow create something from nothing.

The rules are in their favor now. My way would not put the rules in their favor. The amount of money we would save on the plan I like would help offset innovation deficiencies.

In the case of health care, companies make profits by leeching a small portion of every transaction while providing nothing of use in return. Health insurance companies dont give good things at good prices. Your position breaks down in the health care industry. A health care company's incentive is to pay out less than you pay in. THAT is a perverse incentive. And I cant demonize them for that because that is what businesses do. But I can come up with a plan that renders them obsolete.

i mean the difference between Obama's plan and the current system is that in one, we all pay into a number of private companies....they take a cut for themselves.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. Under Obama's plan, we all pay (eventually because his assertion that private companies can compete with the gov is hilarious) into the federal government....they waste a cut with their inefficiency.....and pay out the rest to doctors and hospitals. So, with the two choices on the table....would you rather a private company keep a cut so they can make a profit or would you rather have the federal government waste that cut instead. Neither sounds good to me.

Good lord you are seriously making my head hurt. 10/10 times I would like the company to make a profit, and guess what, I would like them to make a really big profit. I would like them to pay their sales reps a lot, i want drs to get perks, I want the CEO to get ridiculous bonuses and go on extravagant vacations.

These are all the things that make THIS country work. Not just in health care. You are almost to Star Trek in your social utopia these days. It's like you are regressing, I just don't get it.