Canada and Free Health Care

[bishopnl]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3

"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."

That's because the ideology of liberalism scoffs at sound economic principle.

[(R.I.P.) YooperYankDude]

[The Cold Water Kid]

It's not fair to call a national health care system liberalism; clearly conservative as well as liberal voices in other developed countries are in favor of state funded health care for all. Do you have a problem with state funded law enforcement? You know it wasn't too many generations ago that if you wanted police protection you had to pay for it. What about fire suppression? Would you want to live in a country where someone who just lost everything they own, and maybe even their family, in a house fire is presented with a bill for the fireman's service? And education? The education system is broken too, but do you think we'd be better off without compulsory K-12 education? There are powerful entities that want to see nationalized health care fail, and I have no doubt they are working hard around the globe to that end, but in my opinion we need to get past the question of "if" and focus on the "how". In a country as rich as ours people shouldn't be dieing from treatable diseases because they have no money; it's inhumane; it's not neighborly.

[bishopnl]

First, I wouldn't consider anyone who advocated state funded health care to be "conservative." 
Second, calling a national health care system liberalism is certainly fair, because it is a primary component of liberal ideology. 

As for your other points, they A. aren't really related to the point, and B. illustrate how effective government services should operate.  On small, local levels.  We do have federal police agencies (such as the FBI), and the federal government has involved itself in education (I personally believe the department of education should be abolished).  When you look at the abuse of power, corruption, budget overruns and epic failures that such institutions have operated in over the last 70 years, I think it makes a pretty good case for why the federal government should NOT involve itself in health care.  This is, of course, unrelated to the fact that the government has no constitutional authority for nationalizing our health care system, that many of the current health care issues can be placed largely on misguided government policies. and that like all social welfare programs, it relies on the government taking by force what is not lawfully theirs, and giving it to someone else.

But all of that misses the point of the article.  A national health care system such as the one Canada has (and is regularly touted by liberals as evidence that national health care works) is simply not sustainable.  And it's unsurprising, since liberals simply don't understand basic economic principles.

[bishopnl]

In a country as rich as ours people shouldn't be dieing from treatable diseases because they have no money; it's inhumane; it's not neighborly.

Btw, I agree with these sentiments.  I just disagree on how we should go about it.  I think your way would trade one set of problems for another.

[(R.I.P.) YooperYankDude]

In a country as rich as ours people shouldn't be dieing from treatable diseases because they have no money; it's inhumane; it's not neighborly.

Btw, I agree with these sentiments.  I just disagree on how we should go about it.  I think your way would trade one set of problems for another.

First, I wouldn't consider anyone who advocated state funded health care to be "conservative." 
Second, calling a national health care system liberalism is certainly fair, because it is a primary component of liberal ideology. 

As for your other points, they A. aren't really related to the point, and B. illustrate how effective government services should operate.  On small, local levels.  We do have federal police agencies (such as the FBI), and the federal government has involved itself in education (I personally believe the department of education should be abolished). 

Amen

When you look at the abuse of power, corruption, budget overruns and epic failures that such institutions have operated in over the last 70 years, I think it makes a pretty good case for why the federal government should NOT involve itself in health care.  This is, of course, unrelated to the fact that the government has no constitutional authority for nationalizing our health care system, that many of the current health care issues can be placed largely on misguided government policies. and that like all social welfare programs, it relies on the government taking by force what is not lawfully theirs, and giving it to someone else.




But all of that misses the point of the article.  A national health care system such as the one Canada has (and is regularly touted by liberals as evidence that national health care works) is simply not sustainable.  And it's unsurprising, since liberals simply don't understand basic economic principles.

Bishop... I agree completely...

Has anyone for a National Health Care system gone and spent time in a country that has such a health care system in place...?

You don't need to leave the country to even see it... just go visit one of the Veterans Hospitals...!

Horrible wait times, months to get anything done!

When you do actually get the care you need, sometimes it is already too late.

Just talked to a Canadian, and they have this National Heath Care system... if your problem is minor, not so bad to get taken care of... If you need some type of surgery... the waiting lists are way too long. And they end up coming to the inhumane USA to get their surgeries.

Doesn't that say anything about what it is they are trying to do here in the USA?

Time for a different plan... this one stinks (as in the smell of lots more people dying from treatable problems)!

While I do agree that people should not have to die because of treatable diseases... I also do not want socialized medicine in this country, any more than it has already come in...

Socialism does not work... just check out the other countries who have tried it!

And now that I am in Guatemala... I can say, that at least those in America can get health care. It does exist here... but nothing like in the USA...

And hey... if your such a fan of it... move to another country that practices it, and I will pray that you never have any serious health problems (such as a liver, or kidney, or any other kind of transplant... or cancer...!)

Ok... I could say more... but I will not... have fun in this thread...

[The Cold Water Kid]

When you look at the abuse of power, corruption, budget overruns and epic failures that such institutions have operated in over the last 70 years, I think it makes a pretty good case for why the federal government should NOT involve itself in health care.  This is, of course, unrelated to the fact that the government has no constitutional authority for nationalizing our health care system, that many of the current health care issues can be placed largely on misguided government policies.

"abuse of power, corruption, budget overruns and epic failures" are a hallmark of civilian contractors as much as they are of government agencies; possibly more so in terms of actual dollars wasted and stolen. In terms of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decides what it means in terms of policy, and so far the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Income tax, Medicare, Social Security and a host of other programs. If the Supreme Court doesn't rule against national health care then it is Constitutional.

I'm not familiar with the details of the German Health Care system, but there seems to be general agreement that it is top notch. And New Zealand's system is a fiscally responsible one, some think to the extreme. Just because the Canadians are running into problems doesn't mean it's not worth doing; usually anything worth doing is difficult.

[bishopnl]

"abuse of power, corruption, budget overruns and epic failures" are a hallmark of civilian contractors as much as they are of government agencies; possibly more so in terms of actual dollars wasted and stolen. In terms of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decides what it means in terms of policy, and so far the Supreme Court has upheld the Federal Income tax, Medicare, Social Security and a host of other programs. If the Supreme Court doesn't rule against national health care then it is Constitutional.

As to your first point, if you are speaking of services rendered to the government by civilian contractors, you are correct.  This only illustrates, however, that government lack of accountability is just as bad when they pay someone else to do the job as when they themselves do it.  The situation in New Orleans during Katrina was a perfect example.  No-bid contracts, cronyism, and money in the pockets of politicians were just as much a problem as FEMA incompetence.  That's why NO government involvement is always preferable to some or all. 
If you are speaking to private companies, it's true that some companies practice corruption, budget overruns, and suffer epic failures.  In today's corporate welfare climate, the government is happy to prop up those companies as well (it is quite good about using taxpayer dollars to fund incompetence), but companies free of government interference rise or sink on how efficiently they are run, and the market and the customer is free to decide whether that company is worthy of their business.

As to your latter point, you are incorrect that in "terms of the Constitution, the Supreme Court decides what it means in terms of policy."  This is called judicial review, and it is NOT in the Constitution.  It is a power that the Supreme Court took for themselves by "inferring" it from the Constitution.  it is true that it's an established doctrine in the US, but it is NOT in the Constitution.  Further, the Supreme Court has consistently abused the Constitution, particularly since FDR's New Deal.  Look up Wickard v. Filburn and tell me that isn't a gross distortion of the Constitution. There's a LOT more I could say about this subject, but since you don't like long posts and this one is already somewhat lengthy, I'll leave it there.

Finally, re: Germany, they are in a financial crisis of their own.  Angela Merkel is taking heat because in order to sustain their social welfare programs, they are forced to raise taxes and initiate reform to their health care system.  The problem with your position, as well as that of these other countries who have put it into practice, is that it defies economic principles as well as human nature. 

[The Cold Water Kid]

There are some projects that are beyond the ability of state governments or private companies to initiate and maintain. The interstate highway and railroad systems are a good example. Besides, if the government doesn't get involved with health care on the side of consumers, who will? Insurance companies? In terms of economics, it is in the best interests of insurance companies to charge high rates and refuse claims. You say consumers can choose not to do business with them, but you know it requires vigilant government intervention to keep companies from banding together and fixing prices & services; giving consumers less and less at a higher and higher cost. Take government out of the equation and the health care coverage problem would go away, but not because people would have health care; corporation would fine-tune their operations till they were consuming almost all of our expendable income (and that from lower wages). We'd go back to the 16*6.5 work schedule just to keep a roof over our heads and food in our children's mouths. By "children" I mean those under the age of 5; kids 6 and over would need to work to support the family.

[bishopnl]

There are some projects that are beyond the ability of state governments or private companies to initiate and maintain. The interstate highway and railroad systems are a good example. Besides, if the government doesn't get involved with health care on the side of consumers, who will? Insurance companies? In terms of economics, it is in the best interests of insurance companies to charge high rates and refuse claims. You say consumers can choose not to do business with them, but you know it requires vigilant government intervention to keep companies from banding together and fixing prices & services; giving consumers less and less at a higher and higher cost. Take government out of the equation and the health care coverage problem would go away, but not because people would have health care; corporation would fine-tune their operations till they were consuming almost all of our expendable income (and that from lower wages). We'd go back to the 16*6.5 work schedule just to keep a roof over our heads and food in our children's mouths. By "children" I mean those under the age of 5; kids 6 and over would need to work to support the family.

First, Congress has constitutional authority to establish roads for the Post Office.  It's one area that the government does have a constitutionally defined role in, (although the interstate highway system is essentially owned and operated by the states).  As for railroads, there are many private railroad companies, and even Amtrak operates mostly on track owned by freight railroads.  And Amtrak is an enormous boondoggle, an economically inefficient and unnecessary dinosaur which constantly operates at a loss.  In other words, comparing the railroad system and a national health care system is a bad idea, because the railroad system is not nationalized, and the heavily subsidized passenger railway system is an epic failure. 

As to the rest of your post, I think you are being a bit reactionary.  First, the reason rates are so high right now is because the government interferes with competition, such as prohibitions forbidding companies to purchase insurance across state lines (this is only one example, not the sole example).  Competition brings prices down.   Health care itself is overpriced due to litigation, FDA over regulation and corruption, and unwise choices made by consumers. 

Oh, and one other thing.  Regarding "vigilant government intervention" to prevent price fixing...when John Rockefeller was operating Standard Oil at the height of it's power, oil for consumers had never been cheaper. 

[The Cold Water Kid]

I know Amtrak is a mess. My point was that some tasks are too big for states or private companies to undertake. The government essentially paid for the interstate railroad system with huge land grants and cheap loans, at least the rails connecting the east and west coasts. You say competition drives down prices, and that's true, but you know that without vigilant government regulation there would be no competition; large companies would run the smaller ones out of business. Eventually you'd end up with the Marxist utopia of a single company that would supply all the needs of consumers. 

[bishopnl]

I know Amtrak is a mess. My point was that some tasks are too big for states or private companies to undertake. The government essentially paid for the interstate railroad system with huge land grants and cheap loans, at least the rails connecting the east and west coasts. You say competition drives down prices, and that's true, but you know that without vigilant government regulation there would be no competition; large companies would run the smaller ones out of business. Eventually you'd end up with the Marxist utopia of a single company that would supply all the needs of consumers. 

It's true that the government helped build the interstate railroad system (through "land grants" and subsidies), but that is not the same thing as "nationalizing" it which is what you are advocating for.  I disagree with government involvement in the building of the railroad system as well...it could have been done by private companies, and further, as the railroad extended west after the civil war, the government "land grants" consisted of land that they took from the Indians and gave to the railroad.  I'm currently reading Stephen Ambrose's Crazy Horse and Custer, and he talks about how the Sioux and Cheyenne offered a reasonable price for their land, but the government lowballed them and as a consequence, thousands of Sioux were forced into imprisonment and starvation.  The railroad companies could have bought the land....but why do that when the government will take it from someone else by force and give it to you?  In short, government intervention resulted in oppression, corruption, and death to many innocent people.

You also say that "I know" the government needs to vigilantly regulate businesses.  I "know" no such thing.  The SEC did a bang up job regulating the financial markets, didn't they?  The government has done wonderful work convincing people that if it weren't for them, the world would come to an end, when in reality, they shoulder a large portion of the blame for the state of things now.

As for your fear about a "single dominant company" controlling the world, I'm sorry, that's silly.  As I've pointed out, even when Standard Oil (the poster child for liberal hysteria about monopolies) dominated the oil market, there was STILL competition and prices on oil were STILL low. 

[The Cold Water Kid]

A single company dominating every aspect of a workers life is silly? It has already happened! Granted, it happened on a small scale, but without government intervention coal and timber towns were set up for that very purpose. They worked for the company, they were paid in company credits that they spent at the company store buying goods at inflated prices, including housing and utilities... even medical services.

[bishopnl]

A single company dominating every aspect of a workers life is silly? It has already happened! Granted, it happened on a small scale, but without government intervention coal and timber towns were set up for that very purpose. They worked for the company, they were paid in company credits that they spent at the company store buying goods at inflated prices, including housing and utilities... even medical services.

Yes.  On a national scale, or even a statewide scale, that's silly.  Sure.  An individual town may be run by one company, but that's a far cry from the country. 

Cue the X-Files theme.

[The Cold Water Kid]

I recently finished The Contested Plains by Elliot West and am almost done with Frontiers by R. V. Hines and J. M. Faragher. Next I'll probably read Female Frontier by Glenda Riley, Sugar Creek by J. M. Faragher and Cadillac Desert by M. Reisner. I still won't have a clear picture of the settling of the West when I'm done, but it's a start.