A Vicious Circle

Countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and most eastern European countries have had comprehensive medical welfare systems for generations with none of the paranoid consequences mentioned here. Do you believe that the US government for some unfathomable reason will enact such big brother actions when no one else has? Plus what motivation would they have to do so. The main problem with democratic governments is that they don't look beyond a single election cycle, so why would they care about engineering fresh voters for 18 years time, or building huge dossiers on 300+ million people?
Getting a bit close to alfoil lined hat type conspiracy theories gentlemen.

Something about TSA or NSA and huge data centers in Utah come to mind. Or the various spying scandals boiling around currently. But at least those were on non citizens.

Patriot Act was against US Citizens. And for all the hoopla it doesn't seem to be any better than we were before.

Yes I can picture it happening. All for a system that the majority of the citizens don't want.

T2M

Daryl wrote:Countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and most eastern European countries have had comprehensive medical welfare systems for generations with none of the paranoid consequences mentioned here. Do you believe that the US government for some unfathomable reason will enact such big brother actions when no one else has? Plus what motivation would they have to do so. The main problem with democratic governments is that they don't look beyond a single election cycle, so why would they care about engineering fresh voters for 18 years time, or building huge dossiers on 300+ million people?
Getting a bit close to alfoil lined hat type conspiracy theories gentlemen.

Daryl wrote:Countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and most eastern European countries have had comprehensive medical welfare systems for generations with none of the paranoid consequences mentioned here. Do you believe that the US government for some unfathomable reason will enact such big brother actions when no one else has? Plus what motivation would they have to do so. The main problem with democratic governments is that they don't look beyond a single election cycle, so why would they care about engineering fresh voters for 18 years time, or building huge dossiers on 300+ million people?
Getting a bit close to alfoil lined hat type conspiracy theories gentlemen.

Daryl,

US health care was the envy of the world prior to the 70's. My father moved here to practice medicine at the beginning of that transition. When the US government began getting involved with health care as a result of the War on Poverty, health care prices started increasing massively. Those increased costs have continued until today. The quality of care has remained high but that is being threatened now.

You talk as though your health care and that of the rest of the western world generated as many innovations and cures as ours have. That is simply not true. So, yes, you have much more regulated health care and more subsidies. You do that at a cost of innovation. You need innovators to provide improvements to care but don't generate those innovations yourselves. That's why US health care still draws Canadians seeking treatment. That's why British health care has private hospitals for the wealthy. Those nations' nationalized healthcare systems do not provide the best available care.

That's one of the reasons we don't want nationalized single-payer socialized health care. Such a system would be worse than what we had prior to Obamacare.

As for aluminium foil hats, why does a government that wants the best for its people wish to push a massive healthcare system that its citizens do not want and that is demonstrably worse than what existed before? The only reason I see is that the government agents believe they know better, but cannot prove it adequately to the citizens. What is that system better at doing, since it cannot be at delivering quality care and improving the level of care?

One comes to the conclusion that delivering healthcare is not the primary purpose. Perhaps it is the aggregation of political power? Perhaps is is simply to ensure the unwashed ignorant troglodytes of the US do not use their liberty to make awful mistakes. Whatever it is, the reason requires that a very few begin to make decisions for the many. This troglodyte prefers to make his own choices, thank you.

I apologize for not being very clear on the topic of skill and sanity. Yes, I agree, a person is innocent until proven guilty and it would be the job of the state to prove he is insane if it plans to deny the application for a gun permit. Is not the gun owner who has to prove himself sane. How would he do that? It's like proving a negative.
Regarding skill, the onus is on the applicant to prove he can handle the weapon safely and reasonably well. Sorry, if you are not able to shoot a man-sized target on the range, how the hell do you think you can shoot an armed criminal who is coming towards you with murder in his eyes? You are just as likely to shoot your foot or, God forbid, a child hiding behind the sofa.

Now, regarding Obamacare, yes it sounds like a complete mess of bureaucratic red tape, but this is what you get for having such an ungodly powerful insurance industry and sue-happy environment in your country. From the outside it sounds like a monopoly disguised as a public good. Instead of actually nationalizing the health care and fund it through taxes and trying to reduce the inefficiencies and waste, the government allowed the insurance industry to shape much of it as long it's got the main desire: that no one can be denied coverage.
A nationalized health care system may not be the most innovative or responsive to change, but it works well enough for all or more than 90% of the people. The rich will always have their private hospitals, but as long as the rest of us get reasonable treatment (even if we grumble about waiting 3 hours at the doctor for a 15 min free consultation), things will work fine. Innovation happens in research labs and private clinics, not in hospitals.
Our conservative government in UK is now privatizing the NHS and you can watch from across the pond how the prices will skyrocket and people will be denied treatment by the now private industry.

I suspect, Demosthenes, that more doctors will participate and so will drive costs down. I will grant however, that other regulations may hinder this and so the result may indeed be higher prices. We'll see, but I am hopeful for you.

demosthenes wrote:Our conservative government in UK is now privatizing the NHS and you can watch from across the pond how the prices will skyrocket and people will be denied treatment by the now private industry.

Perhaps that's how it's seen, but I dare say that the Tories will be quick to say that the private sector involvement will help lower costs and increase innovation.

What most people in the UK think of as "the NHS" is actually four organisations - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service

Up here in Scotland, as in Wales and Northern Ireland, the Health service is a devolved power, so it's the Holyrood Parliament, NOT Westminster that's in charge. The Scottish National Party administration is opposed to any private partnerships with NHS Scotland and I can't see Scottish Labour being enamoured of the idea either. So I think that we up here, at least, are safe enough from any privatisation.

Mike.

PeterZ wrote:As for aluminium foil hats, why does a government that wants the best for its people wish to push a massive healthcare system that its citizens do not want and that is demonstrably worse than what existed before? The only reason I see is that the government agents believe they know better, but cannot prove it adequately to the citizens. What is that system better at doing, since it cannot be at delivering quality care and improving the level of care?

I've heard a lot of claims that Obamacare is better or worse than what went before, but no convincing demonstrations either way.

rmsgrey wrote:I've heard a lot of claims that Obamacare is better or worse than what went before, but no convincing demonstrations either way.

Exactly! My slight hyperbole aside, why make the change if improved efficacy cannot be proven?

If there is indeed improved efficacy, what does it improve if not healthcare?

Given our recent history pertaining to moneyed interests gorging off of the government trough, these questions should be de rigueur not a sign of psychosies.

Daryl wrote:Countries like the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, and most eastern European countries have had comprehensive medical welfare systems for generations with none of the paranoid consequences mentioned here. Do you believe that the US government for some unfathomable reason will enact such big brother actions when no one else has? Plus what motivation would they have to do so. The main problem with democratic governments is that they don't look beyond a single election cycle, so why would they care about engineering fresh voters for 18 years time, or building huge dossiers on 300+ million people?
Getting a bit close to alfoil lined hat type conspiracy theories gentlemen.

The fact that you have had your nationalized healthcare systems for generations while it is new to the US is precisely the reason why Obamacare is a contentious issue. Your systems evolved at a time when medical care accounted for only a few percent of GDP, your populations were younger, and the information technology to commit wholesale violations of personal privacy did not exist. The government could provide good care without busting the budget so there was no strong motivation to discourage expensive innovations or ration care. Obamacare has been passed at a time when healthcare is nearly 20% of GDP, the population is aging which increases expected costs while decreasing revenue, and computerized records (THE BIG MANDATE) enable abuse. One of the primary justifications has been the ability to control costs. This translates to less compensation to providers and rationing of care. The result will be a shortage of doctors which is already a big problem with most countries with NHS.

The US already had an excellent healthcare system that was mostly funded through private insurance that was usually a benefit of employment but with government funded Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the elderly and poor. It worked very well. The only seriously uninsured were illegal immigrants. Why should we transform our healthcare system to meet the needs of illegal aliens rather than deport them?

It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away.

PeterZ wrote:

rmsgrey wrote:I've heard a lot of claims that Obamacare is better or worse than what went before, but no convincing demonstrations either way.

Exactly! My slight hyperbole aside, why make the change if improved efficacy cannot be proven?

If you're going to insist on proof that a given law will be effective in achieving its ostensible aim, before letting it be passed, there's not going to be many laws passed...

namelessfly wrote:The US already had an excellent healthcare system that was mostly funded through private insurance that was usually a benefit of employment but with government funded Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the elderly and poor. It worked very well. The only seriously uninsured were illegal immigrants. Why should we transform our healthcare system to meet the needs of illegal aliens rather than deport them?

Because a large chunk of your economy runs off the labour of those same illegal immigrants?