Can the US afford socialized medicine?

[Reverend Rick]

I'll explain it again, though, in hopes that you miraculously listen for once.

We're not buying anything new. We're suggesting going a route that pays less money than we're currently paying for a better product. To use your car analogy, we're trading in our current old piece of crap car for a nice, new car and our monthly payments are going from $700 to $350. We're not adding any expenses; we're taking expenses away.

Did that get through this time?

Yes we are buying something new! Even though you say it will cost less, over and over does not make it so.

Right now, 10 million, 20million 40 million what ever people DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. They pay zero. Your going to start sending these folks to the doctor. We will have to stand in line behind them and that is going to cost money!

Money that was never spent before. Even if it is cheaper, (which is debatable) IT STILL IS MORE MONEY!

OK, medicare and medicaid will not produce much savings. They pay doctors next to nothing now.

That leaves the rest of us who have health insurance. If people are happy with their plan, it really is none of your business what we pay. You want me to go on your socialised plan and when my wife wants a mammogram, they will refuse her and tell her to come back when she is 50 years old.

If I want an MRI, they will put me on a waiting list. Right now, I go to the doctor and they do what I tell them to do. I'm paying the bill after all. When I go on your plan, I will not get whisked into the office right away, I will have to stand in line behind millions of people.

You can say, look at all the money we are saving. I can say, yeah it's cheaper but it sure is not better.

The reason I believe it will not be cheaper is because when people who have not been going to the doctor start going, it may extend their lives 20 years. That is 20 years of paid doctor visits. I don't think it will be cheaper.

I want to go to a resturant and order steak and you scream at me, "hey rick you dummy, we have cheap hot dogs over here". We can save you lots of money and millions can eat free hot dogs.

It's been a long time since I took economics 101, but I remembered a few things.

1. you don't spend money you do not have.
2. you don't borrow money you can't pay back.
3. black ink good.
4. red ink bad.

You see, you keep talking about the money that is currently spent on health care like it is our money. Your wrong about that. It is my money and your money.

I like the quality of health care provided to me.

I am more interested in quality not quantity.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes we are buying something new! Even though you say it will cost less, over and over does not make it so.

Yes, we're buying something new to replace the ridiculously expensive one we already have. I'm not sure how that discounts the fact that the new one would cost less than what we're currently paying for the crappy one.

And, no, just because I say so doesn't make it so. However, because the facts (like in the OP) say so, it makes it so.

Right now, 10 million, 20million 40 million what ever people DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. They pay zero. Your going to start sending these folks to the doctor. We will have to stand in line behind them and that is going to cost money!

Money that was never spent before. Even if it is cheaper, (which is debatable) IT STILL IS MORE MONEY!

Nope. Last time I checked $1 trillion is still less than $2 million. Or did they teach you a different kind of math when you got your MBA?

That leaves the rest of us who have health insurance. If people are happy with their plan, it really is none of your business what we pay. You want me to go on your socialised plan and when my wife wants a mammogram, they will refuse her and tell her to come back when she is 50 years old.

Umm...why would they do that?

If I want an MRI, they will put me on a waiting list. Right now, I go to the doctor and they do what I tell them to do. I'm paying the bill after all. When I go on your plan, I will not get whisked into the office right away, I will have to stand in line behind millions of people.

That's some pretty good exaggerating there, Rick. Too bad it has nothing to do with reality.

You can say, look at all the money we are saving. I can say, yeah it's cheaper but it sure is not better.

Wait, so you're finally realizing it's cheaper? Good, now we just have to get it through your head that it's better, too. That was kind of the point of the other parts of the table in the OP, where we are last in life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and several other categories.

The reason I believe it will not be cheaper is because when people who have not been going to the doctor start going, it may extend their lives 20 years. That is 20 years of paid doctor visits. I don't think it will be cheaper.

Dangit, and here I thought we had made progress. First, extending those people's lives 20 years isn't worth some money? Second, I'm not sure what part of "It's far cheaper and gives better results in many, many other countries" don't you understand.

I want to go to a resturant and order steak and you scream at me, "hey rick you dummy, we have cheap hot dogs over here". We can save you lots of money and millions can eat free hot dogs.

Oooo, sorry, wrong again. Try paying attention. I'm saying you're eating a $100 steak when you could be eating a $50 one that tastes just as good and is just as big, and meanwhile a bunch of others could also have a nice steak.

It's been a long time since I took economics 101, but I remembered a few things.

1. you don't spend money you do not have.
2. you don't borrow money you can't pay back.
3. black ink good.
4. red ink bad.

This is why I don't get what you're not getting. We're already spending money we don't have. We're already borrowing money we can't pay back. We already have red ink. Saving $1 trillion tends to help turn red ink into black.

You see, you keep talking about the money that is currently spent on health care like it is our money. Your wrong about that. It is my money and your money.

The point is you could be paying the money you currently pay to an insurance company instead to the government (or even still to an insurance company, depending on the system we used). You'd get the same service, and many others would get service, too.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Thinking for yourself would require looking at the facts and making a decision, not believing whatever tripe their selling on Rush Limbaugh.

You're right about one thing: you don't go along with my ideas because you don't like them. The problem is you have no good reason not to like them.

Oh okay...Do you realize that you are now officially the political version of a proselytizer? You might as well channel all of that energy into trying to make me love Jesus again. I mean you won't convince me to do that either, but at least some here might listen to you.

 

[Smoke]

Umm...why would they do that?

I assume he's referring to the controversy over mammography screening. The US Preventive Services Task Force formerly recommended that women over forty have a mammogram every year or two. They now recommend it for women over fifty who aren't at increased risk for breast cancer, and younger for women who are.

Rick is probably assuming, as many people do, that this will lead to an increase in breast cancer deaths due to delays in detection. Mammography is highly controversial, with fierce advocates and fierce opponents in the medical field, and the data are complicated. As best as I can tell, mammography probably saves some lives by detecting breast cancers early, and probably costs some lives because it leads to unnecessary treatments. There's actually some evidence that, when considered over large groups of women, mammography probably causes more harm than good. Nevertheless, it can undoubtedly save lives in many individual cases. So it's tricky. The USPSTF is trying to balance the concerns. Most health professionals -- and the USPSTF -- continue to recommend for mammography before 50 for women known to be at risk, for instance, smokers, women with breast cancer in their families, and women with symptoms.

I imagine Rick would make the case that his wife should be able to have a mammogram whenever she wants one. Maybe. But can he make the case that a single-payer system would be more likely to deny coverage than a private insurance company? No medical insurance I know of covers anything you want to have done, and private insurers have the added burden of needing to make a profit. But this is the kind of scare tactic people use.

Rick assumes that he can get better healthcare under the present system than he would under a single-payer system, and as long as he can afford it, that works for him. To hell with everybody else may not be an admirable sentiment, but it's one he's entitled to have. I think, on the other hand, that Rick can get equal or better coverage, and get it at a reduced cost, if we go to a single-payer system. I just don't think anybody will ever convince Rick -- or anybody with a dogmatic commitment to free markets -- of that. These people cling to their free market ideas with religious fervor, regardless of all evidence. As you've observed in EO's case, he just doesn't like your ideas. It doesn't matter what the facts are; it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong; all that matters is what he wants to believe. You can't fight dogma with facts, because dogmatic believers don't give a damn about facts.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Great post Smoke. Now, you have to admit when someone tells me about a deal thats sounds too good to be true, I run like hell.

Think about it, we are going to add millions of people to a system that has not grown bigger. Not one more doctor, nurse or hospital bed. These same people are going to work harder and longer for half the money and we are going to have better service to boot?

 

[Reverend Rick]

We are going to be a healthier nation and live longer and go to the doctor every other month or so for twenty more years and it will not cost us one thin dime more money.

You see I have a hard time grasping the concept of twice as much for half the price and better to boot. It sounds like my children years ago promising anything if I just did this one thing for them, (let them have a dog, cellphone,car, whatever).

One thing I know for certain, when you die at sixty, you don't draw social security and spend money on medical care.

When you live to be 90, it gets expensive.

 

[Smoke]

Think about it, we are going to add millions of people to a system that has not grown bigger. Not one more doctor, nurse or hospital bed. These same people are going to work harder and longer for half the money and we are going to have better service to boot?

No, they're not going to have to work harder and longer for less money. You keep trying that tired argument when you know perfectly well that it's the damned insurance companies that drive our costs up. Cut out the middleman.

 

[Smoke]

We are going to be a healthier nation and live longer and go to the doctor every other month or so for twenty more years and it will not cost us one thin dime more money.

You see I have a hard time grasping the concept of twice as much for half the price and better to boot. It sounds like my children years ago promising anything if I just did this one thing for them, (let them have a dog, cellphone,car, whatever).

Do you understand that I can buy a computer for $300 that's almost infinitely better than anything you could buy twenty years ago for $2500? Or do you not believe that, either? It is often possible to do things better, more efficiently and cheaper than they were done in the past.

Cotton gin? Oh, no. I'm too smart to take a deal that sounds too good to be true. I'll just keep picking the seeds out by hand, thank you. You can't fool me!

One thing I know for certain, when you die at sixty, you don't draw social security and spend money on medical care.

When you live to be 90, it gets expensive.

That's not the first time you've mentioned that. Openly advocating the ********** system we have now because you know that millions of your fellow citizens will die younger and you think that's in your best interest is simply contemptible.

 

[Valjean]

We are going to be a healthier nation and live longer and go to the doctor every other month or so for twenty more years and it will not cost us one thin dime more money.

You see I have a hard time grasping the concept of twice as much for half the price and better to boot. It sounds like my children years ago promising anything if I just did this one thing for them, (let them have a dog, cellphone,car, whatever).

One thing I know for certain, when you die at sixty, you don't draw social security and spend money on medical care.

When you live to be 90, it gets expensive.

And yet dozens of other countries have made the transition successfully, and are now enjoying superior care at half the price.

 

[Watchmen]

And yet dozens of other countries have made the transition successfully, and are now enjoying superior care at half the price.

Superior in what way? According to an NPR story a few months back, US MRI's used better technology and had short wait times than Canada's MRI's. Just an example.

 

[Watchmen]

We are going to be a healthier nation and live longer and go to the doctor every other month or so for twenty more years and it will not cost us one thin dime more money.

You see I have a hard time grasping the concept of twice as much for half the price and better to boot. It sounds like my children years ago promising anything if I just did this one thing for them, (let them have a dog, cellphone,car, whatever).

One thing I know for certain, when you die at sixty, you don't draw social security and spend money on medical care.

When you live to be 90, it gets expensive.

Did you ever stop to consider that if people live longer and have better quality of life they're going to work longer, thus contributing more in taxes and social programs (the pot from which healthcare coverage for all will come from)?

I figured that out without an MBA.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Did you ever stop to consider that if people live longer and have better quality of life they're going to work longer, thus contributing more in taxes and social programs (the pot from which healthcare coverage for all will come from)?

I figured that out without an MBA.

Did you figure out how our children and grandchildren are going to find jobs if we all work till we are 70?

 

[Watchmen]

Did you figure out how our children and grandchildren are going to find jobs if we all work till we are 70?

I suggest you read "The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050."

 

[Reverend Rick]

I suggest you read "The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050."

Author?

 

[Magic Man]

Oh okay...Do you realize that you are now officially the political version of a proselytizer? You might as well channel all of that energy into trying to make me love Jesus again. I mean you won't convince me to do that either, but at least some here might listen to you.

So, what you're saying is that I'll never convince you to look at the facts of a situation and then come to a logical, reasonable conclusion? That's quite an admission.

 

[Magic Man]

Rick assumes that he can get better healthcare under the present system than he would under a single-payer system, and as long as he can afford it, that works for him. To hell with everybody else may not be an admirable sentiment, but it's one he's entitled to have. I think, on the other hand, that Rick can get equal or better coverage, and get it at a reduced cost, if we go to a single-payer system. I just don't think anybody will ever convince Rick -- or anybody with a dogmatic commitment to free markets -- of that. These people cling to their free market ideas with religious fervor, regardless of all evidence. As you've observed in EO's case, he just doesn't like your ideas. It doesn't matter what the facts are; it doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong; all that matters is what he wants to believe. You can't fight dogma with facts, because dogmatic believers don't give a damn about facts.

:yes:

 

[Magic Man]

Great post Smoke. Now, you have to admit when someone tells me about a deal thats sounds too good to be true, I run like hell.

That's generally a good policy, unless, of course, you can see dozens of examples of how the "too good to be true" idea works perfectly well.

Think about it, we are going to add millions of people to a system that has not grown bigger. Not one more doctor, nurse or hospital bed. These same people are going to work harder and longer for half the money and we are going to have better service to boot?

No, they're not. They're going to make pretty much the same money, and maybe work a little harder and longer, unless we get more doctors and nurses. Regardless we only have 2 less hospital beds per 10,000 people than Canada, and only 7 less than the U.K.

 

[Magic Man]

Superior in what way? According to an NPR story a few months back, US MRI's used better technology and had short wait times than Canada's MRI's. Just an example.

Check out the OP.

 

[Watchmen]

Author?

Joel Kotkin. Never heard of him until I listened to an interview on NPR about a week ago.

 

[Watchmen]

Check out the OP.

The chart does not demonstrate superior healthcare in other countries. A myriad of factors contribute to those results.