Well, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And a lot more goes into it than is mentioned even in the entire Journal article.
A couple things to keep in the back of your mind.
1. Any discussion of raising taxes needs to occur concurrently with one on cutting spending. Big government is an utter and total waste of money. It strangles the economy and blithers away all sorts of money in corruption and inefficiency. It just does
2. While "Who's going to pay for it" needs to be an important part of the discussion on health care, it is perhaps more important to address what a socialized medical system will do to the quality and availability of health care. A quickie F'rinstance:
Socialized medicine is (invariably, if you survey the avaiable systems) associated with a profound drop in accessability of said care and a concurrent decrease in its quality.
I'm uninsured. As is my husband. We've struggled with it for years. And I'm utterly opposed to socialized medicine. Especially as currently being presented. The math doesn't work, even if you throw out the human nature aspects that they're currently completely ignoring.
Well, there are certainly issues with our current 'socialized medical' systems (the VA, Medicare and Medicaid, Planned Parenthood, etc.). As a side note on the stats you mentioned, from Huliq News (http://www.huliq.com/about-us):
"Giuliani also quoted statistics from his health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist David Gratzer, to support his claim that he had a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. than he would have had in England."
"According to cancer experts cited in fact check articles by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and its PolitiFact.com, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Times, Giuliani's statistics were 'false' and very 'misleading' and his conclusions were complete 'nonsense'."
A bit more on the statistical analysis of survival rates between US and UK prostate patients, from November of 2007 when Guiliani made his original statement: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/66918/giuliani_quotes_false_stats_to_deny_america's_health_care_crisis/
To be honest, I need to read more about the current plan to have any real detail. I totally agree that wasteful spending needs to be examined and cut and that 'who is going to pay for it' is only a part of the package.
Certainly the stats I gave you were not matched for age, diagnosis, nor follow-up among other things.
Which is what I'm saying about statistics in general.
However, never forget that everything in this world happens on a "What's In It For Me" basis. The reason you have access to an MRI at relatively short notice and 24 hours a day is because there is profit for the company that owns it. Should congress, in it's Infinite Wisdom, decide that an MRI is "worth" half of what they are currently charging - half of them will fold and your wait time will go way up.
The end all and be all is that socialized medicine will allow most average ailments to be treated in an average manner. However, anybody with rare conditions or those requiring extensive and expensive treatment is SOL. They are essentially deemed "not worth it" by the system. The cost:benefit ratio is just too high. And make no mistake, no matter WHO is technically paying for such a system, You're paying for the system. In more ways than one. You'll also find that if you can get the to divulge the numbers, a lot more of their income gets wasted in beauracracy and paper-pushing as well as generalized redundancy.
This is all separate from the issue that most medical professionals (and we already don't have enough) do what they do as much for the pay check and prestige as because they're Good People. (Not that they aren't good people. But they wouldn't put up with hours that already suck and extremely demanding jobs if they weren't compensated). If you demote them to "gov't employee" and Congress decides they should expect to make "x" amount per procedure, or whatever.... we'll have a lot less.
The most ominous - no country that has gone to a socialized system has ever managed to back their way out of it, even once it has clearly failed. Because once the general population gets used to something being "free" you can't convince the majority to pay for it again.
But then, I'm utterly against the whole "cradle to grave" concept. I'm a llibertarian-leaning, flat tax, minimal government, entirely-gut-the-legal system, personal responsibility kind of gal. ;-) YMMV
First, you note that statistics lie, and then quote them. You and hsifeng have already pointed out that that talking point is only accurate as far as someone not looking at the depth can see. Usually, those numbers are including those men who get prostate cancer late in life, when the treatment will be long term and likely the patient wouldn't be alive in five years anyway. Do we want our elderly to be discarded because they are no longer contributing? Of course not, but there are a lot of doctors already pushing the idea that treating certain diseases in the elderly doesn't really contribute to their quality of life. Admittedly, a socialist medical system does tend to favor providing care to those who contribute to the system, but then again...
We already do the "you're not worth it" thing here in the US. Insurance companies make that decision all the time (even when it's not accurate), and you and I, being uninsured, have already been deemed "not worth it" when the government cut health benefits to the poor to balance the budget. The care you get at the county medical center will be shitty. Only the rich get real medical care now, because only they can afford it.
There are also some left-wing conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the food industry, medical and insurance industries, and Medicare controllers are in league to kill us all slowly once we retire. The processed food we poor get is full of crap that makes us sick, and by the time we get to retirement age, we're in bad shape (typically). Once an American retires, he no longer contributes positively to the system: he does no work (which is not profitable to the corporations), his pension and benefits pay the insurance (again, not profitable), and he's no longer paying taxes. So, the idea is that retirees need to get off the queue faster, and that's most easily accomplished by dying. Bad, underfunded health programs help that along. Is this a reality? I have no idea, but it makes a certain sort of sense.
The idea, that the Right seems to keep harping on but has no real evidence of, is that the Obama administration wants to socialize medicine. The reality is that insurance companies only compete amongst themselves, and along with the rest of Big Business, only cares about being profits for the next 90 days. You and I get screwed by this kind of bullshit. With no competition, the profiteering of the past 30 years just continues. This is the real reason why we are still paying outrageous prices for defunct technologies.
What the writer is really getting at, in my opinion, is that lack of ownership of our country that's been inculcated to us over the past few decades. I saw some moron at the supermarket a few months back who was wearing a shirt that said "Taxes = Slavery." I wanted to ask the in-duh-vidual where he though the money comes from to pay for the roads, the police, the firepeople, the army, etc. We expect all of these things, but we seem to not want to pay the piper. Even Libertarians have to admit we need the government to provide these things. Our infrastructure is starting to collapse, but we are no longer willing to pay to fix it.
Locally, the last mayor of Fresno kept trying to privatize services paid for by the city. In every circumstance, the city employees outperformed the private companies, providing better services for less money and in a more timely manner. The assumption that the government controlling the provision of services will lead to corruption isn't necessarily true. Probably is, but isn't certain. That's been seen here in Fresno as well, such as in the past when asked to cut their budgets, the various city department heads would trot out some sacred cow to sacrifice, and that would (of course) be turned down, and the budget would be be worked to fit.
The Fresno example is a good one: My husband is a certified EMT and he knows first hand (from dealing with American Ambulance) what this privatized service is like for Fresnans. American Ambulance’s contract with the city states that they have only X number of minutes to respond to any call. This means that their crews do everything in their power to minimize ‘on scene’ time and to get back to station so that they can prep for their next call. In the end, this means that they often do not provide the level of care for patients that would be provided by EMT/Fire crews in the same situation.*
In the end, this has not saved Fresno money (as American has set up their system to hit every call on the book - even if only for long enough to collect their fee) and has simultaneously seen the level of EMT service decrease for the region.
I am sure that didn’t work out the way the City Council thought it would.
* From an actual ride-along that my husband did: The crew talked a 80ish granny into finding a relative to drive her to the hospital after she had taken a fall and broken her nose, because that meant they could be back on station sooner rather than having to run a transport. BTW, American still gets their contracted fee just for showing up at the scene and regardless of their actual treatment of the patient. There are more of these stories, but I think one gets the point.
I'm an odd mix politically. At the risk of offending those who don’t know me personally already, I’ll share (you’ve been warned *grin*):
I believe that people should be responsible for themselves, but recognize that there are public services that cannot be handed over to individual citizen choice due to their very size and complexity (Stacy’s example of the sewer systems is a good one). By this standard I am happy to pay my taxes, but crave a lot more clarity on what they are being spent on.
I like “Big S” State governments more than national governments for most matters.
I think that there should be no free hand-outs; not to the poor and not to corporations. If you need welfare, that is fine, but you will then need to take some sort of community oriented job on in order to receive it. If you want a special break for your company, expect to finance on some sort of community project in order to get it. Oh, and stop moving your jobs overseas while your at it – I don’t understand claiming US tax loopholes if you have 90% of your production in another country.
I think that all adults should be free to do whatever they wish with other adults, and especially in the privacy of their own home.
Oh, and stay away from my guns. They are mine. I promise to not shoot anyone who isn’t trying to kill me first.
I actually have no problem with a universal healthcare system; especially one that stands beside a private system. For those who can afford to pay for ‘better’ private care, have at. For those who can’t (and often end up acting as incubators for illness because of their inability to afford treatment), the healthcare system acts just like the sewer system above – something we all need to keep things healthier for everyone. If you can’t afford an expensive treatment because it’s not on the government program, then you are no worse of than you were when you couldn’t get any treatment at all before the government program existed. *shrug* Then again, I am not someone who thinks we all need to live to be 115.
'However, never forget that everything in this world happens on a "What's In It For Me" basis. The reason you have access to an MRI at relatively short notice and 24 hours a day is because there is profit for the company that owns it. Should congress, in it's Infinite Wisdom, decide that an MRI is "worth" half of what they are currently charging - half of them will fold and your wait time will go way up'
What is the difference between the government making that decision or an HMO? Oh, yeah, if the HMO saves money, it goes into the pockets of the rich, if the government saves money, it goes towards common infrastructure.
The government is broken. I think anyone who runs for a federal position is inherently lacking any discernible ethics. That being said, I trust them exponentially more than any for profit insurance company. If I'm going to get shitty coverage, I may as well not be raped for it.
For those of you who worry about what services will be like, I suggest hanging out at the VA. I spent days there a couple years ago with a friend, and he got better, faster care than anything I've ever experienced.
For those of you who worry about what services will be like, I suggest hanging out at the VA. I spent days there a couple years ago with a friend, and he got better, faster care than anything I've ever experienced.
Ah, the VA. My husband is, in theory, entitled to benefits. Which they avoid by the simple ex[edient of refusing to process his application. Not, mind you, denying it, which they can't do. Returning it unopened. With a note saying that they have already processed all the applications they're required to for "the period."
And then there's the spousal coverage... Tricare. Also known as Try-and-get-care.
Possibly not the best example of the eifficeny of gov't healthcare.
I have never once complained about paying taxes, even when my April 15 resulted in a big chunk going to them. That's not to say I don't take advantage of those deductions and rebates congress has granted me, but I *like* having functional emergency services and infrastructure. Maybe I have an atypical view because I'm trained in civil engineering and thus know about the implications of a sewer system than the average American, I'm not sure.
My biggest beef with taxes is they're too complicated and there are too many loopholes (which always favors the better educated or wealthy-able-to-hire-more-educated). If we want to avoid divisions into "us and them" all income needs to be taxed evenly everywhere, no caps, no minimums, every dollar earned results in the government making $0.XX regardless of annual income or type of employment or anything else.
I've also often wished we could mark down on our return WHERE we wanted our taxes to go. If everyone could dictate how much of their tax dollars go where, would folk become more educated about the role of civil agencies and how much they do? Would the resultant chaos (because really, there would for a time be chaos) ultimately result in a more responsible, thoughtful populace? I'd like to think so, but I think CA's current economic situation proves that is not necessarily the most likely result. Granted, our current budgeting system is much less visible than a 10 line "please enter percentages here" on your tax form, but still.
There are certain things that are just absolutely best served by municipal facilities for bulk efficiency reasons. You just can't operate water, sewer, power facilities as effectively when every single house is served by a different vendor. For public health reasons we don't want people opting out of those systems, either - access to the cheapest option available is good for EVERYONE when it comes to basic sanitation and rudimentary health care like vaccinations. Most Americans take these systems so much for granted they don't want to be paying for them. I wonder how many residents impacted by Katrina would have approved measures to raise money for levee maintenance, for instance - most of them had grown up for so long not having to worry about them that they didn't think about it. Here's hoping more of the same isn't required for our collective population to require a focus of funds on effective, efficient services for our own good, including a willingness to pay for them.
Exactly. Wages, interest, capital gains - all of that. I'm all for taxing gross on business instead of net, too, to eliminate issues with masking income. I know, I'm a radical.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
A couple things to keep in the back of your mind.
1. Any discussion of raising taxes needs to occur concurrently with one on cutting spending. Big government is an utter and total waste of money. It strangles the economy and blithers away all sorts of money in corruption and inefficiency. It just does
2. While "Who's going to pay for it" needs to be an important part of the discussion on health care, it is perhaps more important to address what a socialized medical system will do to the quality and availability of health care. A quickie F'rinstance:
Survival rate for Prostate Cancer, US: 91%
France: 73%
UK: 51%
Socialized medicine is (invariably, if you survey the avaiable systems) associated with a profound drop in accessability of said care and a concurrent decrease in its quality.
I'm uninsured. As is my husband. We've struggled with it for years. And I'm utterly opposed to socialized medicine. Especially as currently being presented. The math doesn't work, even if you throw out the human nature aspects that they're currently completely ignoring.
no subject
"Giuliani also quoted statistics from his health care advisor, Canadian psychiatrist David Gratzer, to support his claim that he had a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the U.S. than he would have had in England."
"According to cancer experts cited in fact check articles by the Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org, the St. Petersburg Times and its PolitiFact.com, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Times, Giuliani's statistics were 'false' and very 'misleading' and his conclusions were complete 'nonsense'."
A bit more on the statistical analysis of survival rates between US and UK prostate patients, from November of 2007 when Guiliani made his original statement: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/66918/giuliani_quotes_false_stats_to_deny_america's_health_care_crisis/
To be honest, I need to read more about the current plan to have any real detail. I totally agree that wasteful spending needs to be examined and cut and that 'who is going to pay for it' is only a part of the package.
no subject
Which is what I'm saying about statistics in general.
However, never forget that everything in this world happens on a "What's In It For Me" basis. The reason you have access to an MRI at relatively short notice and 24 hours a day is because there is profit for the company that owns it. Should congress, in it's Infinite Wisdom, decide that an MRI is "worth" half of what they are currently charging - half of them will fold and your wait time will go way up.
The end all and be all is that socialized medicine will allow most average ailments to be treated in an average manner. However, anybody with rare conditions or those requiring extensive and expensive treatment is SOL. They are essentially deemed "not worth it" by the system. The cost:benefit ratio is just too high. And make no mistake, no matter WHO is technically paying for such a system, You're paying for the system. In more ways than one. You'll also find that if you can get the to divulge the numbers, a lot more of their income gets wasted in beauracracy and paper-pushing as well as generalized redundancy.
This is all separate from the issue that most medical professionals (and we already don't have enough) do what they do as much for the pay check and prestige as because they're Good People. (Not that they aren't good people. But they wouldn't put up with hours that already suck and extremely demanding jobs if they weren't compensated). If you demote them to "gov't employee" and Congress decides they should expect to make "x" amount per procedure, or whatever.... we'll have a lot less.
The most ominous - no country that has gone to a socialized system has ever managed to back their way out of it, even once it has clearly failed. Because once the general population gets used to something being "free" you can't convince the majority to pay for it again.
But then, I'm utterly against the whole "cradle to grave" concept. I'm a llibertarian-leaning, flat tax, minimal government, entirely-gut-the-legal system, personal responsibility kind of gal. ;-) YMMV
no subject
We already do the "you're not worth it" thing here in the US. Insurance companies make that decision all the time (even when it's not accurate), and you and I, being uninsured, have already been deemed "not worth it" when the government cut health benefits to the poor to balance the budget. The care you get at the county medical center will be shitty. Only the rich get real medical care now, because only they can afford it.
There are also some left-wing conspiracy theorists out there who believe that the food industry, medical and insurance industries, and Medicare controllers are in league to kill us all slowly once we retire. The processed food we poor get is full of crap that makes us sick, and by the time we get to retirement age, we're in bad shape (typically). Once an American retires, he no longer contributes positively to the system: he does no work (which is not profitable to the corporations), his pension and benefits pay the insurance (again, not profitable), and he's no longer paying taxes. So, the idea is that retirees need to get off the queue faster, and that's most easily accomplished by dying. Bad, underfunded health programs help that along. Is this a reality? I have no idea, but it makes a certain sort of sense.
The idea, that the Right seems to keep harping on but has no real evidence of, is that the Obama administration wants to socialize medicine. The reality is that insurance companies only compete amongst themselves, and along with the rest of Big Business, only cares about being profits for the next 90 days. You and I get screwed by this kind of bullshit. With no competition, the profiteering of the past 30 years just continues. This is the real reason why we are still paying outrageous prices for defunct technologies.
What the writer is really getting at, in my opinion, is that lack of ownership of our country that's been inculcated to us over the past few decades. I saw some moron at the supermarket a few months back who was wearing a shirt that said "Taxes = Slavery." I wanted to ask the in-duh-vidual where he though the money comes from to pay for the roads, the police, the firepeople, the army, etc. We expect all of these things, but we seem to not want to pay the piper. Even Libertarians have to admit we need the government to provide these things. Our infrastructure is starting to collapse, but we are no longer willing to pay to fix it.
Locally, the last mayor of Fresno kept trying to privatize services paid for by the city. In every circumstance, the city employees outperformed the private companies, providing better services for less money and in a more timely manner. The assumption that the government controlling the provision of services will lead to corruption isn't necessarily true. Probably is, but isn't certain. That's been seen here in Fresno as well, such as in the past when asked to cut their budgets, the various city department heads would trot out some sacred cow to sacrifice, and that would (of course) be turned down, and the budget would be be worked to fit.
no subject
In the end, this has not saved Fresno money (as American has set up their system to hit every call on the book - even if only for long enough to collect their fee) and has simultaneously seen the level of EMT service decrease for the region.
I am sure that didn’t work out the way the City Council thought it would.
* From an actual ride-along that my husband did: The crew talked a 80ish granny into finding a relative to drive her to the hospital after she had taken a fall and broken her nose, because that meant they could be back on station sooner rather than having to run a transport. BTW, American still gets their contracted fee just for showing up at the scene and regardless of their actual treatment of the patient. There are more of these stories, but I think one gets the point.
no subject
OMG, yes. Same here. I've bee advocating a flat tax for years. The only downside to it I can see is the accountants who'll need more work...
no subject
I believe that people should be responsible for themselves, but recognize that there are public services that cannot be handed over to individual citizen choice due to their very size and complexity (Stacy’s example of the sewer systems is a good one). By this standard I am happy to pay my taxes, but crave a lot more clarity on what they are being spent on.
I like “Big S” State governments more than national governments for most matters.
I think that there should be no free hand-outs; not to the poor and not to corporations. If you need welfare, that is fine, but you will then need to take some sort of community oriented job on in order to receive it. If you want a special break for your company, expect to finance on some sort of community project in order to get it. Oh, and stop moving your jobs overseas while your at it – I don’t understand claiming US tax loopholes if you have 90% of your production in another country.
I think that all adults should be free to do whatever they wish with other adults, and especially in the privacy of their own home.
Oh, and stay away from my guns. They are mine. I promise to not shoot anyone who isn’t trying to kill me first.
I actually have no problem with a universal healthcare system; especially one that stands beside a private system. For those who can afford to pay for ‘better’ private care, have at. For those who can’t (and often end up acting as incubators for illness because of their inability to afford treatment), the healthcare system acts just like the sewer system above – something we all need to keep things healthier for everyone. If you can’t afford an expensive treatment because it’s not on the government program, then you are no worse of than you were when you couldn’t get any treatment at all before the government program existed. *shrug* Then again, I am not someone who thinks we all need to live to be 115.
no subject
What is the difference between the government making that decision or an HMO? Oh, yeah, if the HMO saves money, it goes into the pockets of the rich, if the government saves money, it goes towards common infrastructure.
The government is broken. I think anyone who runs for a federal position is inherently lacking any discernible ethics. That being said, I trust them exponentially more than any for profit insurance company. If I'm going to get shitty coverage, I may as well not be raped for it.
For those of you who worry about what services will be like, I suggest hanging out at the VA. I spent days there a couple years ago with a friend, and he got better, faster care than anything I've ever experienced.
no subject
Ah, the VA. My husband is, in theory, entitled to benefits. Which they avoid by the simple ex[edient of refusing to process his application. Not, mind you, denying it, which they can't do. Returning it unopened. With a note saying that they have already processed all the applications they're required to for "the period."
And then there's the spousal coverage... Tricare. Also known as Try-and-get-care.
Possibly not the best example of the eifficeny of gov't healthcare.
no subject
no subject
My biggest beef with taxes is they're too complicated and there are too many loopholes (which always favors the better educated or wealthy-able-to-hire-more-educated). If we want to avoid divisions into "us and them" all income needs to be taxed evenly everywhere, no caps, no minimums, every dollar earned results in the government making $0.XX regardless of annual income or type of employment or anything else.
I've also often wished we could mark down on our return WHERE we wanted our taxes to go. If everyone could dictate how much of their tax dollars go where, would folk become more educated about the role of civil agencies and how much they do? Would the resultant chaos (because really, there would for a time be chaos) ultimately result in a more responsible, thoughtful populace? I'd like to think so, but I think CA's current economic situation proves that is not necessarily the most likely result. Granted, our current budgeting system is much less visible than a 10 line "please enter percentages here" on your tax form, but still.
There are certain things that are just absolutely best served by municipal facilities for bulk efficiency reasons. You just can't operate water, sewer, power facilities as effectively when every single house is served by a different vendor. For public health reasons we don't want people opting out of those systems, either - access to the cheapest option available is good for EVERYONE when it comes to basic sanitation and rudimentary health care like vaccinations. Most Americans take these systems so much for granted they don't want to be paying for them. I wonder how many residents impacted by Katrina would have approved measures to raise money for levee maintenance, for instance - most of them had grown up for so long not having to worry about them that they didn't think about it. Here's hoping more of the same isn't required for our collective population to require a focus of funds on effective, efficient services for our own good, including a willingness to pay for them.
no subject
no subject
In other news, an amusing timely example of services taken for granted...http://naamah-darling.livejournal.com/410499.html
no subject
no subject
no subject