Health insurance
Prescribing “single payer” is like feeding Twinkies to a patient with a heart condition. Let free-markets work by eliminating poisonous laws.
This letter has not been edited.
Brian Schwartz, Ph. D. wrote:
"Prescribing “single payer” is like feeding Twinkies to a patient with a heart condition. Let free-markets work by eliminating poisonous laws."
If I was hungry, I'd rather have the twinkies than nothing at all.
Your letter is wrong for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is your following erroneous statement:
"patients in Canada, England, and Sweden die or become incurable while waiting months for treatment — despite having “coverage.”"
You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by [Charles B] on July 2, 2007 02:24 PMFor me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?
It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and apples. To compare socialized medicine in, say, England, with the medical system in the United States, we need to take into consideration that England spends a lot less and has a lot fewer doctors than the United States, and then we need to imagine what England's system would be like if it matched the United States in these regards, and what our system would be like if it matched England in these regards.
I think the figures below show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.
For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?
The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?
I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?
Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:
Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000
....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320
We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.
The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.
Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 02:41 PMActually he does.
Posted by TW on July 2, 2007 02:43 PMJust curious where those figures come from?
Pretty hard to make any comparisons, as I suspect our U.S. expenditure numbers get greatly skewed by the (expensive) use of emergency rooms by uninsured people for routine health care concerns, not all in this country legally.
No doubt our system of health care is not perfect and needs to be addressed. What I have an issue with is the idea that the only alternative is to go to government run, nationalized healthcare. People need to be free to have a choice in purchasing private insurance.
Posted by RU Serious on July 2, 2007 03:29 PMR U Serious, as I state in my posts, those figures come from the Human Development Index. You can access that through Google. I agree that there are various differences we can "suspect", but there is a proliferation of posts in the various health care threads in which a clearly inappropriate comparison is made in which there is no recognition of the factors I have identified. They seem to satisfy posters who oppose universal health care despite their gross deficiency. I have gone to some trouble to try to reduce the deficiency. I know of no opponents of universal health care who have even tried. It's understandable why since that might reduce the power of their specious arguments, but probably most of all because few posters are willing to go to any trouble to support their biases.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 03:49 PMchas b please go to one of the list countrys and see if it happens to you, please.
very nice cut and paset job truth you get a c for the day. we would give you a higher grade but some would feel left out so you can be just average with your garbage
What's the matter Truth? Have you run out of material for your cut and paste project?
Posted by KW on July 2, 2007 04:28 PMThanks, Truth.
Health Care is my single issue when voting. It is not right that I must risk everything I have saved in my 40 years of working, because I am under 65 and uninsured, to get the same treatment as those on Mediciad and Medicare.
I want reasonably-priced catastrophic coverage.
Why are we in italics?
Posted by Winston Smith on July 2, 2007 06:28 PMWell then, Winston.. I can only assume that since this is your pet issue that you have worked and saved and paid for your coverage from a private insurer. If so, I commend you as I have no interest in paying for it.
Posted by Dravur on July 2, 2007 06:52 PMRU Serious said:
"What I have an issue with is the idea that the only alternative is to go to government run, nationalized healthcare. People need to be free to have a choice in purchasing private insurance."
France has Universal Health Care and an option to buy private insurance if you can afford it.
So are you on board now that your worries have been addressed?
Posted by Charles B on July 2, 2007 07:14 PMcharles b
go ahead, go to canada or london, but, if not a legal resident of london you get NOTHING,(thats right, illegals are cut off) not the case in the U.S. Illegal means freebe. And canada, if you have the money there is no waiting list.Maybe you are rich? But if you are the working taxpaying class, you will have a wait.
KW, lol !
“I want reasonably-priced catastrophic coverage.” –why not get it for free, just tear up your clothing a little, roll around in the dirt and change your name to Juan Montera Rosalita Rodrigues.
“Why are we in italics?” –it’s a Eurotrash thing…
Mae issued the following uniformed non-sequitur:
"Go ahead, go to canada or london, but, if not a legal resident of london you get NOTHING,(thats right, illegals are cut off) not the case in the U.S. Illegal means freebe. And canada, if you have the money there is no waiting list.Maybe you are rich? But if you are the working taxpaying class, you will have a wait."
I was talking about France. What are you talking about?
Posted by Charles B on July 2, 2007 10:08 PMTruth: You have posted that same endless tome of manipulated statistics several times! wasting a lot of space and saying nothing., Per capita statistics by themselves are meaningless! If you do not know that, you should not use anystatistics in a debate!! We get the point, you believe this drival. Where does it say you should get your Twinkie free?
Posted by [AF] on July 3, 2007 08:47 AMGreat to hear from a fan, 08:47AM, especially if he is also a Twinkie fan. Sorry, I am also out of T-shirts but I can send you a used Twinkie if you like. Contrary to what you claim, I always pay full price for my Twinkies. Have you tried dipping them in hot Ovaltine? Delicious.
Posted by Truth on July 3, 2007 09:21 AMCharlesB writes:
"Your letter is wrong for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which is your following erroneous statement:
'patients in Canada, England, and Sweden die or become incurable while waiting months for treatment — despite having “coverage.'
You simply don't know what you're talking about."
Charles, please correct me where I have gone astray. I was basing my statements on the following references:
"Patients face consequences from diagnostic waiting lists," CBC News, Nov. 26 2002
www.tinyurl.com/37ved6
"The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study," Canadian Medical Association Journal, Nov. 2002
(www.tinyurl.com/2jca3s)
and
"'Health Care', More or Less" by David Hogberg
(tinyurl.com/2n4abo)
Charles, please tell me if I have somehow misinterpreted the references or studies above. I would greatly appreciate it.
Charles B, You have convinced me. Give me Govt Healthcare.......errr I guess I have a few more questions before I commit.
1. Will govt have responsibilities(management and fiduciary) over Patient Care area? Doctors, nurses, staff, facilities?
2. Will govt have responsibilities for all claims and administration of those claims?
3. What about perscription drugs? Will govt set prices or will they assume all responsibilities for the drug companies also?
Just trying to get the framework of what will remain privatized, if any, and what will be responsibilities of the govt.
These questions are not just for Charles but for all those wanting Govt run healthcare. Again trying to be forward and get the true picture on here of what is being asked for.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 09:57 AMDr. Schwartz said ”Let free-markets work by eliminating poisonous laws.”
Sounds great, let’s do that. All “poisonous” laws should be repealed.
Splendid.
So what laws shall we put into place that force drug companies and medical institutions to provide care for illnesses that aren’t profitable, and into research that has benefit to the nation but for which there isn’t a clear pot of gold at the end of the rainbow – like HIV, rTB, and the like?
How will we get them to act in ways that reduces sickness rather than just “finding” new markets and “illnesses”?
I wonder if “social anxiety disorder” is really quite as important as a preventative program for dental care? - After all, we know now that the same organisms that flourish due to poor dental care lead to cardiovascular damage that results in expensive coronary problems, whereas a “disorder” like shyness is not all that deadly however lucrative it might be.
So how about it doctor, how will we prevent a “free market healthcare system” from just producing rafts of erectile drugs, breast enlargement procedures, and teeth whitening gimmicks to rake in profits whilst ignoring TB, HIV, and all those nasty things that affect the less wealthy amongst us?
Charles B:
"France has Universal Health Care and an option to buy private insurance if you can afford it.
You forgot to mention that you still have to pay for social healthcare whether you elect to go with a private insurer or not.
Mandatory Universal Health Coverage is a sham and you know it CB. If it could stand on its own merits you wouldn't need to omit specific information when you plug it.
Bango in establishing a Govt managed Healthcare system, please help me understand what will be managed by Govt agencies and what will remain under the private sector. Looking to see a Very High level road map of this picture.
Thanks
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 11:10 AMBWR, I am just a guest here so I don’t get to say what healthcare system you have.
I am happy to suggest a few things that I have seen elsewhere, and having seen, used, and contributed to your healthcare system.
I would see Government providing several major portions of a nationwide plan.
Primarily, they would set the goals – which diseases need to be addressed, what research needed to be done, and where healthcare delivery needed to be deployed, etc.
They could do this both by legislation and by funding.
In many countries the tender system has been effective in getting competition and free-enterprise to deliver. For example, if a large pharma company wished to participate in the very profitable delivery of statins, they also had to provide TB drugs at a set price.
There are many examples where this is a very effective way to get companies to compete and the result is good for all stakeholders.
I also see Government providing distribution networks in places where it isn’t feasible for private companies, such as providing primary care at government buildings.
This all gets done to a small degree in the US and isn’t anything new.
All that needs to happen is that Government takes over the wheel rather than letting the medical companies set the rules.
To do that, you have to break the hold they have over your politicians, and that means campaign reform.
As long as it is cheaper to buy or influence politicians to create profit-protecting laws, you can have no healthcare reform or improvement on the current situation.
The US doesn’t have a medical or a technological problem in healthcare, it has a political problem, and it can’t solve that if the population is focused on tit for tat politics.
If somebody says what a lousy job Bush is doing, the chorus goes up about the lousy job Clinton did and vice versa. This is your problem, and this will lead to a steadily declining healthcare system that increasingly focuses on profitable treatments for ailments and concerns of the wealthy, even if those ailments are a complete fiction.
It becomes more profitable to convince 100,000,000 Americans that they suffer from an imaginary disorder that can be treated with a re-badged drug, than to do R&D for a TB drug.
As long as you buggers continue to wrap your fists around each others throats and shout about Bush vs Clinton, Conservative vs Liberal, Republican vs Democrat, the longer this roundabout runs in a downward spiral.
You treat medical issues solely as wedge issues and bludgeons to hit the “other guy” instead of solving the bloody problems that affect all of you.
Your healthcare system has become a perverse mix of space-age islands surrounded by a sea of third-world care. Keep going the way you are and those islands will slowly blink out and affordable healthcare will increasingly be something only the wealthy can have.
The generation that is now in K-12 will be the first in the US history to have a lower life expectancy than its parents. Think about that.
Bummer eh?
You are right it is a political problem. Thank you very much for your response.
My point is that people are screaming for Nationalized healthcare without being able to describe high level boundaries between govt and private entities. Do the 2 co-exist? Can they co-exist and keep costs low, while maintaining Care that is innovative? It is not like waving a wand and making it so. From your responses you understand that also.
I am not hear to pick sides. Heck I piss both sides off often. I despise most politicians and political hacks. They do not provide concrete ideas for solutions, just sound bites of nonsense and platitudes. While this is very complex, there still needs to be a roadmap of ideas. I do not see it. All I am told is that there is a problem and we need the Govt to step in and fix it. I just need to step on the train and "believe". To me that is called "Vaorware" and if people believe that then I can provide a group of people and create any Sotware solution you need. Just give me the $$$$$ up front....LOL
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 12:21 PM"1. Will govt have responsibilities(management and fiduciary) over Patient Care area? Doctors, nurses, staff, facilities?
2. Will govt have responsibilities for all claims and administration of those claims?
3. What about perscription drugs? Will govt set prices or will they assume all responsibilities for the drug companies also?"
Thanks for your questions, bwr. I plan to do nothing else for the next few weeks but work on answering them.
However, don't hold your breath.
What the hell do you think this forum is, a place to get your research done for you for free? Good Lord, grow up and learn to do your own research.
Posted by Truth on July 3, 2007 12:31 PMTruth You and others are saying we need a National Healthcare Plan provided by the govt. Is this not correct? If I disagree I then am inflicted with what you term "socializephobia". Am I supposed to jump on the National Train just because you use Truth as your monicker?
In your view of a National Healthcare Plan this is a YES/NO answer.
What this tells me is that you have no idea of what a National Health plan looks like or how it should operate even at the most basic elements. I may be wrong with this but if it takes you weeks to answer a Yes/No question, how far off can I be.
I was looking for the views of those supporting a National Plan and how they see it in a very high level view. I guess I will not get that.
YES Healthcare as a whole needs fixed. Some areas more than others. I definately have done research in this area.
I was looking
You state: "What the hell do you think this forum is, a place to get your research done for you for free? "
No this forum seems to be a place to bash the other side based upon affiliation. Just as Bango has suggested, the more we do that the more we will fail.
So stick to COPY PASTE of partial information and others waiting in sniper mode to degragate another post. Thats what we need more of. It is hard to have your point of view and ideas bashed if you dont put them forward.
AGAIN I was looking for your views on this not a research paper. I have done research and have worked in the industry. I think I have a decent handle on the issues at hand.
BTW what type of career are/were you engaged in?
What you won't see Brian Schwartz address is the fact that Canada operates on about 55% of the money that the United States does per capita, and about 40% of the doctors the United States does per capita. He is too much a coward to do that.
It must be obvious to any thinking, or thoughtful, person that it would greatly improve Canada's ability to respond more quickly if it had 45% more money and 60% more doctors.
Nor will Brian Schwartz comment on what it would do to the health care system in the United States, and to wait times in the United States, if we reduced the amount we spend on health care by 45% and if we had do depend on 60% fewer doctors.
It is clear that Canada gets more benefit per health care dollar than we do in the United States. You won't see people like Brian Schwartz take that issue on. Theirs is a propaganda campaign, not a truth campaign.
Brian Schwartz says "Prescribing “single payer” is like feeding Twinkies to a patient with a heart condition".
I could understand his saying such an asinine thing if he were a teenager, but I assume that happened to him some years back and he just hasn't gotten over it yet. When you run across people whose use of language is so absurd, then you know you are hearing from someone you should not trust. I have to wonder if the man got his PhD in silliness.
Kudos to both BANGO SKANK (11:57) and BWR (12:21)...health care in the US is a POLITICAL problem. All of the partisan bickering in the world has failed, and will continue to fail, to correct the broken system. Until people are able to see past the partisan smoke screen and hold individual politicians accountable for their actions/votes, nothing will be done outside of cosmetic applications.
The broken political system as a whole has to under go reform and correction before anything meaningful is going to happen with any of its subsystems...like health care.
As long as "we the people" fall prey to the grand political game of gotcha by selecting either side of the same political machine and argue why our selection is better than the other guys, we are stuck with the declining values of American society.
Posted by David R Forward on July 3, 2007 12:58 PMThe health care system in the US sucks right now Because of government involvement! So why would the solution be More Government involvement, esp to the point of monopolization?
Posted by Roy on July 3, 2007 01:54 PMTruth trying to get a handle on your numbers so that I can get on same page here.
You state that US spends 2.5x as much money per Capita than Canada. The numbers given are per capita
US 5274
Canada 2931
By my Microsoft Calculator I come up with 1.8x Is this a big difference? I am not sure because I am trying to find what components are used to add up to those costs. By your discussion the components of those costs are equal. I dont see that ad the # of Drs is only 1 component of very many that are used to reach a cost per person spent on healthcare.
Of course if Canada spent more it would seem to reason that Service and Patient Care would improve and vice versa for the US. That only proves that Services and Patient care cost $$$$. That is not dependent on socialization or privatization.
When stating that "Socialization" of healthcare is needed, I cringe. You are correct about that I have a phobia regarding that point.
Without clarification from anyone what Socialization entails and the assumed reduction in cost per capita, I also cringe.
I am assuming to try and MAXIMIZE cost reductions for healthcare to make it affordable for all Americans, the following would need to happen in a True definition of True Socialized healthcare.
Govt owns most of all Patient Care Delivery Operations (Staff, facilities, support, Infrastructure,contracts of all hospitals/clinics. Many other components than can list)
Govt owns most of all Claims and Benefits engines (claims, benefit administration, support, contracts of all "insurance" systems)
Same with Pharm.
THIS IS the definition of Socialization as it pertains to Healthcare. I may have even missed major components but just assume they are controlled by Govt also.
A NATIONAL Health plan can mean any combination of of Private and Govt ownership together. Most likely cost reduction per capita would not be realized to extent of Socialization and at times may incur extraneous costs not defined in any of the discussions here.
This is why I asked for Yes / No answers to my questions so that I could get a high level road map of what you and other proponents of govt healthcare entail. In any of the answers, books could be written for and against. But without boundaries there is no way we can intelligently agree or disagree.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 02:37 PMBrain Swartz and his ilk make out like the question is whether to adopt the Canadian system in the United States. That would involve reducing the amount of money we devote to health care per capita by 45% and reducing the number of doctors per capita by 60%.
Of course no one is advocating that.
What is being advocated is a system similar to the health care systems in Canada and European countries, but using much higher resources so that we can eliminate the shortcomings which are caused by the lack of resources being devoted by those countries.
Will any of the opponents of the proposals even discuss that? You bet your booties they won't. That is why I call them charlatans.
Posted by Truth on July 3, 2007 02:41 PM"What is being advocated is a system similar to the health care systems in Canada and European countries, but using much higher resources so that we can eliminate the shortcomings which are caused by the lack of resources being devoted by those countries. "
This is NOT Socialization by definition. Again this is why I asked the question. Thank you for clarifying for me Truth
And this Charlitan is trying to discuss those proposals. Just wanted a damn baseline from which to discuss. But again the name calling. Cool
You are making the assumptions the costs accumulated by each country to reach their "cost per capita" are equal. This is most likely not the case. These costs will need to drop to accomodate the cost per capita as you state. Again this is not only Staff associated with Patient Care(assuming from your use of Drs). Other costs to reduce are technical, administration, support, and continued Mandates that comply with coming up with a National Plan.
There are already currently Many Mandates given to Healthcare organizations that they must comply with. Each costing large sums of money to comply. (MMA, NPI, HIIPPA, SOX to name a few. Some different govt agencies but still requires duplication of effort from healthcare organizations.) To me this is adding to costs not reduction.
I agree something must be done, but from my view of reducing costs (or maybe those extra costs are made up through taxes) while trying to maintain Services and Patient Care is difficult at best. To get this going these will most likely suffer. They already do in our own country (VA, Medicare). If this acceptable to most then I guess we will make do. But realize that there will still be a private sector that will do their own thing as it pertains to Healthcare. Does this not instill further the separation of the Haves and the Have Nots?
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:05 PMDoes this not instill further the separation of the Haves and the Have Nots?
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:05 PM
I imagine that having a national healthcare system alongside a private one would be much like the differences between a private lawyer and a public defender.
Posted by Roy on July 3, 2007 03:11 PMSo Sorry to all about not clarifying Acronyms here.....forgot to add. Again my apologies
"There are already currently Many Mandates given to Healthcare organizations that they must comply with. Each costing large sums of money to comply. (MMA, NPI, HIIPPA, SOX to name a few. Some different govt agencies but still requires duplication of effort from healthcare organizations.)"
MMA=Medicare Modernization Act
NPI= National Provider ID
HIPAA = Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
SOX = Sarbanes / Oxley Act
All add great value but areas of improvement. Also great costs that add to the cost per capita
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:16 PMRoy where you putting your money when betting on PD and Private lawyer. I know where OJ put his.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:17 PMWith my apologies, this is private correspondence. Only bwr is allowed to read it.
bwr, you are correct. In my initial post on the issue I did misstate the amount by which the United States outspends Canada as being 2.5 rather than the 1.8 per capita that you correctly calculated.
In my more recent posts above, I correctly stated that Canada spends about 55% as much as we do in the United States per capita.
You say: "If I disagree I then am inflicted with what you term "socializephobia".
I apply that term to people who have a knee jerk reaction to anything that has that term, socialize, in it, without even examining the merits, or without examining them honestly. You'd have to say whether or not that applies to you.
You say: "In your view of a National Healthcare Plan this is a YES/NO answer.
What this tells me is that you have no idea of what a National Health plan looks like or how it should operate even at the most basic elements."
No, I don't know about the inner workings of the various national health plans. Nor do people like you who criticize these plans.
Which is understandable. Only people who have spent large amounts of time studying the various plans would know those details. None of the posters here are in that category, nor should they be expected to be. If only such experts could comment, then there would be no forum topic on health care.
You are rendering a criticism of me that applies to all the other posters, including yourself. Not nice in my opinion.
You very unfairly ask that someone answer these questions:
"1. Will govt have responsibilities(management and fiduciary) over Patient Care area? Doctors, nurses, staff, facilities?
2. Will govt have responsibilities for all claims and administration of those claims?
3. What about perscription drugs? Will govt set prices or will they assume all responsibilities for the drug companies also?"
Neither you nor I could answer these questions about our own health care system without a great deal of time, research and study. Each of them calls for an complex answer which even many so-called experts could not answer without taking a good deal of time.
Perhaps you would care to take the time to describe the kind of health care system you think we should adopt in the United States to deal with the various problems in the present system just to show how you can run that off in a matter of minutes. You are being preposterous.
You say:
"AGAIN I was looking for your views on this not a research paper.”
Patently untrue. You asked no Yes or No questions as you falsely claim. You asked me to draw up a proposed national health plan for you. And you suggested that should be easy. You are being preposterous.
You say:
“Without clarification from anyone what Socialization entails and the assumed reduction in cost per capita, I also cringe.”
Ah, well, all you want is a little old cost benefit analysis. How about providing me with a cost benefit analysis of the system we now have in the United States just to show how a person can run these of in a matter of minutes? You are being preposterous.
The reason I asked you to grow up is because grown up people should know better than to ask others to do their research for them, particularly about very complex matters.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:17 PM
indeed, OJ chose wisely...
Posted by Roy on July 3, 2007 03:47 PMMore private correspondence:
bwr: "You are making the assumptions the costs accumulated by each country to reach their "cost per capita" are equal. "
Of course there will be many differences. No one, including you, has taken upon himself to describe those differences with any detail. You are certainly welcome to. You keep wanting others to do a lot of research. Get off your butt and do some yourself.
bwr: "And this Charlitan is trying to discuss those proposals. Just wanted a damn baseline from which to discuss. But again the name calling. Cool."
I called Brain Swartz a charlatan because he chooses to ignore a very important factor, the difference in the resources which different countries devote to health care. I consider the name fitting because a charlatan is one who makes specious arguments and I consider that an argument which ignores that important factor is specious. But if you think the name is cool and want it for yourself, fine with me.
In past posts you refer to Socialization of Healthcare.. True socialization of healthcare would include an answer of Yes to the questions I asked. That is why I asked. To get CLARIFICATION of your term SOCIALIZATION (Not yelling just emphasizing terms here :)) I addressed that previously. You clarified in posting of Posted by Truth on July 3, 2007 02:41 PM and I responded and thanked you on MY posting of Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 03:05 PM
Truth Stated - "Patently untrue. You asked no Yes or No questions as you falsely claim. You asked me to draw up a proposed national health plan for you. And you suggested that should be easy. You are being preposterous."
My original question with the post of 3 questions were like this
"Charles B, You have convinced me. Give me Govt Healthcare.......errr I guess I have a few more questions before I commit.
1. Will govt have responsibilities(management and fiduciary) over Patient Care area? Doctors, nurses, staff, facilities?
2. Will govt have responsibilities for all claims and administration of those claims?
3. What about perscription drugs? Will govt set prices or will they assume all responsibilities for the drug companies also?
Just trying to get the framework of what will remain privatized, if any, and what will be responsibilities of the govt.
These questions are not just for Charles but for all those wanting Govt run healthcare. Again trying to be forward and get the true picture on here of what is being asked for."
Again emphasis on the line after 3 questions
"Just trying to get the framework of what will remain privatized, if any, and what will be responsibilities of the govt. " Look at questions. Set up classically as Yes/No questions. Sorry if you mistook them as something else.
On my wanting a Cost benefit analysis.......Not here. Not now. Never ever asked you to do a Cost Benefit analysis. Agreed on the work entailed. Are you asking me to say Yes to "Socialized" or "National" healthcare without them? HELL NO But you can not compare just the cost per capita between 2 countries without at least acknowledging the POSSIBILITY of cost differences. The 2 can not be compared equally if different.
That is only telling 1 side of story that is very complex. Complexity is something you and I agree.
Never ever wanted you to do research. Sorry if that is what you understood. Tried to tell you that multiple times but in actuality you assumed I was being untruthful. Again sorry but not the case. If you want to call me names, so be it......but only tried to get a level playing field from which to discuss. But I guess questioning does make me evil.
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 04:11 PMI have named some possible cost differences above and acknowledged many more. BUT you did not even acknowledge possiblity of them. Just gave your numbers without discussion. Same thing you accused Schwartz of
"Will any of the opponents of the proposals even discuss that? You bet your booties they won't. That is why I call them charlatans"
You used plural terms and you did mean more than just Schwartz.
I AM NOT here to battle you but when questions are asked about clarification you jump to the defensive. ON here that is understandable. But do not treat me as the enemy. Dang
Posted by bwr on July 3, 2007 04:16 PM