If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
John Edwards Will Give You Free Health
Published March 28, 2007 "The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course -- guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care. Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in search of its component parts. If health insurance were without cost, one assumes that everyone would have health insurance. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the collective costs of health care. The political challenge lies in disguising the cost. When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses and drugs are not in infinite supply. So can we generate what amounts to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care? To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100 per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United States? In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of people entitled to receive that health service. How do you do that? Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total U.S. expenditure on health care. But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. This is done by obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943, when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at $500, which is the size of his paycheck. Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. If it is so that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really engaging in is more redistribution. There is a case to be made for this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, which means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95 percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower. Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor". |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
PJ O'Donovan wrote:
John Edwards Will Give You Free Health Published March 28, 2007 "The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course -- guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care. Maybe the Democrats are offering a world with less stress and less *need* for health care, consequently they can *afford* it. Anyhoo, now that the Democrats have decided to pull out Iraq, the money saved (assuming it ever existed, but that's another story) is easily enough to fund free health for the US, maybe the entire planet. Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in search of its component parts. If health insurance were without cost, one assumes that everyone would have health insurance. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the collective costs of health care. The political challenge lies in disguising the cost. When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses and drugs are not in infinite supply. So can we generate what amounts to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care? To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100 per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United States? In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of people entitled to receive that health service. How do you do that? Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total U.S. expenditure on health care. But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. This is done by obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943, when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at $500, which is the size of his paycheck. Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. If it is so that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really engaging in is more redistribution. There is a case to be made for this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, which means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95 percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower. Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor". |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
On 29 Mar, 11:40, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:
John Edwards Will Give You Free Health A lot of crap like this has been appearing in n.g.'s recently. I can only summise that these idiots get it from some 'talking points' briefing. Any ideas where? Published March 28, 2007 Where? "The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course -- guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care. Which means that he is advocating a National insurance scheme....which is a very sensible policy....America can then join the rest of the developed world... Mr. Edwards' primary complaint is that 47 million Americans do not have health insurance. In a free society, one scans this datum in search of its component parts. I have no idea what this last statement means. If health insurance were without cost, Which it isn't, which is why it's called 'insurance'. one assumes that everyone would have health insurance. Most people do in Europe and Canada etc. A corollary of this is that everyone, in a society of allegedly free health care, would actually be paying the collective costs of health care. By George! He's got it! (The same way that everyone pays for police, education etc. etc.) The political challenge lies in disguising the cost. Disguising it? Why do you have to disguise it?There is a deduction from my salary, and I know why it's there. It goes towards my medical expenses, my state pension, and any other social benefit I may become entitled to. When I don't need it, someone else gets the benefit, so to speak. When a commodity is quantifiably measurable, yet universally available, like air, one can talk about its being "free." Only people in submarines need to measure air, and to pay the cost of supplying it. Health care, unlike air, can't be free, because doctors and nurses and drugs are not in infinite supply. Nor is demand for their services. So can we generate what amounts to a public subsidy by reducing the costs of health care? To look that problem in the face, we search out relevant figures. One set of these reveals that the cost of health care for an American is twice what it is for a Western European. If in Germany it costs $100 per day per patient at a hospital, while a comparable hospital stay in the United States costs $200, one reaches for an explanation. Is it that American health care is twice as expensive because it is twice as comprehensive, twice as resourceful? Or is it simply that, for other reasons, doctors and nurses and drugs cost twice as much in the United States? It's because your system is crap....too much bureacracy, duplication, administration, waste etc. etc. That's what you get with a commercial health system. In any case, how do we go about reducing these costs? Either you pass a law that doctors and nurses and drug companies have to slash the cost of their services and products by one-half -- a proposal nowhere hinted at by Mr. Edwards -- or else we need to reduce the number of people entitled to receive that health service. Or you reform the system and introduce a national insurance scheme. How do you do that? Not by going in the direction proposed by Candidate Edwards, but by going in the opposite direction. His proposal is that more people should be covered. But if more people are insured, they will increase their consumption of health care, and therefore increase the total U.S. expenditure on health care. Do you really believe that illness or disease (perhaps even vehicle smashes or heart attacks) conforms to the law of supply and demand? But John Edwards calls for something different -- a fiscal frumpery by which the cost of health care is somehow dissipated. The word is diluted. The way that insurance risk is diluted by underwriters. This is done by obscuring the agent by which health care is provided. It has frequently been noticed by social philosophers that from about 1943, when income taxes were first collected so to speak at the source, via withholding, the average worker does not think of himself as being taxed -- because the instrument by which the money is taken is so automatic as to be more or less invisible. When an American worker is hired at $700 per week, he reckons his income not at $700, but at $500, which is the size of his paycheck. And no-one checks his tax? Pull the other one! Mr. Edwards speaks grandly about health coverage for 47 million people who do not now have it. But unless there is a diminution in the cost of health services, they will be paid for by somebody. Those insured, presumably. If it is so that the 47 million without insurance are the identical 47 million who are the nation's poorest, then it might be said that all we are really engaging in is more redistribution. Well, no. In Britain it's a flat rate. The difference is that, because of the size of a national scheme, individual contributions are more affordable than the cheapest private schemes. There is a case to be made for this, and indeed, redistribution has been accepted for years. The wealthiest 5 percent of Americans pay 54 percent of all taxes, That is disengenuous. What is that in the proportion of their income compared to poorer people? which means they are paying taxes that would otherwise be paid by the 95 percent of Americans whose tax rates are lower. You think so? Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. No he isn't. He's advocating a National Insurance scheme. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. And the British people still vote for it, don't they? It crossed the Atlantic into Canada, which is a tidy country in which to get sick, provided you can afford to travel across the border to an American doctor". I rather think that the traffic is the other way.... Please stop posting this sh*t....... Dr. Barry Worthington |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
Dr. Barry Worthington wrote:
On 29 Mar, 11:40, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote: John Edwards Will Give You Free Health More accurate to describe it as "free at the point of delivery" one assumes that everyone would have health insurance. Most people do in Europe and Canada etc. Certainly not "most" in the UK The political challenge lies in disguising the cost. Disguising it? Why do you have to disguise it?There is a deduction from my salary, and I know why it's there. It goes towards my medical expenses, my state pension, and any other social benefit I may become entitled to. When I don't need it, someone else gets the benefit, so to speak. That's what social responsibility is all about. Therefore, Mr. Edwards is doing nothing more than to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. No he isn't. He's advocating a National Insurance scheme. They used to call that socialized medicine, when it was instituted by Great Britain after the war. And the British people still vote for it, don't they? Indeed we do! With all its' many faults, we Brits appreciate having access to the best available health care regardless of financial means. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
p j o'donovan sez:
""The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course -- guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care..." _________________________________ How much do you want to bet that his plan provides for back-billing? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Free" health care for Americans?
On 29 Mar, 18:39, "Docky Wocky" wrote:
p j o'donovan sez: ""The word among professional Democrats is that John Edwards has set the stakes on the matter of health care, and no one who wants to be president can offer less than he is offering, which is -- of course -- guaranteed health. That is to say, guaranteed free health care..." _________________________________ How much do you want to bet that his plan provides for back-billing? As I understand it, he's advocating a National Insurance Scheme. No- one gets billed. Please don't assume things about something that you clearly don't understand. Dr. Barry Worthington |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"liberalism" to "socialism" to "communism": The "end" justifies the "means" in America | PJ O'Donovan[_1_] | Europe | 5 | February 24th, 2007 04:57 PM |
Do You Prefer To Say: "Merry Christmas"?, "Workers Of The World Unite?" Or "Allah Akbar"? | Sound of Trumpet | Air travel | 2 | December 23rd, 2006 09:17 PM |
Seeking "Business Associates" / "Technology Partners" / "IT Experts" | websworldpartner | Asia | 0 | June 9th, 2006 07:45 AM |
THE PREHISTORIC ANIMAL " kOMODO DRAGON " AND THE EXOTIC ISLAND "FLORES" | Steve | Asia | 0 | January 20th, 2006 11:21 AM |