Single-payer nightmare

[KeithK]

[quote Jim Hyla][quote metaezra]Because the rest of the world is a little bit more reasonable and rational than the U.S.?[/quote]

Nor would I disagree with this, as it applies to health care systems. It's hard for me to imagine that "all" other developed nations have it wrong and somehow we have it right.[/quote]
I don't have a hard time imagining it.  Popular governments seem inclined to head along the road towards socialism and government giveaways in general, a tendency that I'm pretty convinced (based on instinct and economic theory) leads to bad results.

Plus, I just have more faith in America than the rest of the world. Reagan's "shining city upon a hill" and all that.

[quote Jim Hyla]

I do agree that the health care market is insufficiently "free" in this country. Eliminating the tax subsidy for employer provided health care would help a lot. Eliminating some of the state required mandates for coverage would too. Then we might have a situation where people actually make rational decisions about health coverage as it relates to cost and benefit.

Not that I think your idea will ever happen here, but do you have an example of this somewhere on this globe. If so I'd like to read about it.[/quote]
The fact that it has not been implemented doesn't prove that it wouldn't work.  At best it's one part of an argument.  I do think it's clear that what I've suggested would "solve" some of the problems people mention like people sticking with lousy jobs for the sake of health insurance. Whether they would raise other problems (and what they would be, how severe, etc.) is a subject for debate.

[quote Jim Hyla]To the contrary, all surveys that I've seen show that, as unhappy as they are with aspects of their health plan, citizens of countries with universal health care would not eliminate it.[/quote]
That's the frustrating thing about government programs for us small government types.  It's very hard to get rid of them once they are instituted even if you can demonstrate clearly that there is a better way.  It's hard to convince people to give up things they think are "free" (e.g. single payer health care) even though rationally they are paying for it anyway via taxation.  Direct costs have more of an emotional impact than indirect costs.  It's not rational.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote KeithK][quote Jim Hyla][quote metaezra]Because the rest of the world is a little bit more reasonable and rational than the U.S.?[/quote]

Nor would I disagree with this, as it applies to health care systems. It's hard for me to imagine that "all" other developed nations have it wrong and somehow we have it right.[/quote]
I don't have a hard time imagining it.  Popular governments seem inclined to head along the road towards socialism and government giveaways in general, a tendency that I'm pretty convinced (based on instinct and economic theory) leads to bad results.

Plus, I just have more faith in America than the rest of the world. Reagan's "shining city upon a hill" and all that.[/q]

But of course Reagan was not a small government, balanced budget guy. He just had different priorities for his spending.

[q][quote Jim Hyla]

I do agree that the health care market is insufficiently "free" in this country. Eliminating the tax subsidy for employer provided health care would help a lot. Eliminating some of the state required mandates for coverage would too. Then we might have a situation where people actually make rational decisions about health coverage as it relates to cost and benefit.

Not that I think your idea will ever happen here, but do you have an example of this somewhere on this globe. If so I'd like to read about it.[/quote]
The fact that it has not been implemented doesn't prove that it wouldn't work.  At best it's one part of an argument.  I do think it's clear that what I've suggested would "solve" some of the problems people mention like people sticking with lousy jobs for the sake of health insurance. Whether they would raise other problems (and what they would be, how severe, etc.) is a subject for debate.[/q]

True, it's possible, but before we go jumping off a cliff, hoping there is a safety net below (how's that for bringing in a liberal phrase in:-}), I'd like to see it successful somewhere. After all, my idea of universal health has numerous successful examples all over the world.[/q]

[q][quote Jim Hyla]To the contrary, all surveys that I've seen show that, as unhappy as they are with aspects of their health plan, citizens of countries with universal health care would not eliminate it.[/quote]
That's the frustrating thing about government programs for us small government types.  It's very hard to get rid of them once they are instituted even if you can demonstrate clearly that there is a better way.  It's hard to convince people to give up things they think are "free" (e.g. single payer health care) even though rationally they are paying for it anyway via taxation.  Direct costs have more of an emotional impact than indirect costs.  It's not rational.[/quote]

But you still cannot come up with one example of your system, and I'd rather be as happy as all those other "irrational thinking citizens".::drunk::

[Rosey]

[quote KeithK]It's hard to convince people to give up things they think are "free" (e.g. single payer health care) even though rationally they are paying for it anyway via taxation.[/quote]
I think the calculus is even simpler than this, Keith: it's hard to convince people to give up things that other people are paying for.  That is the case with all entitlements in this country: most of the voters are paying for but a small portion of what they use, and the rest is paid for by people richer than they are.  (It's like the class envy joke: "Who are the super rich?  Anyone making more than twice what I am.")

This is precisely the problem with democracy when it is used to justify taking from one person to subsidize another.

Kyle

[ftyuv]

I don't think people in single-payer systems think their healthcare is free.  They're smart enough to understand the concept of taxation, and to suggest otherwise is a strawman.  I think what you'd be hard-pressed to get them to give up is the peace of mind of knowing that if they lose their job, or just don't have a decent salary to begin with, they'll still have health insurance.  And I'd venture a guess (though I don't have anything to back it up and I'm too lazy to look it up) that even many of the relatively well-off in those countries wouldn't want to get rid of the system, because they don't want to screw their less fortunate co-citizens.

FWIW, Humans are a naturally societal species, and the concept of government-organized welfare isn't actually some crazy idea the liberals invented... even chimps have it.  There was a very interesting segment on this on NPR's science Friday a year or two ago, where basically the experimenters dropped a bunch of bananas into a pen, a couple of chimps fought over it, and then the alpha male walked over, took the bananas, distributed them evenly among all the chimps, and everyone was happy.

Basically, if you're against universal healthcare, it means you're against acting like a chimp, and that means you shouldn't masturbate.  Or, to put it slightly differently: Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten keeps a homeless man from dying of pneumonia.

[Jim Hyla]

[quote ftyuv]I don't think people in single-payer systems think their healthcare is free.  They're smart enough to understand the concept of taxation, and to suggest otherwise is a strawman.  [/quote]

Oh come on, don't you know, the whole rest of the free, and some not-so-free, world are just stupid pawns, being lead down the yellow brick road by their governments.::wow::