Look up the percent of GDP that the US pays toward healthcare and compare it to countries that have universal healthcare. The percentage is exactly the same. The US does not have free market healthcare. Did you not know this fact, or did you just deliberately leave this fact out?
Of course the people who USE universal healthcare would rate it as good. You are deliberately misrepresenting a statistic. That statistic is only taken from the people who are getting something for nothing.
10. Ok and what about those 7 % they dont exist or what? they cant choose something different ? Isnt that called oppresion of minority?
11. It does - as it uses pricecaps that means it is less profitable to do R&D as you wont be able to market it. If not why all the major Healtcare innovation in the world come from US?
@MrJigssaw1989 1. But it does run its healthcare for profit 2. You need more than this to call bogus. Commonwealth Fund has nothing to do with the UN 3. Strawman. Nobody is forced. Membership of our society is voluntary. 4. qualify this statement please 5, see: 3. 6. So? 7. Explained in the video 8. See 3. 9. See 3. 10. See 3. 11. It doesn't - you also need to cite some sources for your other claims 10. Yes, they are free to leave and choose something different
7.Then why they arent able to buy a full insurance dont rely on NHS and dont pay for NHS.
8.If you happen to buy iphones ipods and xboxes instead of medical insurance then well its your choice and you are taking a risk - if you happen to lose then tough love, there are private charities though.
9.Yea whatever so why dont force people to buy other things they might need ? Nothing justifies use of force against peaceful people
2.Bogus UN study which as one of its main variables uses "Equality"
3.If humans have a right to health does that mean they somehow have the right to force other people to be their slaves and heal them ?Doesnt sound like a right to me.
4.It still is higher than the actual need.
5.That is just silly you are forced to pay for something but sure you can buy some more :)
6.Only small % of people will buy additional insurance so there is smaller demand.
Every freedom lost brings us one step closer to Socialism.Our President making it ok for the US military to detain US citizens indefinitely without legal representation for any reason they deem justifiable through martial law is a horrifying fact. If Americans lose all their freedoms to a police state,the rest of the free countries will have already lost theirs.Universal Heathcare is Socialism Step 1.
I don't need to move. I'm quite happy where I am. If your country is such a dreadful place to live, I suggest you find somewhere that suits you better. Don't expect others to provide things for you just because you want them.
"The AMA controls the number of doctors so that they can all get paid more. It is the only organization that can give out medical licenses and the only organization that can give accreditation to medical schools."
Medical licenses are issued by the states, not the AMA nor does the AMA have anything to do with the accreditation of medical schools.
governments are all pretty much completely in debt right now. What happens if a government replaces the private sector with themselves and then the checks start bouncing?
I know in Greece they were electing to do amputations instead of longterm insulin treatment for diabetics.
That's the kind of thing that can't happen in a free-market, or rather, if it did the person would at least be electing amputation themselves lol
I am of the belief that the reason United States healthcare is so high is that there is a monopoly on it here.
The AMA controls the number of doctors so that they can all get paid more. It is the only organization that can give out medical licenses and the only organization that can give accreditation to medical schools.
While the NHS may be successful in Brittain I think it is debatable if such a program will work for a population of America's scale. The data you provide regarding the quality of care in America compared to other 1st world nations is not the best. The study seems to attribute low scores to hospitals not incorporating IT technology. Furthermore, the study makes use of physicians and patients perceptions and national mortality data.
@navalverde12 We all know there are obesity,diabetes, and heart disease problems in America due to poor diet and sedentary lifestyles; is that our healthcare system's fault? This study would seem to suggest so, but I disagree. While the NHS can use purchasing power to drive costs of equipment and supplies down, from my experience American government entities tend not to do so and will even spend exorbitant prices for seemingly mundane items. This is a rampant problem in our military.
I'd be the first to agree that governement departments sometimes make poor decisions on spending - as do some large corporations. The problem is how well or poorly these departments are managed, it's not an indictment of the whole system.
If you have alternative figures then please share them
Argues that UHC would give an opportunity to reform and improve on quality of healthcare, but also says there is insufficient data to properly gauge "quality" from a more technical aspect.
I think one thing worthy of mention maybe that one reason that many private doctors may work a day a week in the NHS is one of, if not the biggest private health care organisation in the UK is a not-for-profit organisation called BUPA. This itself is vastly different to the operations of the for-profit HMOs and Hospitals of the US that value profit over lives. That said, public competition in health care pushes private sector health care to have to compete rather then profit monger.
And the most important observation is that IT WORKS - and has done for over 60 years. Yet we still hear the same old crap from the same old Republicans that it can't. The success of every UHC system in every European country is apparently a myth.
@billburns2 that is true, of course HMOs on the other hand don't work, they leech. Now it wasn't the GOP that introduced that, was it? Oh, it was. I am no fan of the Republican party, then again the Conservatives here in the UK would be just as bad if they were allowed to get away with it, what they aren't.
SO other than personal wealth, how will society determine the primary measure?
How will "everyone make the call" - details please.
I always start to chuckle when a utopian "freedom" turns out to be bare-faced fascism. The veneration of the rich and powerful and the dismissal of the weak and powerless is the morality of a thug.
Are you really surprised that nobody except hardcore Libertarians buy into these ideals?
@billburns2 Considering that people give more money to people that do the things they prioritize, the one that has the most money has, according to those that gave him their money, been prioritized. The question is what they did that was prioritized to receive the money. Some do it by birth, some do it by sex appeal, some do it by performing services, some do it by being poor and in need, each of us decides how best to allocate those funds. aka everyone makes the call.
...which is a long winded way of saying that personal wealth is the only measure of merit
You are advocating Social Darwinism which is a primary tenet of fascism.
If I need a kid to wash my car then I don't care ifhe can spell. More importantly, it doesn't diminish him as a person, which your justification for why he should have less right to life - fascism.
You asked if money was a representation of work - it isn't. Ever been an intern? Ever heard of inheritance?
There are certainly other methods of determining merits, as I stated previously. Here is a potential merit evaluations that I _already said_. "if the patients in question were soldiers on the battlefield, the one that was the most skilled at soldiering would receive preference."
Notice, no money involved? In this last post, I didn't state that money was the only method, I explained the method of money, they are two separate statements.
@billburns2 Associating Social Darwinism with Fascism is equivalent to saying, "You're against murder, you must ipso facto be endorsing Christianity." A fallacy, you know better.
In some cases, the intern is bartering, the existence of money does not preclude it. In other cases, the intern pays a school money for the work they do in seeking and obtaining the internship.
Someone who works to gain money to provide for his children is an example of how money isn't work?
So you concede that money is NOT a representation of work - the unpaid intern works, correct?
Amassing money through inheritance also isn't a measure of work is it? It's simply benefitting through someone else's work - yet by your life priority ranking system, the idle rich kid has more "merit" than a the hardworking intern.
It's funny seeing Libbys tie themseves in knots over this.
The question was whether or not money is a representation of work, which you have yet to disprove. Just as someone can give money to an unworthy recipient, someone can work for free for someone you deem unworthy. Let's take roadies & superstar possies for example; there are far more work hours spent to placate these people than there is say to provide free work to help build low cost housing for example habitat for humanity.
Any more irrelevant correlations you want to propose?
Last post on this topic? Take your toys and go home when someone calls you out on your fallacies?
In the case of a triage scenario, yes, some people are simply less worthy of life than others and not because of my scale of merit, because of the scale of merit for the scenario. The best military "cog" gets to live over the lesser one. The more wealth a country has, the less this comes up. Why is it that you prefer a system that creates more scenarios where healthcare is rationed?
You seem determined to avoid the salient points of a discussion, you shift goalposts, you ignore facts that you don't like, invent others to suit your cause and you relentlessly try to prop up your distasteful ideology that certain people are less worthy of life than others.
You are a pain in the arse Libertarian and you are now blocked
Do you know what the definition of Fascism is? Letting each person decide what they wish to give their own wealth to is the opposite.
I always chuckle when someone makes smarmy statements intended to berate thinking they're so superior and then rails when others do it to them, so much so that they go out of their way to make a video about it.
Are you really surprised that nobody except hardcore athiests buy into your ideals?
No, I don't get it. How is it our money when WE didn't earn it. Nobody is paid as a agent of a collective, nobody has signed a contract stating they are working as a shareholder of a money trust, how could it be OURs when HE earned it?
This is an assertion I have heard you make, yet there is no logic to it and you simply keep repeating it thinking that it makes it true.
You are itching to prove to me that people are less price-sensitive whet they aren't spending their own money.
Pointless exercise I'm afraid - The NHS costs $180bn per year, every working adult pays for it every month so it isn't somebody else's money it's OUR money, so your attempt fails.
@billburns2 Yes, I am trying to prove that. Paying a monthy stipend is distanced from the purchase, and it isn't buying anything concrete, it's an abstraction, therefore less attended to. How is it you're not getting this?
@billburns2 I would agree with you, they are less attended to. It's partly why people spend more money with credit cards and debit cards than with cash. I don't think we're done here, I believe we are trying to clarify a point and weed out misinterpretation. It seems to me it is a worthwhile endeavor. Have you not found my discussion honest and without "name calling" and so many other complaints you have had about the opposing view?
Absolutely yes, the one that has done more that the society has deemed worthy of bestowing their units of work (cash) upon has proven his merit as superior. I would prefer, however, that both parties be able to achieve the positive result.
This is also assuming equivalent social merit and other potential values. e.g. if the patients in question were soldiers on the battlefield, the one that was the most skilled at soldiering would receive preference.
So you don't make valuations of people? Given a spelling contest with one kid @5 right and the other @25 right, does the latter have more merit as a speller?
The coal miner and the model receive money in compensation for performing work do they not?
Don't side step the question because you disagree with the value of their work.
Again, you're side stepping the question. Assuming all other considerations are identical, would a worker that did a better job command higher wages?
You're citing a source that does exactly what you criticize Libertarians for doing in one of your videos. You say in "More Libertarian Mistakes" "I take issue with people... that misrepresent data, deliberately put the wrong spin on a historical claim."
One would assume that the term historical is not really needed, and in fact you take issue with data misrepresentation.
Representing a data value without including highly relevant factors as a proof of inferiority is data misrepresentation.
I am on topic. You said, "Which questions are you referring to? I don't see any." to which I replied "Questions:..." and listed them.
Did you not read my posts? I don't have to provide evidence for the claim. It would be a highly influencing factor. The fact that this was omitted makes the report suspect. What about drug use?
I believe the statistics for the stillbirth #s is in "The world factbook" by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. I can't find an online version of it though.
@billburns2 Fine. Let's assume that infant deaths as a result of drug use have no statistical significance. Sure, let's assume that has nothing at all to do with it. That still birth thing, bah, who cares, it's probably nothing.
We agree on cost being an issue, but there are solutions to that which aren't socialized.
So, what's remaining from your article is opinion of recipients who either pays for their own care (negative) or get it free (positive). Wow, that's a great resource, amazing.
Er.. this post suggests that you haven't really read the report at all but have simply skimmed it looking for things to challenge. Wow, great open mind. Amazing.
Cost is really only a part of it. The primary win for UHC is that it allocates resources based on a patients need rather than on wealth. A poor man's heart op gets preference over a rich man's bunions. Leave healthcare to the free market and the reverse is true.
@billburns2 I did read the report and apparently you haven't.
Did you read this: "Data are drawn from the Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey...the 2005 International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults... and the Commonwealth Fund 2006 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians."?
The article several times uses metrics that include cost:
Figure 5: "Cost-Related Access Problems"
Figure 6: "Total expenditures on health as a percent of GDP" and so on.
and apparently you aren't reading my posts before commenting on them:
Cost is really only a PART of it. The weight given to cost in the report counters the claims by supporters of insurance model healthcare that such a system is somehow more cost efficient. It isn't.
@billburns2 The claim is not that an insurance model healthcare system is less cost effective, it doesn't prove any such thing. The claim is that a regulation ridden, gov't abused, gov't sponsored monopolistic medical system is less cost effective and I agree. You make the conclusion that this is a glowing endorsement of socialized medicine when you're comparing it to a cancer ridden facade of free market competition. I, however, make the conclusion that both are wrong vs the free market.
@billburns2 Of course you won't join that debate, because you know you can't win.
There IS evidence that the private sector free market has lowered costs and improved quality throughout the medical industries where it's been tried.
Research vision correction, cosmetic surgery, veterinary care and provide me any example of a socialized system providing better cost for equivalent service.
Your attack on the US system as it is now is a straw man, you can easily show it costs too much. Big deal.
LOL. This is the very essence of Libertarian economics and now you're querying it??
Would you agree that a free market will allocate resources according to demand and that a rich person has more leverage on what the market supplies than a person with no money?
The essence of Libertarian economics is that the expenditures of capital will be assigned best by the individual because they have better information to make the determination on the ground and they're spending their own money so they care more about how effectively it is spent.
So, let's consider the heart condition poor man and the bunion rich man. The bunion rich man on his own easily out "demands" the poor man.
You, however, are not considering the other potential parties.
A doctor, faced with the save a life or fix a bunion task has not only financial concerns. His choice to operate on the poor man cannot be assumed to be financially in his best interest. Public outrage as well as being able to do both jobs, just in a different order, etc. will certainly be a factor.
A community, with a well loved, but poor man can come together to finance the care, etc.
Asking people to contribute, to care voluntarily is the Libertarian way instead of force.
So bunion man is treated and heart op man must cross his fingers and hope?
And because this is how the free market works then that, by definition, must be the optimum outcome?
And you wonder why every developed country on the face of the earth (with the exception of the US) doesn't buy into this when it comes to the health and lives of its citizens??
I suggest you watch my video Why Libertarianism Is Wrong
You're using the WHO right? The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. Our homicide rate is 10x higher than in the U.K., 8x higher than in France, and 5x greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
So, you're citing a report that bases their "evidence" in significant part on a survey?
Let me ask you, are there some societies that have a tendency to be more obedient, less prone to complaints, etc? Are they on the "more government" side or the "more self reliant" side?
How likely would someone complain about something if they pay for it, vs if it's paid for them by someone else?
The article's empirical data shows a different story than "the US has bad healthcare"
US best in provision of and receipt of preventative care.
US low on chronic care (i.e. high cost care)
US low on access, Germany best access, but look at how they get there: "Germany scores well on patients' perceptions of access" Seriously, PERCEPTIONS of access? You count this as valid data?
US last in efficiency: ("...expenditures... costs")
Equity: a 100% income based metric.
Healthy Lives: Again based on life span, which is bunk, (infant mortality)
@billburns2 The US attempts to give birth to babies that are considered dead in womb for most other countries, and we do it a lot. Without using the skewing infant mortality scores on Healthy Lives statistic, we see the US moves up to ahead of the UK. If you conversely use the still birth scores for all countries as a part of the statistic instead of just infant mortality, the US would easily move ahead of others as well.
@billburns2: I wouldn't say we're #1 in a lot of areas, but HC vs these countries, we're certainly not last. Our costs are way higher than they need to be, and that might have something to do with the points that shanedk addresses in his save HC w/o spending a dime video. (btw, great rant on him, loved it)
Other than costs, I addressed them. 50% of it is opinion from recipients which is a bad metric; it has many other factors.
That's my point, they don't count stillbirth or death in utero.
I suppose for us to really achieve a quality debate, we would be better served to have a video conference, perhaps even record it. I, unfortunately, don't have a webcam. Would you recommend an inexpensive model.
Truly, I believe that you have a keen intellect, although misguided. I believe, given proper data and intellectual discourse that I can help you see the error of your ways. Those that you have debated so far have been sorely lacking, despite their superior conclusions.
Your claim "The US attempts to give birth to babies that are considered dead in womb for most other countries, and we do it a lot" - needs quantification if you want to start re-jigging the data.
I'd also query how much weight this has within the overall issue of healthcare in the countries compared in the report, but whatever.
Which questions are you referring to? I don't see any.
assumed generalizations about what a society would or wouldn't do isn't the basis for any form of debate.
The NHS is paid for by all UK citizens - we all have a stake in it. The assumption that we would have low standards of evaluation or something that costs a lot and is so fundamental to our lives needs some qualification if you want to start querying the stats - nice try though.
@billburns2 The assumption that you would have LOWER standards of evaluation is a given truth of human nature.
Shall I present to you the thousands of papers discussing this concept? Humans pay more attention to things that are proximal. A person that pulls money out of their own pocket to pay a deductible, is by definition more proximal to the expenditure, therefore is more interested in it and critical.
We ARE paying out of our own pocket. I really can't stress that enough. It was in the video (you did watch the video, right?)
If you have even one paper that disproves this paper's methodology of collating people's opinions for a health service that they most definitely do pay for then I'd like to see it.
If this is just some lame appeal to authority then I'm not really interested.
From what I've read it's 5/5, but my personal experience is only with the German and UK health systems.
In this particular case an appeal to authority is an attempt to query, ignore (or in your case actually alter) data that you don't like - not by challenging specific methodology. but using the nebulous assertation that "thousands of papers" have already dealt with this, therefore absolving you from actually going into specifics.
@billburns2 So, is it your assertion that proximity is not a factor in human being's involvement with evaluation? That, for example, someone will be as frugal with other people's money as their own or with a blank check from the government versus their own money?
How many articles do you want me to provide you with that conclude this?
@billburns2 I don't have a quantified #, I don't need one, it is an omission and potentially a significant one. Would you agree that America has a significantly higher rate of drug addiction issues? If so, that would influence infant mortality rates and it has nothing to do with the quality of the health care provided.
How much does it have to do with the report? 100% of the rest of the report indicates that America is #1 with the exception of cost based metrics. For those see shanedk's video.
Does this statement: "You really are clutching at straws now." add anything to the debate? Were you trying to be rude so as to make me stop the discussion? Seriously. Make your point without the personal attacks please.
I do recall you making some sort of complaint about Libertarians doing things like that. I would expect you to be above it.
Half of the report is based on survey data which is tainted by a perception of payment as well as a societal morays.
The remaining components indicators are almost entirely based on factors as they relate to cost, which we both agree is horrid.
There are only two non cost-based metrics. The first has us as first and second is child mortality figures, which does not include huge factors that could easily make the US come out 1st in that metric.
@billburns, the whole being forced to pay for NHS because I might need its services in the future seems like a very perverse argument.
To form this into a principle: It is morally acceptable to initiate aggression against other people's property rights, & bodily integrity if they resist my theft, if in doing I may improve both of our quality of life and/or lifespan.
My, what an enlightened & caring individual the proponent of this moral theory is, its nothing like slavery at all.
@billburns2, Please understand this, by asking me to let go of "the cliches and paint-by-numbers ideologies," you are in effect asking me to forsake moral virtue and reason. I believe in the non-aggression principle & the golden rule. I am just applying these 2 principles consistently.
watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
As to your questions, even if my answer is a resounding and passionate NO to every single question, this still does not justify threats against such people's liberty, property, or life.
@billburns2, I believe in self defense, I'm not a pacifist. I just don't believe that PEACEFUL people ought to be subject to death threats for ANY reason. Is that really so radical?
Health care is a good, and it ought to be allocated by wealth. To say otherwise is imply slavery. And yes it is slavery to usurp another person's labor against their will in order to achieve your own ends.
Food, housing, and clothing are also essential goods. Do you support socializing these as well?
Ah, so you DO believe in using violence if it fits in with your own moral principles.
So what happens if I peacefully defraud you of all your money?
If you have $1000 in the bank and owe $1000 in legitimate debt, who does the $1000 belong to? Who will be justified in using violence to retain what belongs to them?
@billburns2, I'm more than happy to discuss the application of non-aggression principle in a given situation if you like.
But unless you think state imprisonment or murder of anyone unwilling to pay into its socialized health care program is not coercion; then I don't see the relevancy my definition of being peaceful has to this discussion.
Put down the gun and let people opt-out who are willing to suffer the consequences of their decision for their own life.
Allocating essential resources according to need is nothing like slavery.
Paying for what you receive is a fundamental part of the Social Contract that Libertarians love to refute whist at the same time benefitting from in almost all reas of their lives - pure hypocrisy.
As far as food, housing and clothing are necessary to preserve life, these things are ALREADY socialized.
Unlike the free market of the 1800s, very few citizens die of starvation or lack of shelter.
@billburns2, Are you denying the money to pay health care providers under state socialism is attained through threats of violence? If this isn't slavery, its at least serfdom.
The government crowds out competition through regulation and forces everyone to pay for a given good whether they'll use it or not. I find this immoral & you do too.
I'm bet if Aviva signed you up for life insurance & threatened to throw you in a cage if you didn't pay you would have a problem. What's the difference?
Using threat of violence to enforce a contract also applies to AnCap economic models - they argue that this is defending property rights, which I assume you are in favour of.
What you are really discussing here is whether the NHS or any other state run service that you can't opt out of constitutes a legitimate debt, am I right?
So once again, please drop the cliches and try to define and defend what your position really is here.
@billburns2, I'm discussing the morality of INITIATING violence against peaceful people. Not the use of violence in defense or restitution claims. Do you want a definition of what I consider being peaceful?
NHS isn't a contract! You didn't voluntarily enter into the system. It was imposed on you. Again, could Aviva enroll you in an nsurance plan without your consent & threaten to harm you if you didn't pay them? If not, why is it acceptable for the State to do this but not private citizens?
The state only uses violence in defence or restitution claims (Western democracy style states, anyway).
They are enforcing contract.
UK citizenship is voluntary.
As a child you will benefit from NHS healthcare yet your payments don't begin until you are a wage earning adult - plenty of time to decline the contract if you don't like it. You can also opt out at any time by leaving.
Will Aviva also give my children comprehensive health cover from birth to 18 with no obligation to pay?
@billburns2, "The state only uses violence in defence or restitution claims."
Do you deny that the State will use violence against anyone unwilling pay into NHS, roads, the military, ect.? How does restitution and defense apply here?
"Will Aviva also give my children comprehensive health coverage"
Let's say yes, Is it moral for them to impose its policy on you or anyone else without consent? If yes, then why can't all business imposes their products and services on you without your consent?
Firstly, do you concede that citizenship of the UK is voluntary?
Now let's say you went to a hotel that had a private bar, a swimming pool, a gym and tennis courts. Would you argue the bill on the basis that you didn't use those things or that nobody consulted you before building them?
If you don't value this things you are free to go to another hotel.
If you don't value the NHS or the roads or military you are free to leave the UK.
@billburns2 Sorry, someone has moan at their country and your answer is that they can leave if they don't like it? If people moaning bothers you then you are free to leave. I don't think anyone will disagree with you about the hotel, if you don't like it you don't pay. This is the whole point of the conversation
People are free to moan about their country. I do it all the time.
Where we differ is that I don't expect a long standing, efficient, philanthopic and hugely popular public service to be handed over to the private sector simply because it fits in with some warped ideology that I've subscribed to.
There are plenty of countries that don't have UHC systems. If it's so important to you then you are free to go and live in one.
@billburns2 It seems your argument has come down to 2 things
1. If people disagree with the status quo then they have a "warped ideology" - 2. If people don't like the status quo, the most obvious solution is for them to emigrate
Nobody is obliged to supply you with something just because you want it. If you don't like the status quo then you can do a number of things:
1. Put up with it.
2. Try to change it
3. Go somewhere that suits you better.
If you lived in an Islamic State and objected to Sharia Law, would you expect everyone else to abandon their religion because it didn't fit with your idea of freedom? Or would you simply leave?
@wood9670 What you say it absolutely correct. Lets take "National Insurance NI. The government acts like they are doing you a favour by providing a pension. I think most people would agree if you were given the choice between paying the government or paying your choice of company in the private sector, the private sector is the winner. Your are told your NI goes to your pension but it's plain lies, the money goes towards the day-to-day running of the country. It's legalised theft/deception
@independence4wales, yes, but unfortunately to many people are like billburn and have a fetish for authoritarianism. They need to control the lives of others, for the good of the collective you know?
@billburns2, we differ on what constitutes a valid contract. I do not believe imposing a good or service on someone without their consent is anyway a valid contract.
If people are willing to suffer the consequences for themselves of going without a given good or service and if their decision does not infringe on the rights of others, then they as free persons have the liberty to make that decision.
It's not imposed. The theory of taxation has been around longer than you, yet you still choose to live in such a system. By choosing to stay you comply with the contract.
This is not some far-fetched idea. All private enterprise is based on it.
@billburns2, Just because a theory or institution has been around for a long time it does not follow that the theory or institution is moral or NECESSARY. Examples of false & immoral systems would include: slavery, segregation, & sexism.
Private enterprise is based on mutualism and respect for property rights, not coercion.
Maybe it would help if you explained what inviolable rights, if any, you believe human beings have.
As to your "Love it, or Leave it" argument: watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ
Isn't segregation and sexism acceptable in Libertarian ethos under the banner of "free association"?
Slavery, of course, is a sin of capitalism. You can't lay that one at the door of the State.
The idea of "rights" is misleading. There is no moral obligation for anyone to subscribe to your notion of property rights (or any rights for that matter) - only a practical obligation. You're all the way back to relying on force again.
@billburns2, I wasn't laying anything at the door of statism, only demonstrating the fact that the age of an idea or institution does nothing to establish its morality or necessity.
And if you were a moral relativist it would have been nice to have said so, it would have saved me a lot of effort in trying to convince you based on principles.
I challenge you to provide one instance where the US state declared that a person who was born free would now be a slave.
The only people who made free men into slaves were capitalists.
The state's error was to protect the self-proclaimed property rights of the slave owners - until that pesky government interference of 1833. Go on, look it up.
@billburns2 It's not nitpicking. You made the claim that capitalism is the cause of slavery but I pointed out that slavery existed back when capitalism did not so your claim makes no sense.
I already brought up how slavery requires government intervention to prop up, ie: the fugitive slave act if you wish to stick with the US for examples.
Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade, ie: in the absence of force. Seriously, look it up
@billburns2 Okay, so you do acknowledge that slavery was supported and protected by the state up until abolition. And you also acknowledge that slavery existed long before capitalism did and thus capitalism can't be blamed for the creation and enforcement of slavery.
There you go. Just answered your own question nice and clear. Glad to see you're finally applying yourself.
@billburns2 Collective good, I am not sure what that is. Do you mean what is the best for me and you and your neighbour and your family and friends and your work mates? If so, why do you need a government to tell you what is the collective good? About private enterprise, I can't think of anything more accountable (except of course when private enterprise is employed by the government). Private enterprise is judged on each transaction not every 5 years.
er... you ARE free to have your pension contributions allocated to a private company. You have been since 1988. Maybe the news hasn't reached Wales yet :)
@billburns2 Sorry, are you telling me the piece of the National Insurance that goes to the government supposedly for my pension, I can tell the government "I don't want you to have it I want such-and-such company to have it instead"? If so, I have been missing out
Then you've been missing out. Since 1988 you have had the ability to "opt out" - meaning your NI pension contributions can go into a private fund. Thank Thatcher.
@wood9670 "To form this into a principle: It is morally acceptable ...snip.. improve both of our quality of life and/or lifespan."
It's a fair question, and in general you'll get contradictory answers depending on which side of the Atlantic you happen to be born. Generalising wildly, in Europe, the answer is "Yes". In the UK, the answer is "Sometimes". In the US, the answer is "No".
Which answer is correct also depends upon which side of the Atlantic you happen to be born.... ;-)
@mandolinic, I'll agree that opinions will vary depending on one's society but I do not adhere to the relativistic notion that human rights are subjective rather than objective truths.
@wood9670 With respect, this discussion shows that human rights are subjective, not objective. I believe that it's a basic human right to have health care, even though this means forcing tax payers to contribute more to pay for those who can't afford treatment. In the US, there are plenty who take the view that it's a human right not to pay taxes when the tax payer doesn't benefit (I hope I'm not misrepresenting this). Contradictory views, with no obvious way of deciding who's right.
@mandolinic, I think most people do believe in human rights. Few people would say torturing babies for fun is amoral.
With respect to my discussions with billburns2 he has never simply said: "No, I don't believe in property rights or free association." He has always simply denied that state action was coercive or that it was justified under the social contract.
I don't know if he actually believes this or if he just doesn't want to end the comfort of U.K.'s welfare state.
@wood9670 "He has always simply denied that state action was coercive"
I think this is another example of a cultural difference. Generalising wildly, in the UK, most people regard tax paying as a duty - something one must do as a citizen, but which is done (more or less) willingly because it pays for the benefits of the welfare state. The idea of being coerced into paying never really crosses the mind.
comparing UK to US healthcare is not the way to address the issue raised by Spinney. He says himself that healthcare is the US sucks. Basically what you seem to be saying is the best and most efficient way of running health care is for it to be run by government. I disagree. To quote your figure of 180billion spent, that is to treat 13million/year, which works out at 1/2 patients who use the NHS having heart surgery the other 1/2cancer treatment ie $13K/pers, im sure it can be done much cheaper
@billburns2 Your figures state 180Billion USD a year to run the NHS. It treats around 13million people a year Google "number of patients annually nhs" - That works at 13,846USD per person treated. It must be possible to do it cheaper
@independence4wales I was just looking at BUPA's figures for 2006, the average "customer" is charged 760.98USD. For 2006 3.9Billion GBP Revenue, 8.2Million Customers. bupa.co.uk/about/html/pr/150306_preliminary_announcement2005.html
You need to be careful with broad stats like this - what does a single "treatment" consist of? How is it defined?
Does a 12 month stay in a cancer ward count as a single treatment? Obviously that involves a lot more expenditure than a single treatment for a twisted ankle, say.
the NHS claims to "deal with" 1M patients every 36 hours - whatever that means.
If you want to prove that it can all be done cheaper you need to find real world, like-for-like comparisons.
@billburns2 I have stated why I think what I think by giving figures and sources, if you want to explain to me why I am wrong you are more than welcome to show me contradictory figures/statistics
@billburns2 Yeah okay, it was the 3rd result but its not there now. Try this, statistics.gov.uk/hub/health-social-care/health-care-system/health-care-patients/index.html, it says 70miilion(!) people treated in a year. Using your 180billion USD budget for the NHS, works out at 2571USD per person. Sounds a lot compared to Bupa's figures. Link given for the Bupa figures previously.
One of the problems here is that people with BUPA cover still use the NHS for minor ailments and also for the big stuff they're not covered for. Try getting BUPA cover for Leukemia or ANY pre-existing condition for that matter. You're not comparing like with like.
@billburns2 I don't say I have all the answers, or that any single organisation does. Really that is the whole point of giving everyone a chance to meet their own and other peoples want and needs without the government restricting your pay to implement its own single solution
Since I was here last week, I've done some research. With my circumstances and salary, I would take home $75 a week more if I lived in the US. But I'd also pay between $100-$250 per week in health insurance premiums, and at the lowest premium I'd face a high "deductible" (or "excess" in the UK) and high co-payments, assuming I could get cover with my health status. So it's a no brainer for me. I'm better off in the UK with the NHS. The only downside is the weather!
Interesting. Please cite the sources for your research.
...and then get ready for people calling you a statist socialist sheeple for choosing not to surrender something as fundamental as healthcare to an unregulated free market.
@billburns2 I used "The Salary Calculator" (google it) for a worked example based on my own salary in the UK and dollar equivalent in US (assuming 5% state income tax). Insurance cost ranges I got from healthinsurance dot about dot com. This gives average family cost as $6328, with a range between $5609 to $13,296 depending upon state. Of course, each individual's mileage may vary, and the Obama reforms may well change the figures (for better or worse) as they start to bite.
Comments about "forcing" people to join the NHS miss the point.
The UK is a democracy and for 60 years voters have had the chance to re-affirm or reject the NHS. If there was a huge groundswell against it then abolition would be on at least one party platform, yet every politician knows that challenging the NHS is the kiss of death at the polling booth.
The NHS is far from perfect, but it's part of the British "zeitgeist" and we're prepared to pay for it.
Ah, but you see Libertarians consider democracy to be akin to gang rape. Of course people have the choice to live somewhere that suits them better but Libertarians are generally unhappy with that option as they feel entitled to their comfy, first world lifestyle. No, the world must change to suit them. They enjoy all the the trappings of state, they just don't want to pay for any of it.
@mandolinic What you say is correct, but you have to remember the NHS is one of the largest organisations in the World "Only the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the Wal-Mart supermarket chain and the Indian Railways directly employ more people." nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx. What sort of propaganda do you think it, and all the vested interests can pump out in support of it. Read Heather Brookes Silent State to see what goes on, youtube.com/watch?v=OYW8WcGdN-o
@independence4wales Yeah, right. I've got so much spare time I can watch a 36 minute video. If you can tell me where in the video she passes comment on the NHS then I'll watch that part.
Long life universal healthcare.
katakisLives 1 day ago
Look up the percent of GDP that the US pays toward healthcare and compare it to countries that have universal healthcare. The percentage is exactly the same. The US does not have free market healthcare. Did you not know this fact, or did you just deliberately leave this fact out?
Of course the people who USE universal healthcare would rate it as good. You are deliberately misrepresenting a statistic. That statistic is only taken from the people who are getting something for nothing.
jerryamoore111 2 weeks ago
@jerryamoore111
"Look up the percent of GDP that the US pays toward healthcare and compare it to countries that have universal healthcare"
I did - the US pays around 40% MORE in %GDP than the most expensive European country, 50-60% more than the rest.
source: OECD, 2008
It seems that you're the one who's weak on facts.
Yes, the people who use it rate it as good. In the UK almost everyone uses it.
billburns2 2 weeks ago
10. Ok and what about those 7 % they dont exist or what? they cant choose something different ? Isnt that called oppresion of minority?
11. It does - as it uses pricecaps that means it is less profitable to do R&D as you wont be able to market it. If not why all the major Healtcare innovation in the world come from US?
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
billburns2 4 weeks ago
7.Then why they arent able to buy a full insurance dont rely on NHS and dont pay for NHS.
8.If you happen to buy iphones ipods and xboxes instead of medical insurance then well its your choice and you are taking a risk - if you happen to lose then tough love, there are private charities though.
9.Yea whatever so why dont force people to buy other things they might need ? Nothing justifies use of force against peaceful people
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
1. US doesnt have a free market healthcare.
2.Bogus UN study which as one of its main variables uses "Equality"
3.If humans have a right to health does that mean they somehow have the right to force other people to be their slaves and heal them ?Doesnt sound like a right to me.
4.It still is higher than the actual need.
5.That is just silly you are forced to pay for something but sure you can buy some more :)
6.Only small % of people will buy additional insurance so there is smaller demand.
MrJigssaw1989 1 month ago
Every freedom lost brings us one step closer to Socialism.Our President making it ok for the US military to detain US citizens indefinitely without legal representation for any reason they deem justifiable through martial law is a horrifying fact. If Americans lose all their freedoms to a police state,the rest of the free countries will have already lost theirs.Universal Heathcare is Socialism Step 1.
utubejunkie2010 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@utubejunkie2010
Every step closer to Socialism is a step in the right direction.
The rest of your post is standard Conservative "slippery slope" scaremongering.
billburns2 1 month ago
@billburns2 Don`t be afraid ; move to China where you can live free.
utubejunkie2010 1 month ago
@utubejunkie2010
I don't need to move. I'm quite happy where I am. If your country is such a dreadful place to live, I suggest you find somewhere that suits you better. Don't expect others to provide things for you just because you want them.
billburns2 1 month ago
@utubejunkie2010 funny that..in the UK we have a conservative government!
and we still have a NHS!
being looked after if something goes badly wrong is not losing your freedoms at all!
i suggest you really stop to THINK(yes i know it's a very hard concept to you but try)
and relise that having a heath care system that DOES look after YOU is a step forward!
as for your rant about how Obama is roundoing up american resident's please explain what the hell THAT HAS TO DO with a heath care system
grahamkeithtodd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The AMA controls the number of doctors so that they can all get paid more. It is the only organization that can give out medical licenses and the only organization that can give accreditation to medical schools."
Medical licenses are issued by the states, not the AMA nor does the AMA have anything to do with the accreditation of medical schools.
xexixk 2 months ago
okay last comment lol
governments are all pretty much completely in debt right now. What happens if a government replaces the private sector with themselves and then the checks start bouncing?
I know in Greece they were electing to do amputations instead of longterm insulin treatment for diabetics.
That's the kind of thing that can't happen in a free-market, or rather, if it did the person would at least be electing amputation themselves lol
darris321 3 months ago
@darris321
"I know in Greece they were electing to do amputations instead of longterm insulin treatment for diabetics."
who are "they"? You need to cite a source for this claim before building on it as it sounds like nonsense to me
billburns2 3 months ago
I have to be in the middle again lol
why not have private healthcare for everything except pre-existing conditions, emergencies, and people who are too poor?
darris321 3 months ago
I am of the belief that the reason United States healthcare is so high is that there is a monopoly on it here.
The AMA controls the number of doctors so that they can all get paid more. It is the only organization that can give out medical licenses and the only organization that can give accreditation to medical schools.
They are essentially price fixing.
darris321 3 months ago
While the NHS may be successful in Brittain I think it is debatable if such a program will work for a population of America's scale. The data you provide regarding the quality of care in America compared to other 1st world nations is not the best. The study seems to attribute low scores to hospitals not incorporating IT technology. Furthermore, the study makes use of physicians and patients perceptions and national mortality data.
navalverde12 4 months ago
@navalverde12 We all know there are obesity,diabetes, and heart disease problems in America due to poor diet and sedentary lifestyles; is that our healthcare system's fault? This study would seem to suggest so, but I disagree. While the NHS can use purchasing power to drive costs of equipment and supplies down, from my experience American government entities tend not to do so and will even spend exorbitant prices for seemingly mundane items. This is a rampant problem in our military.
navalverde12 4 months ago
@navalverde12 I don't see how UHC establishing a state-company relationship analogous to the military industrial complex will make anything cheaper.
navalverde12 4 months ago
@navalverde12
I'd be the first to agree that governement departments sometimes make poor decisions on spending - as do some large corporations. The problem is how well or poorly these departments are managed, it's not an indictment of the whole system.
If you have alternative figures then please share them
billburns2 4 months ago
@billburns2
I agree, however I am willing to say that I have no faith in these departments being managed properly by the American government.
urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf -
Argues that UHC would give an opportunity to reform and improve on quality of healthcare, but also says there is insufficient data to properly gauge "quality" from a more technical aspect.
navalverde12 4 months ago
I think one thing worthy of mention maybe that one reason that many private doctors may work a day a week in the NHS is one of, if not the biggest private health care organisation in the UK is a not-for-profit organisation called BUPA. This itself is vastly different to the operations of the for-profit HMOs and Hospitals of the US that value profit over lives. That said, public competition in health care pushes private sector health care to have to compete rather then profit monger.
DoomsdayR3sistance 6 months ago
@DoomsdayR3sistance
And the most important observation is that IT WORKS - and has done for over 60 years. Yet we still hear the same old crap from the same old Republicans that it can't. The success of every UHC system in every European country is apparently a myth.
billburns2 6 months ago
@billburns2 that is true, of course HMOs on the other hand don't work, they leech. Now it wasn't the GOP that introduced that, was it? Oh, it was. I am no fan of the Republican party, then again the Conservatives here in the UK would be just as bad if they were allowed to get away with it, what they aren't.
DoomsdayR3sistance 6 months ago
The society determines the primary measure. If you have 100% free trade, then yes, it's a good primary indicator, not the sole one.
If that is the basis, then those with lower value are less worthy, yes.
Are there low value groups, yep. Catatonics would be at the bottom yes.
The catatonic with a huge inheritance has, according to the giver, produced something of value to him. I cannot deny him his value system.
Everyone makes the call in my system. In yours, officials do it.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
LMFAO
SO other than personal wealth, how will society determine the primary measure?
How will "everyone make the call" - details please.
I always start to chuckle when a utopian "freedom" turns out to be bare-faced fascism. The veneration of the rich and powerful and the dismissal of the weak and powerless is the morality of a thug.
Are you really surprised that nobody except hardcore Libertarians buy into these ideals?
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Considering that people give more money to people that do the things they prioritize, the one that has the most money has, according to those that gave him their money, been prioritized. The question is what they did that was prioritized to receive the money. Some do it by birth, some do it by sex appeal, some do it by performing services, some do it by being poor and in need, each of us decides how best to allocate those funds. aka everyone makes the call.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
...which is a long winded way of saying that personal wealth is the only measure of merit
You are advocating Social Darwinism which is a primary tenet of fascism.
If I need a kid to wash my car then I don't care ifhe can spell. More importantly, it doesn't diminish him as a person, which your justification for why he should have less right to life - fascism.
You asked if money was a representation of work - it isn't. Ever been an intern? Ever heard of inheritance?
billburns2 8 months ago
There are certainly other methods of determining merits, as I stated previously. Here is a potential merit evaluations that I _already said_. "if the patients in question were soldiers on the battlefield, the one that was the most skilled at soldiering would receive preference."
Notice, no money involved? In this last post, I didn't state that money was the only method, I explained the method of money, they are two separate statements.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2 Associating Social Darwinism with Fascism is equivalent to saying, "You're against murder, you must ipso facto be endorsing Christianity." A fallacy, you know better.
In some cases, the intern is bartering, the existence of money does not preclude it. In other cases, the intern pays a school money for the work they do in seeking and obtaining the internship.
Someone who works to gain money to provide for his children is an example of how money isn't work?
Care to try again?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
So you concede that money is NOT a representation of work - the unpaid intern works, correct?
Amassing money through inheritance also isn't a measure of work is it? It's simply benefitting through someone else's work - yet by your life priority ranking system, the idle rich kid has more "merit" than a the hardworking intern.
It's funny seeing Libbys tie themseves in knots over this.
Any more dead horses you want to flog?
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
The question was whether or not money is a representation of work, which you have yet to disprove. Just as someone can give money to an unworthy recipient, someone can work for free for someone you deem unworthy. Let's take roadies & superstar possies for example; there are far more work hours spent to placate these people than there is say to provide free work to help build low cost housing for example habitat for humanity.
Any more irrelevant correlations you want to propose?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Do you consider yourself a Social Darwinist?
Are some people simply less worthy of life than others because they don't measure up on your scale of merit?
Last post on this topic please
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 No
Last post on this topic? Take your toys and go home when someone calls you out on your fallacies?
In the case of a triage scenario, yes, some people are simply less worthy of life than others and not because of my scale of merit, because of the scale of merit for the scenario. The best military "cog" gets to live over the lesser one. The more wealth a country has, the less this comes up. Why is it that you prefer a system that creates more scenarios where healthcare is rationed?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
You have failed to "call" me on anything.
You seem determined to avoid the salient points of a discussion, you shift goalposts, you ignore facts that you don't like, invent others to suit your cause and you relentlessly try to prop up your distasteful ideology that certain people are less worthy of life than others.
You are a pain in the arse Libertarian and you are now blocked
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
Do you know what the definition of Fascism is? Letting each person decide what they wish to give their own wealth to is the opposite.
I always chuckle when someone makes smarmy statements intended to berate thinking they're so superior and then rails when others do it to them, so much so that they go out of their way to make a video about it.
Are you really surprised that nobody except hardcore athiests buy into your ideals?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
I'll comment on the other video I suppose.
"It isn't. It's OUR MONEY. Geddit?"
No, I don't get it. How is it our money when WE didn't earn it. Nobody is paid as a agent of a collective, nobody has signed a contract stating they are working as a shareholder of a money trust, how could it be OURs when HE earned it?
This is an assertion I have heard you make, yet there is no logic to it and you simply keep repeating it thinking that it makes it true.
Nice try though.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
You seem to be confused.
You are itching to prove to me that people are less price-sensitive whet they aren't spending their own money.
Pointless exercise I'm afraid - The NHS costs $180bn per year, every working adult pays for it every month so it isn't somebody else's money it's OUR money, so your attempt fails.
Geddit now???
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Yes, I am trying to prove that. Paying a monthy stipend is distanced from the purchase, and it isn't buying anything concrete, it's an abstraction, therefore less attended to. How is it you're not getting this?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
I'm not getting it because it's a load of old bollocks.
By this rationale all other purchases paid for by monthly stipend are also "less attended to" -
gas, water, electricity. telephone, cable, broadband, pensions, mortgages, payments on a car, a TV, and.....PAYMENTS FOR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE
way to sink your own argument.
I think we're done here.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 I would agree with you, they are less attended to. It's partly why people spend more money with credit cards and debit cards than with cash. I don't think we're done here, I believe we are trying to clarify a point and weed out misinterpretation. It seems to me it is a worthwhile endeavor. Have you not found my discussion honest and without "name calling" and so many other complaints you have had about the opposing view?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
I'd like to hear your opinions on these two questions:
If a rich person and a poor person need urgent treatment for identical ailments, should one be prioritised above the other?
Should the preservation of life through the treatment of curable illness be dependent on how much money you have?
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
Absolutely yes, the one that has done more that the society has deemed worthy of bestowing their units of work (cash) upon has proven his merit as superior. I would prefer, however, that both parties be able to achieve the positive result.
This is also assuming equivalent social merit and other potential values. e.g. if the patients in question were soldiers on the battlefield, the one that was the most skilled at soldiering would receive preference.
How would you prioritize them?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
So you consider personal wealth to be the primary measure of a person's value to society - yes or no?
and that those with lower value are less worthy of life and health - yes or no?
Any other low value groups? The disabled or mentally ill maybe?
A catatonic can do no work at all so they are presumably at the very bottom of the list, right?
What if it's a catatonic with a huge inheritance?
How will you measure "social merit and potential values"? Who makes that call?
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 I have some questions for you:
Would you agree that:
some people have more merit than others?
money is a representation of work?
two workers, doing the same job, the one that did a better job would command higher wages?
between these two workers the higher wage earner has more merit?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
No - there is no such thing as intrinsic merit, ranking humans in this way is simply a subjective valuation.
No - absolutely not. A coal miner does more work than a supermodel but is paid a lot less.
No - IT workers in Bangalore do a better job than their US counterparts and are paid a lot less. That's why they are employed.
No - More subjective valuation.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
So you don't make valuations of people? Given a spelling contest with one kid @5 right and the other @25 right, does the latter have more merit as a speller?
The coal miner and the model receive money in compensation for performing work do they not?
Don't side step the question because you disagree with the value of their work.
Again, you're side stepping the question. Assuming all other considerations are identical, would a worker that did a better job command higher wages?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
You're citing a source that does exactly what you criticize Libertarians for doing in one of your videos. You say in "More Libertarian Mistakes" "I take issue with people... that misrepresent data, deliberately put the wrong spin on a historical claim."
One would assume that the term historical is not really needed, and in fact you take issue with data misrepresentation.
Representing a data value without including highly relevant factors as a proof of inferiority is data misrepresentation.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
I am on topic. You said, "Which questions are you referring to? I don't see any." to which I replied "Questions:..." and listed them.
Did you not read my posts? I don't have to provide evidence for the claim. It would be a highly influencing factor. The fact that this was omitted makes the report suspect. What about drug use?
I believe the statistics for the stillbirth #s is in "The world factbook" by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. I can't find an online version of it though.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
"I don't have to provide evidence for the claim" - yes you do, otherwise it's just your opinion.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Fine. Let's assume that infant deaths as a result of drug use have no statistical significance. Sure, let's assume that has nothing at all to do with it. That still birth thing, bah, who cares, it's probably nothing.
We agree on cost being an issue, but there are solutions to that which aren't socialized.
So, what's remaining from your article is opinion of recipients who either pays for their own care (negative) or get it free (positive). Wow, that's a great resource, amazing.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Er.. this post suggests that you haven't really read the report at all but have simply skimmed it looking for things to challenge. Wow, great open mind. Amazing.
Cost is really only a part of it. The primary win for UHC is that it allocates resources based on a patients need rather than on wealth. A poor man's heart op gets preference over a rich man's bunions. Leave healthcare to the free market and the reverse is true.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 I did read the report and apparently you haven't.
Did you read this: "Data are drawn from the Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey...the 2005 International Health Policy Survey of Sicker Adults... and the Commonwealth Fund 2006 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care Physicians."?
The article several times uses metrics that include cost:
Figure 5: "Cost-Related Access Problems"
Figure 6: "Total expenditures on health as a percent of GDP" and so on.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
and apparently you aren't reading my posts before commenting on them:
Cost is really only a PART of it. The weight given to cost in the report counters the claims by supporters of insurance model healthcare that such a system is somehow more cost efficient. It isn't.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 The claim is not that an insurance model healthcare system is less cost effective, it doesn't prove any such thing. The claim is that a regulation ridden, gov't abused, gov't sponsored monopolistic medical system is less cost effective and I agree. You make the conclusion that this is a glowing endorsement of socialized medicine when you're comparing it to a cancer ridden facade of free market competition. I, however, make the conclusion that both are wrong vs the free market.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
ah - a truly free, free market healthsystem system which doesn't exist anywhere and so can never be tested.
Excuse me if I don't join in that debate
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Of course you won't join that debate, because you know you can't win.
There IS evidence that the private sector free market has lowered costs and improved quality throughout the medical industries where it's been tried.
Research vision correction, cosmetic surgery, veterinary care and provide me any example of a socialized system providing better cost for equivalent service.
Your attack on the US system as it is now is a straw man, you can easily show it costs too much. Big deal.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2
Where is your evidence of "Leave healthcare to the free market and the reverse is true."
Now you're conjecturing and making opinion.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
LOL. This is the very essence of Libertarian economics and now you're querying it??
Would you agree that a free market will allocate resources according to demand and that a rich person has more leverage on what the market supplies than a person with no money?
If I'm wrong on this then please enlighten me...
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
The essence of Libertarian economics is that the expenditures of capital will be assigned best by the individual because they have better information to make the determination on the ground and they're spending their own money so they care more about how effectively it is spent.
So, let's consider the heart condition poor man and the bunion rich man. The bunion rich man on his own easily out "demands" the poor man.
You, however, are not considering the other potential parties.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
A doctor, faced with the save a life or fix a bunion task has not only financial concerns. His choice to operate on the poor man cannot be assumed to be financially in his best interest. Public outrage as well as being able to do both jobs, just in a different order, etc. will certainly be a factor.
A community, with a well loved, but poor man can come together to finance the care, etc.
Asking people to contribute, to care voluntarily is the Libertarian way instead of force.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
So bunion man is treated and heart op man must cross his fingers and hope?
And because this is how the free market works then that, by definition, must be the optimum outcome?
And you wonder why every developed country on the face of the earth (with the exception of the US) doesn't buy into this when it comes to the health and lives of its citizens??
I suggest you watch my video Why Libertarianism Is Wrong
billburns2 8 months ago
You're using the WHO right? The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. Our homicide rate is 10x higher than in the U.K., 8x higher than in France, and 5x greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
No, read the Commonwealth Fund report linked to in the sidebar. There is much more to it than simply life expectancy.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
So, you're citing a report that bases their "evidence" in significant part on a survey?
Let me ask you, are there some societies that have a tendency to be more obedient, less prone to complaints, etc? Are they on the "more government" side or the "more self reliant" side?
How likely would someone complain about something if they pay for it, vs if it's paid for them by someone else?
The article's empirical data shows a different story than "the US has bad healthcare"
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2 Here are the Key Findings:
US best in provision of and receipt of preventative care.
US low on chronic care (i.e. high cost care)
US low on access, Germany best access, but look at how they get there: "Germany scores well on patients' perceptions of access" Seriously, PERCEPTIONS of access? You count this as valid data?
US last in efficiency: ("...expenditures... costs")
Equity: a 100% income based metric.
Healthy Lives: Again based on life span, which is bunk, (infant mortality)
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2 The US attempts to give birth to babies that are considered dead in womb for most other countries, and we do it a lot. Without using the skewing infant mortality scores on Healthy Lives statistic, we see the US moves up to ahead of the UK. If you conversely use the still birth scores for all countries as a part of the statistic instead of just infant mortality, the US would easily move ahead of others as well.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Firstly you need to cite some verifiable statistics before simply modifying data that you don't like.
Then you need to explain why stillbirth is somehow more acceptable than infant death.
Then you might want to address the other 95% of the report.
This is starting to sound like an American who hates finding out that USA is not Number 1.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2: I wouldn't say we're #1 in a lot of areas, but HC vs these countries, we're certainly not last. Our costs are way higher than they need to be, and that might have something to do with the points that shanedk addresses in his save HC w/o spending a dime video. (btw, great rant on him, loved it)
Other than costs, I addressed them. 50% of it is opinion from recipients which is a bad metric; it has many other factors.
That's my point, they don't count stillbirth or death in utero.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Well you've still to come up with something that qualifies this claim.
I'll be interested in reading about the "huge holes" in the rest of the report as well ;)
The bottom line is that the nature of US healthcare is fundamentally wrong, both on a moral level and a practical level.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
I suppose for us to really achieve a quality debate, we would be better served to have a video conference, perhaps even record it. I, unfortunately, don't have a webcam. Would you recommend an inexpensive model.
Truly, I believe that you have a keen intellect, although misguided. I believe, given proper data and intellectual discourse that I can help you see the error of your ways. Those that you have debated so far have been sorely lacking, despite their superior conclusions.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2 Which claim are you referring to?
I would still like to see you respond to my questions from past posts rather than continue to sidestep and just ask your own.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Your claim "The US attempts to give birth to babies that are considered dead in womb for most other countries, and we do it a lot" - needs quantification if you want to start re-jigging the data.
I'd also query how much weight this has within the overall issue of healthcare in the countries compared in the report, but whatever.
Which questions are you referring to? I don't see any.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 Questions:
Are there some societies that have a tendency to be more obedient, less prone to complaints, etc?
Are they on the "more government" side or the "more self reliant" side?
How likely would someone complain about something if they pay for it, vs if it's paid for them by someone else?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
assumed generalizations about what a society would or wouldn't do isn't the basis for any form of debate.
The NHS is paid for by all UK citizens - we all have a stake in it. The assumption that we would have low standards of evaluation or something that costs a lot and is so fundamental to our lives needs some qualification if you want to start querying the stats - nice try though.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 The assumption that you would have LOWER standards of evaluation is a given truth of human nature.
Shall I present to you the thousands of papers discussing this concept? Humans pay more attention to things that are proximal. A person that pulls money out of their own pocket to pay a deductible, is by definition more proximal to the expenditure, therefore is more interested in it and critical.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
We ARE paying out of our own pocket. I really can't stress that enough. It was in the video (you did watch the video, right?)
If you have even one paper that disproves this paper's methodology of collating people's opinions for a health service that they most definitely do pay for then I'd like to see it.
If this is just some lame appeal to authority then I'm not really interested.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
My criticism was of the article in question, not the video. 1 out of 5 non-US systems in the article are as you have set forth in the video.
What do you mean by appeal to authority?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
From what I've read it's 5/5, but my personal experience is only with the German and UK health systems.
In this particular case an appeal to authority is an attempt to query, ignore (or in your case actually alter) data that you don't like - not by challenging specific methodology. but using the nebulous assertation that "thousands of papers" have already dealt with this, therefore absolving you from actually going into specifics.
Again, nice try though.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 So, is it your assertion that proximity is not a factor in human being's involvement with evaluation? That, for example, someone will be as frugal with other people's money as their own or with a blank check from the government versus their own money?
How many articles do you want me to provide you with that conclude this?
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Again - this idea of "other people's money".
It isn't. It's OUR MONEY. Geddit?
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2 I don't have a quantified #, I don't need one, it is an omission and potentially a significant one. Would you agree that America has a significantly higher rate of drug addiction issues? If so, that would influence infant mortality rates and it has nothing to do with the quality of the health care provided.
How much does it have to do with the report? 100% of the rest of the report indicates that America is #1 with the exception of cost based metrics. For those see shanedk's video.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
If you want to start amending data then you DO need quantification That's kind of a rule.
"a significant one" - how do you know if it's significant without any numbers???
You really are clutching at straws now.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
Does this statement: "You really are clutching at straws now." add anything to the debate? Were you trying to be rude so as to make me stop the discussion? Seriously. Make your point without the personal attacks please.
I do recall you making some sort of complaint about Libertarians doing things like that. I would expect you to be above it.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@billburns2:
Just to clarify:
Half of the report is based on survey data which is tainted by a perception of payment as well as a societal morays.
The remaining components indicators are almost entirely based on factors as they relate to cost, which we both agree is horrid.
There are only two non cost-based metrics. The first has us as first and second is child mortality figures, which does not include huge factors that could easily make the US come out 1st in that metric.
Fix costs & we're #1.
NativeNewMexican 8 months ago
@NativeNewMexican
Please stick to topic.
What questions are you referring to?
Show me some hard evidence for the stillbirth claim.
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns2
billburns2 8 months ago
@billburns, the whole being forced to pay for NHS because I might need its services in the future seems like a very perverse argument.
To form this into a principle: It is morally acceptable to initiate aggression against other people's property rights, & bodily integrity if they resist my theft, if in doing I may improve both of our quality of life and/or lifespan.
My, what an enlightened & caring individual the proponent of this moral theory is, its nothing like slavery at all.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Try to let go of the cliches and paint-by-numbers ideologies.
Is it morally acceptable to allocate resources for something as fundamental as healthcare purely according to a patient's income?
Is it morally acceptable for a rich person's nose op to take priority over a poor persons heart op simply because the free market has made it so?
Is it morally acceptable to benefit from a service but refuse to pay for it?
these are simple questions. Please answer them honestly
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, Please understand this, by asking me to let go of "the cliches and paint-by-numbers ideologies," you are in effect asking me to forsake moral virtue and reason. I believe in the non-aggression principle & the golden rule. I am just applying these 2 principles consistently.
watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs
As to your questions, even if my answer is a resounding and passionate NO to every single question, this still does not justify threats against such people's liberty, property, or life.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
So how will you ultimately enforce your own moral virtue and reason, if not with threats against people's liberty, property or life?
and please feel free to answer my questions on whether healthcare resources should be allocated by need or by wealth...
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, I believe in self defense, I'm not a pacifist. I just don't believe that PEACEFUL people ought to be subject to death threats for ANY reason. Is that really so radical?
Health care is a good, and it ought to be allocated by wealth. To say otherwise is imply slavery. And yes it is slavery to usurp another person's labor against their will in order to achieve your own ends.
Food, housing, and clothing are also essential goods. Do you support socializing these as well?
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Ah, so you DO believe in using violence if it fits in with your own moral principles.
So what happens if I peacefully defraud you of all your money?
If you have $1000 in the bank and owe $1000 in legitimate debt, who does the $1000 belong to? Who will be justified in using violence to retain what belongs to them?
This is what I mean about clinging to cliches.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, I'm more than happy to discuss the application of non-aggression principle in a given situation if you like.
But unless you think state imprisonment or murder of anyone unwilling to pay into its socialized health care program is not coercion; then I don't see the relevancy my definition of being peaceful has to this discussion.
Put down the gun and let people opt-out who are willing to suffer the consequences of their decision for their own life.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Allocating essential resources according to need is nothing like slavery.
Paying for what you receive is a fundamental part of the Social Contract that Libertarians love to refute whist at the same time benefitting from in almost all reas of their lives - pure hypocrisy.
As far as food, housing and clothing are necessary to preserve life, these things are ALREADY socialized.
Unlike the free market of the 1800s, very few citizens die of starvation or lack of shelter.
We have evolved.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, Are you denying the money to pay health care providers under state socialism is attained through threats of violence? If this isn't slavery, its at least serfdom.
The government crowds out competition through regulation and forces everyone to pay for a given good whether they'll use it or not. I find this immoral & you do too.
I'm bet if Aviva signed you up for life insurance & threatened to throw you in a cage if you didn't pay you would have a problem. What's the difference?
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Using threat of violence to enforce a contract also applies to AnCap economic models - they argue that this is defending property rights, which I assume you are in favour of.
What you are really discussing here is whether the NHS or any other state run service that you can't opt out of constitutes a legitimate debt, am I right?
So once again, please drop the cliches and try to define and defend what your position really is here.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, I'm discussing the morality of INITIATING violence against peaceful people. Not the use of violence in defense or restitution claims. Do you want a definition of what I consider being peaceful?
NHS isn't a contract! You didn't voluntarily enter into the system. It was imposed on you. Again, could Aviva enroll you in an nsurance plan without your consent & threaten to harm you if you didn't pay them? If not, why is it acceptable for the State to do this but not private citizens?
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
The state only uses violence in defence or restitution claims (Western democracy style states, anyway).
They are enforcing contract.
UK citizenship is voluntary.
As a child you will benefit from NHS healthcare yet your payments don't begin until you are a wage earning adult - plenty of time to decline the contract if you don't like it. You can also opt out at any time by leaving.
Will Aviva also give my children comprehensive health cover from birth to 18 with no obligation to pay?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, "The state only uses violence in defence or restitution claims."
Do you deny that the State will use violence against anyone unwilling pay into NHS, roads, the military, ect.? How does restitution and defense apply here?
"Will Aviva also give my children comprehensive health coverage"
Let's say yes, Is it moral for them to impose its policy on you or anyone else without consent? If yes, then why can't all business imposes their products and services on you without your consent?
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Firstly, do you concede that citizenship of the UK is voluntary?
Now let's say you went to a hotel that had a private bar, a swimming pool, a gym and tennis courts. Would you argue the bill on the basis that you didn't use those things or that nobody consulted you before building them?
If you don't value this things you are free to go to another hotel.
If you don't value the NHS or the roads or military you are free to leave the UK.
That's your choice - freedom.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Sorry, someone has moan at their country and your answer is that they can leave if they don't like it? If people moaning bothers you then you are free to leave. I don't think anyone will disagree with you about the hotel, if you don't like it you don't pay. This is the whole point of the conversation
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
People are free to moan about their country. I do it all the time.
Where we differ is that I don't expect a long standing, efficient, philanthopic and hugely popular public service to be handed over to the private sector simply because it fits in with some warped ideology that I've subscribed to.
There are plenty of countries that don't have UHC systems. If it's so important to you then you are free to go and live in one.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 It seems your argument has come down to 2 things
1. If people disagree with the status quo then they have a "warped ideology" - 2. If people don't like the status quo, the most obvious solution is for them to emigrate
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
Nobody is obliged to supply you with something just because you want it. If you don't like the status quo then you can do a number of things:
1. Put up with it.
2. Try to change it
3. Go somewhere that suits you better.
If you lived in an Islamic State and objected to Sharia Law, would you expect everyone else to abandon their religion because it didn't fit with your idea of freedom? Or would you simply leave?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Okay cool, your prepared to say someone can put up with it, change it or leave. I agree 100%.
independence4wales 1 year ago
@wood9670
If I agree to make use of Aviva health insurance then I have contracted with them and I HAVE given my consent.
People have to pay for stuff - that's how the world works I'm afraid.
billburns2 1 year ago
@wood9670 What you say it absolutely correct. Lets take "National Insurance NI. The government acts like they are doing you a favour by providing a pension. I think most people would agree if you were given the choice between paying the government or paying your choice of company in the private sector, the private sector is the winner. Your are told your NI goes to your pension but it's plain lies, the money goes towards the day-to-day running of the country. It's legalised theft/deception
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales, yes, but unfortunately to many people are like billburn and have a fetish for authoritarianism. They need to control the lives of others, for the good of the collective you know?
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
I'd much rather do things for the good of the collective than the good of unaccountable private enterprise.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, I would have no problem with this statement if I didn't know that under your philosophy this entailed human rights violations.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
If you consider enforcing a contract to be a violation of human rights then you'll have a tough time in Libertopia.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, we differ on what constitutes a valid contract. I do not believe imposing a good or service on someone without their consent is anyway a valid contract.
If people are willing to suffer the consequences for themselves of going without a given good or service and if their decision does not infringe on the rights of others, then they as free persons have the liberty to make that decision.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
It's not imposed. The theory of taxation has been around longer than you, yet you still choose to live in such a system. By choosing to stay you comply with the contract.
This is not some far-fetched idea. All private enterprise is based on it.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, Just because a theory or institution has been around for a long time it does not follow that the theory or institution is moral or NECESSARY. Examples of false & immoral systems would include: slavery, segregation, & sexism.
Private enterprise is based on mutualism and respect for property rights, not coercion.
Maybe it would help if you explained what inviolable rights, if any, you believe human beings have.
As to your "Love it, or Leave it" argument: watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670
Isn't segregation and sexism acceptable in Libertarian ethos under the banner of "free association"?
Slavery, of course, is a sin of capitalism. You can't lay that one at the door of the State.
The idea of "rights" is misleading. There is no moral obligation for anyone to subscribe to your notion of property rights (or any rights for that matter) - only a practical obligation. You're all the way back to relying on force again.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2, I wasn't laying anything at the door of statism, only demonstrating the fact that the age of an idea or institution does nothing to establish its morality or necessity.
And if you were a moral relativist it would have been nice to have said so, it would have saved me a lot of effort in trying to convince you based on principles.
wood9670 1 year ago
@billburns2 Just passing by and couldn't let this one slide.
Slavery is a sin of capitalism? Care to explain then why slavery predates capitalism by centuries then?
Can't lay it on the door of the state? Watch me. Go look up "the fugitive slave act". Seriously, do it. I dare you.
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye
Yawn. Done and debunked ad-nauseam.
I challenge you to provide one instance where the US state declared that a person who was born free would now be a slave.
The only people who made free men into slaves were capitalists.
The state's error was to protect the self-proclaimed property rights of the slave owners - until that pesky government interference of 1833. Go on, look it up.
billburns2 11 months ago
@billburns2 Ahem!
"Care to explain why slavery predates capitalism by centuries then?"
*tap tap tap*
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye
Nit picking, but OK. I'll amend that to:
On the issue of slavery in the United States, the only people who made free men into slaves were capitalists. Happy?
When do you propose to lay the blame on the door of the state as promised?
billburns2 11 months ago
@billburns2 It's not nitpicking. You made the claim that capitalism is the cause of slavery but I pointed out that slavery existed back when capitalism did not so your claim makes no sense.
I already brought up how slavery requires government intervention to prop up, ie: the fugitive slave act if you wish to stick with the US for examples.
Capitalism is nothing more than voluntary trade, ie: in the absence of force. Seriously, look it up
To oppose it is to support "might makes right"
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye
and I've explained to you that the state's role is (was) to protect the self-professed property rights of the slave owner.
When are you going to lay the blame of SLAVERY on the door of the state - not property rights, but the enslavement of human beings?
Or was that it???
billburns2 11 months ago
@billburns2 Okay, so you do acknowledge that slavery was supported and protected by the state up until abolition. And you also acknowledge that slavery existed long before capitalism did and thus capitalism can't be blamed for the creation and enforcement of slavery.
There you go. Just answered your own question nice and clear. Glad to see you're finally applying yourself.
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@lordthawkeye
Sigh. That's all you have?
So...you can't answer a straight question and you haven't delivered on your promise (why am I not surprised??)
Come back once you have something tangible to debate
billburns2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billburns2 "Okay, so you do acknowledge that slavery was supported and protected by the state up until abolition."
*tap tap tap*
lordthawkeye 11 months ago
@billburns2 Collective good, I am not sure what that is. Do you mean what is the best for me and you and your neighbour and your family and friends and your work mates? If so, why do you need a government to tell you what is the collective good? About private enterprise, I can't think of anything more accountable (except of course when private enterprise is employed by the government). Private enterprise is judged on each transaction not every 5 years.
independence4wales 1 year ago
@wood9670 I read you
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
er... you ARE free to have your pension contributions allocated to a private company. You have been since 1988. Maybe the news hasn't reached Wales yet :)
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Sorry, are you telling me the piece of the National Insurance that goes to the government supposedly for my pension, I can tell the government "I don't want you to have it I want such-and-such company to have it instead"? If so, I have been missing out
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
Then you've been missing out. Since 1988 you have had the ability to "opt out" - meaning your NI pension contributions can go into a private fund. Thank Thatcher.
billburns2 1 year ago
@wood9670 "To form this into a principle: It is morally acceptable ...snip.. improve both of our quality of life and/or lifespan."
It's a fair question, and in general you'll get contradictory answers depending on which side of the Atlantic you happen to be born. Generalising wildly, in Europe, the answer is "Yes". In the UK, the answer is "Sometimes". In the US, the answer is "No".
Which answer is correct also depends upon which side of the Atlantic you happen to be born.... ;-)
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic, I'll agree that opinions will vary depending on one's society but I do not adhere to the relativistic notion that human rights are subjective rather than objective truths.
wood9670 1 year ago
@wood9670 With respect, this discussion shows that human rights are subjective, not objective. I believe that it's a basic human right to have health care, even though this means forcing tax payers to contribute more to pay for those who can't afford treatment. In the US, there are plenty who take the view that it's a human right not to pay taxes when the tax payer doesn't benefit (I hope I'm not misrepresenting this). Contradictory views, with no obvious way of deciding who's right.
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic, I think most people do believe in human rights. Few people would say torturing babies for fun is amoral.
With respect to my discussions with billburns2 he has never simply said: "No, I don't believe in property rights or free association." He has always simply denied that state action was coercive or that it was justified under the social contract.
I don't know if he actually believes this or if he just doesn't want to end the comfort of U.K.'s welfare state.
wood9670 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wood9670 "He has always simply denied that state action was coercive"
I think this is another example of a cultural difference. Generalising wildly, in the UK, most people regard tax paying as a duty - something one must do as a citizen, but which is done (more or less) willingly because it pays for the benefits of the welfare state. The idea of being coerced into paying never really crosses the mind.
mandolinic 1 year ago
comparing UK to US healthcare is not the way to address the issue raised by Spinney. He says himself that healthcare is the US sucks. Basically what you seem to be saying is the best and most efficient way of running health care is for it to be run by government. I disagree. To quote your figure of 180billion spent, that is to treat 13million/year, which works out at 1/2 patients who use the NHS having heart surgery the other 1/2cancer treatment ie $13K/pers, im sure it can be done much cheaper
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
I don't understand your figures here.
You need to explain them fully before trying to convince us that it can be "done much cheaper"
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Your figures state 180Billion USD a year to run the NHS. It treats around 13million people a year Google "number of patients annually nhs" - That works at 13,846USD per person treated. It must be possible to do it cheaper
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales I was just looking at BUPA's figures for 2006, the average "customer" is charged 760.98USD. For 2006 3.9Billion GBP Revenue, 8.2Million Customers. bupa.co.uk/about/html/pr/150306_preliminary_announcement2005.html
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
You need to be careful with broad stats like this - what does a single "treatment" consist of? How is it defined?
Does a 12 month stay in a cancer ward count as a single treatment? Obviously that involves a lot more expenditure than a single treatment for a twisted ankle, say.
the NHS claims to "deal with" 1M patients every 36 hours - whatever that means.
If you want to prove that it can all be done cheaper you need to find real world, like-for-like comparisons.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I have stated why I think what I think by giving figures and sources, if you want to explain to me why I am wrong you are more than welcome to show me contradictory figures/statistics
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
You still haven't clarified your numbers. Try citing a verifiable source instead of just saying "go Google it"
Would you accept my argument if I simply said - "The NHS is great. It's a fact. Go Google it".?
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 Yeah okay, it was the 3rd result but its not there now. Try this, statistics.gov.uk/hub/health-social-care/health-care-system/health-care-patients/index.html, it says 70miilion(!) people treated in a year. Using your 180billion USD budget for the NHS, works out at 2571USD per person. Sounds a lot compared to Bupa's figures. Link given for the Bupa figures previously.
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales
One of the problems here is that people with BUPA cover still use the NHS for minor ailments and also for the big stuff they're not covered for. Try getting BUPA cover for Leukemia or ANY pre-existing condition for that matter. You're not comparing like with like.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I don't say I have all the answers, or that any single organisation does. Really that is the whole point of giving everyone a chance to meet their own and other peoples want and needs without the government restricting your pay to implement its own single solution
independence4wales 1 year ago
Since I was here last week, I've done some research. With my circumstances and salary, I would take home $75 a week more if I lived in the US. But I'd also pay between $100-$250 per week in health insurance premiums, and at the lowest premium I'd face a high "deductible" (or "excess" in the UK) and high co-payments, assuming I could get cover with my health status. So it's a no brainer for me. I'm better off in the UK with the NHS. The only downside is the weather!
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic
Interesting. Please cite the sources for your research.
...and then get ready for people calling you a statist socialist sheeple for choosing not to surrender something as fundamental as healthcare to an unregulated free market.
billburns2 1 year ago
@billburns2 I used "The Salary Calculator" (google it) for a worked example based on my own salary in the UK and dollar equivalent in US (assuming 5% state income tax). Insurance cost ranges I got from healthinsurance dot about dot com. This gives average family cost as $6328, with a range between $5609 to $13,296 depending upon state. Of course, each individual's mileage may vary, and the Obama reforms may well change the figures (for better or worse) as they start to bite.
mandolinic 1 year ago
Comments about "forcing" people to join the NHS miss the point.
The UK is a democracy and for 60 years voters have had the chance to re-affirm or reject the NHS. If there was a huge groundswell against it then abolition would be on at least one party platform, yet every politician knows that challenging the NHS is the kiss of death at the polling booth.
The NHS is far from perfect, but it's part of the British "zeitgeist" and we're prepared to pay for it.
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic
Ah, but you see Libertarians consider democracy to be akin to gang rape. Of course people have the choice to live somewhere that suits them better but Libertarians are generally unhappy with that option as they feel entitled to their comfy, first world lifestyle. No, the world must change to suit them. They enjoy all the the trappings of state, they just don't want to pay for any of it.
billburns2 1 year ago
@mandolinic What you say is correct, but you have to remember the NHS is one of the largest organisations in the World "Only the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the Wal-Mart supermarket chain and the Indian Railways directly employ more people." nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx. What sort of propaganda do you think it, and all the vested interests can pump out in support of it. Read Heather Brookes Silent State to see what goes on, youtube.com/watch?v=OYW8WcGdN-o
independence4wales 1 year ago
@independence4wales Yeah, right. I've got so much spare time I can watch a 36 minute video. If you can tell me where in the video she passes comment on the NHS then I'll watch that part.
mandolinic 1 year ago
@mandolinic It's okay, if you haven't got time to give the video a chance I don't think you will have time to read her book
independence4wales 1 year ago
Why is it if you are diagnosed with cancer your chances of surival in the USA are better than anywhere else in the world?
Also NHS does not stand for National Healthcare System.
27johnny 1 year ago
@27johnny
They aren't. 26% more deaths by cancer per capita in the US than in the UK (Nationmaster 2004)
National Health Service. My flub
billburns2 1 year ago