Re: Stossel: Is Health Care Improving?

Health Policy Specialist Betsy McCaughey and American Enterprise Institutes Arthur Brooks on increases in life expectancy and quality of life due to better health.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/#/v/4004318/is-health-care-improvin...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• john
• stossel
• fox
• news
• is
• health
• care
• improving
• Betsy
• McCaughey
• Arthur
• Brooks

[iamgabrielf]

I'm not in favor of the heatlhcare bill, but arguments as bad as these make me feel like I'm on the wrong side.

[zthustra]

@iamgabrielf

If I am reading your comment correctly, I think you are beginning to understand why I made this video.

There are two political leaders who oppose this view to different and correct reasons, IMO.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

Paul because is an honest and prinicipled advocate of free markets and individual liberty.

Kucinich because he wants reforms that actually help people instead of just profiting big corporations at the expense of the people.

[ndes0532]

You miss the point that in this segment Stossel is not so much trying to argue against government healthcare but rather against the notion that american health has supposedly been declining.

He does nudge his libertarian views but mostly he is just observing the continuous upward trend in public health.

[RuudVanDrijver]

I don't know what income tax is like in the States. There is a basic tax rate of 22% here on earnings over appx £100pw. So the total for your wife would be about £58.57 in tax and NI. I think that's a bit steep, but it's horses for courses I suppose.

I think the proof that people are satisfied with the NHS is the fact that although private medical insurance is available here 90% of the population don't take it up. Most of the remaining 10% have it as a job perk in addition to NHS cover.

[iamgabrielf]

The bad arguments I referred were of this video, not our dicussion.

It's been a good conversation. It's helped me refine my argument. I thank you.

[iamgabrielf]

Re: healthcare will still be in private industry. Yes and no.

The performance of the medical services will remain under private hands, but its funding will not. Medicare is provided by private doctors, but funded by taxes.

So if bureaucrats decide a service will be paid, it does not matter if it's done by private doctors; the service will not be given. Therefore, the system is public, not private.

And that is what I fear. I would favor public service only as a safety net.

[iamgabrielf]

We do earn police protection and every other service; we earn them by paying taxes. The question is how much power do we want to entrust to the gov't? I'd answer, "a necessary minimum." The more power given, the greater the mistakes.

Services should be held in private hands as much as reasonable. They must be socialzed only as necessary, and there lies the debate.

The answer is what are the ppl willing to subsidize, and as far as healthcare goes, the ppl are unwilling.

[SeruQuik]

No argument here. My comment regarding that one need not "earn" Medicare to receive it was more stated matter-of-factly than as criticism.

You're right though; the fact of the matter is that many services funded at least in part by taxes are able to be utilized by those who do not pay taxes. The way I see it, the crux of this entire debate is whether or not health care should be, at least to some extent and form, added to this list of services. Obviously it would still be a private industry.

[zthustra]

I'm wondering if you have to EARN police protection? fire protection? public education? road maintenance? and othe things that we consider to be entitlements and obligations of the government to serve the people?

Maybe poor kids shouldn't be allowed to go to school? And the fire department should check their list before they bring the trucks out to your house fire?

Should police and fire respond to churches? They don't pay taxes!

[SeruQuik]

To even say people have "earned" Medicare is a bit messy, since all it takes is living until 65 years of age.

As far as the bill goes, it seems to be more regulatory reform of the health insurance industry rather than reform of the health care industry, although there are exceptions. As with any regulatory reform, one (though not the only) key question in my mind is "Will the regulations be enforced?" In this case, I rather doubt it.