See how well “free” healthcare works for Canada?
A past company I worked for, the office/project I worked on was out of Ontario. One of the first things I asked my co-workers about on my first visit was about the health care. They weren’t excited about it, but felt it mostly kept them alive. One co-worker told me how her grandmother had to spend 3 days on a gurney in the hallway of a hospital because all the rooms were full.
Yeah… that’s just how I want my grandmother to be cared for. And my mother. And my wife. And my children. And myself.
But hey, it’s “free” right?
You get what you pay for.
Stuff From Hsoi 
Is it your contention that healthcare policy should be determined by anecdote? What do you know about the cost of healthcare in Canada? What do you know about the efficacy of Canadian healthcare?
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
My contention is government control over matters such as healthcare will not yield the results those who advocate for it hope to receive. TANSTAAFL.
Do you have any reasoning, facts, or analysis to support your contention?
Of course it isn’t free. No one says it will be. But it may well be less costly than the current system that spends significantly more than any other country on earth to cover just 85% of the population, and to achieve substantially worse outcomes. Including compared to Canada.
At any rate, can we agree this is a policy debate that should not be determined by anecdotes or sweeping generalizations?
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
And your reasoning, facts, and analysis are where?
Just hit Google. There’s more than enough analysis and revelation of problems with this entire movement.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/11/news/economy/obama_health_plan_no_bargain.fortune/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124646258495480623.html
just to get started.
Oh even better:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
So now you’d be required to carry medical insurance, else be fined. And if you cannot afford this instead of being fined those of us that can afford to pay must pay for them. Families pay higher fines than individuals.
And the cost of a mere $597 billion over 10 years, down from 1 trillion. And even if we can expect them to actually come in under budget, just how is all of this going to be paid for? Oh that’s right, raise taxes. And gosh, we’re all having a hard enough time paying for things now, unemployment numbers are at a high… and so this is a good solution to things how?
In the end, the key question really needs to be: what business is it of the Federal Government to get into health care to begin with?
You overlook that you and I already are footing the bill, just in a scattershot fashion.
The federal government already spends $339 billion per year on the Medicaid program (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/10/20081017a.html). State governments roughly match that amount.
You and I also foot the bill to the tune of $125 billion per year (and that’s a 2004 number; surely much higher by now) for healthcare provided to uninsured people (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0511-07.htm).
Beyond that, you and I are paying some amount for the extraordinaly fragmented and economically perverse private health insurance system we now have. The status quo has elevated our cost far higher than any other country on earth while bringing us middle-of-the-pack healthcare. Incentives are focused on quantity of services delivered, not patient health outcomes. That amount is hard or even impossible to quantify, but clearly is huge.
What people overlook is that we, the middle class tax payers of this country are already bearing this burden. This is America; people are not denied healthcare. Healthcare happens, and you’re paying for it already. Adding the two amounts together, paying for it to the tune of half a trillion dollars PER YEAR.
So, am I willing to shift a mere 10% of that total to a federal program to bring order to the healthcare system? Absolutely.
Your final comment is highly telling, and is the one which I think is a more promising basis for debate. The battle over these healthcare program ideas is, or should be, the ideological one, not the economic one. Economically, the health care system is a devastating burden on us already. Econmically, the total public & private cost of the system should be our concern, not how much of it lies on the public side of the line. But the ideological question is a worthy one.
http://thecentersquare.wordpress.com/
That we already foot the bill… yes, I’ve a problem with that because, as my prior comment stated, is health care the business of government to begin with?
Yep, anything that saves money is always justified … even if we have to force people to go along, or ration, or create another bureaucracy, or force companies out of business, etc. It’s worth it!
Economically speaking, we can not even afford the current level of welfare promised.
How much of the currently estimated 57 trillion dollars in unfunded commitments, is this going to save?
I’m interested in your answer if you have one.
Oh no! It’s the anecdote and sweeping generalization police!
Foiled again.
Pingback: CATO on healthcare « Stuff From Hsoi
@ hsoi: Forced? We had a campaign. The candidates who clearly articulated they were going to do this, won. This is the way democracy operates.
Huh? If you’re replying to me, I am not sure where this part of the conversation came from. Or are you replying to foo.c’s comment from July 5?
Forced.
The bill in the senate contains a provision that if you do not choose an insurance plan, you will be fined. The fine will be payed via income tax. Presumably if one doesn’t pay their income tax, or short pays the fine, one will find their ass in jail.
Oh, sure there will be a subsidy for the poor, which will serve as a nice disincentive to making more money by the way, but the people who are really going to get screwed are the people who make too much for the dole, but still can’t afford the insurance.