ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

I agree...People from socialist countries come here for health care, because it's better.

Obama's Irish | 02/26/08

Man, CL. You pack so many utterly untrue statements into your 1200 words that it becomes difficult to point them all out and still have time to many any sort of opposing point. Instead of dropping unsupported overgeneralizations left and right in your final argument, would you be so kind as to answer the following? 1: How is it ethical to treat life-saving medicine as a commodity that can be withheld if the price is not right? 2: How would single-payer health care stop forcing doctors to go through rigorous qualification processes? An MD is still a hard degree to get regardless of the pay. 3: If people's career choices are motivated by profit alone why aren't doctors all horribly under-trained by virtue of being taught by people who, apparently, had to settle for lower salaries in universities and med schools? And for that matter, by virtue of being taught by low-paying public school teachers. I mean, the overall pay of teachers is so astoundingly low that one assumes it would attract few, if any, qualified people.

PhilSandifer | 02/26/08

Please show me the untrue statements. I am begging you. I have asked numerous questions of you, to which I have received no answers. You are thinking with your heart rather than your brain. That is the problem with socialism, it is well-meaning, but it always ends bad. I recommend you read "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about; reading it might help you with your record. 1. Whether you like it or not, healthcare is a business. Everything is treated as a commodity; where are you going with this? 2. It would dramatically lower the amount that even apply. You need to research the european model. Socialism does not work. 3. I NEVER SAID THAT PEOPLE'S CAREER CHOICES ARE MOTIVATED BY PROFIT ALONE. But lets assume that I did. Your assertion that doctors would be horribly under-trained if they weren't doing it to help people is absurd. Besides, most professors of medicine were or currently are medical doctors. You clearly do not understand our healthcare system. As for our teachers being so astoundingly low, the government bares much of that responsibility. Notice that when the DoE was created the education system began to falter. The private sector is ALWAYS more efficient than the government.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/26/08

An ounce of prevention s worth a pound of the cure. This holds true in health care as well. In the long run we would save money by preventing the long hospital stays that often bankrupt millions of Americans. Private insurance companies need to see this as well. Most dental insurance won't pay for a night guard to protect the teeth of those who grind them to the nubs. But, they will pay for all the surgeries to repair the damage after the fact. This in my opinion is idiocy. They won't pay for heart medication, but they pay to replace the heart. The money the government would save by preventing these issues would far outweigh the initial cost.

Eveas | 02/26/08

If the standard for educating doctors stays the same yet the pay goes down, which it will look at teachers, the quality will in fact go down, again look at the education system. Our education used to be better because of one thing: women. When women weren't in private industry they would teach. Now that most intelligent women go into other fields which PAY higher the quality of American education has fallen. Therefore it is fair to say that when a person is presented with the opportunity to make more money they will. The thinking that the majority of people want to help society is utopian. People look out for themselves and their immediate families.

Hogtown | 02/26/08

University Professors that teach in Professions (medicine, engineering, etc.) are usually teaching there because of the use of labs. When a professor researches something and makes a breakthrough he is almost guaranteed an enormous payday, along with more prestige and a better paying job at a better school. They may not be there for purely selfish reasons, but it isn't like the pay is terrible either, think 6 figures.

Hogtown | 02/26/08

Phil is correct, but he doesn't realize how much. As the price of health care drops down to nothing, similar to the price of many public schools, the quality of health care and of education would become worthless. He asks, what other than money would attract people to those occupations? He seems to mean that love of job and altruism would be the factors. He is wrong. It's the sense of moral authority, the desire to teach and heal people, and the feeling of being a well respected distributor. Those are what would drive professors to the free school and street medics to the free hospital. Then the quality of education and healthcare would sink to the quality of level of Wikipedia. Health Care and Education would be advertised as free to the public, but the teachers would wear black Zapatista ski masks and teach insurrection. The hospitals would be filthy and people would wait to have their cancer treated with aromatherapy. Criticism of the system would be forbidden. Anger just one hospital or school admin and you would be blocked from education and health care for brief to indefinite period. "Teachers" and "doctors" would hang barnstars on one anothers' chests. No, my friend, Libertarian has the better way.

FLIPSIDE | 02/26/08

FLIPSIDE, your argument seems to be an extended hypothetical with no relationship with reality. Nothing resembling that has happened anywhere in Europe or Canada.

PhilSandifer | 02/26/08

Consequentialist Libertarian is right the current health care plan is sufficient and the government can???t afford socialized health care. There are clinics where individuals without insurance can get free flu vaccinations and there are programs such as Medi Cal in California that pick up the tab for people who qualify. This is all the government can afford to give. People need to stop complaining and just deal with the fact that we are 9.3 trillion dollars in debt and by the time the 44th President takes office and ends the war our country will be nearly 10 trillion dollars in debt. The only way the country can afford a health care plan is by borrowing money from China and that is not a realistic option. The first step toward socialized medicine is by balancing the budget and paying back that debt.

yngster | 02/26/08

One can not of course take the United States out of the world to see if the Canadian socialist experiment can stand on its own, so it's a tough call.

FLIPSIDE | 02/26/08

yngster - I point out that I noted the importance of balancing the budget in my first comment. The two are not exclusive. FLIPSIDE - The European one certainly isn't collapsing, with many European countries having far longer life expectancies than the US.

PhilSandifer | 02/26/08

1) Which programs do you suggest that the government cut before abandoning socialized medicine? 2) Life Expectancy has nothing to with our health care plan. It???s our life style and eating habits that keep us from living longer than Europeans.

yngster | 02/26/08

The European one originates from the Marshall Plan. And we have the 33% devalued currency to prove it.

FLIPSIDE | 02/26/08

Please take the time to read everything that follows; this would have all been covered had we not been limited to 1200 words. Again Phil, you are being disingenuous. Neither life expectancy nor infant mortality rate are good indicators of a countries healthcare system. The reason those countries have a longer life span has ABSOLUTELY Nothing to do with socialized medicine. It has to do with the fact that a large majority of Americans are obese or overweight. I come from a military family, so I have traveled the world; you just do not see that many overweight people in other countries. Anyone who tells you that our healthcare system is not as good as any other country in the world is a liar or a fool. And if you want to tout the European model; let???s do so. According to the Cato Institute (without a doubt the most respected think tank in America), over the course of the past decade almost every European country with a national health care system has introduced market-oriented reforms and turned to the private sector to reduce health costs and increase the value, availability, and effectiveness of treatments. If socialized medicine is so effective, why does it take a free market to institute it? Also in places such as Canada, you do not have the right to an MRI; it is difficult to get such a basic thing done. Canadians are all covered, but at what cost? In America, only 5% of people have to wait four or more months for an elective surgery. In Austrailia it is 23%, in New Zealand it is 26%, in Canada it is 27%, and in Britain a whopping 36% has to wait atleast four months. So please I ask again, HOW IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE BETTER? Correct me if I am wrong, but if you are stranded alone on an island, is someone else going to socialize your wellbeing? No, every person is an island and responsible for their own health. This is not a government responsibility or right. .

Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/26/08

The healthcare system is so overburdened in those countries that it is almost laughable; were it not so depressing, it really would be. On average 30% of Americans spend at least 20 minutes with their doctor; in Britain, only 5% spend at least 20 minutes with their doctor. Look up the figures on percent who have access to high-tech procedures and equipment in the US vs. countries w/ socialized medince; the numbers are striking. The annual rate of cancer deaths is 70% higher in Britain compared to the United States. You keep stating that healthcare in America is a commodity, to which I respond yes, but so too is it to be with money in any of the socialist countries. Given the opportunity, patients in countries with national health insurance often spend their own money on health care when they are given an opportunity to do so. In fact, private-sector health care is the fastest-growing part of the health care system in many of these countries. For example, in Britain, 13 percent of the population has private health insurance. If socialized healthcare is so great, why do so many people in those countries get private insurance? As stated, the socialist countries have to cut costs; this effectively signs peoples death certificates. For instance, New Zealand???s guidelines for end state renal failure programs say that ???in usual circumstances, people over 75 should not be accepted.??? In these countries, the elderly are treated as second class citizens. And while medicine may be cheaper in these countries, there is little access to it. Fewer than 1/3 of British patients who suffer a heart attack have access to beta-blockers, despite the fact that post???heart attack use of the drug reduces the risk of sudden death from a subsequent heart attack by 20 percent. The realities of national health insurance--rationing, lack of cutting-edge medical technology, restricted access to the latest prescription drugs, inequitable distribution of care???are not accidental. Such problems flow inexorably from the fact that politicians and bureaucrats???not patients and doctors???are given the authority to allocate limited health care resources

Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/26/08

Since I am not inclined to cheat the rules of the format to get a wealth of extra statements I'd prefer not to respond to CL's latest in detail. Suffice it to say that I do not believe that anybody who cites the Cato Institute as "without a doubt the most respected think tank in America" should win any debate, ever.

PhilSandifer | 02/26/08

Or rather, you choose to not respond, because there are no legitimate studies to back up your assertions. I'm actually quite surprised you have any votes. You clearly do not understand how to debate, so the votes you received, must have been people who just agreed with your view, but didn't take the time to read over the debate.

Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/26/08

I'd like national healthcare, but in terms of who won the debate, I'd say that goes to CL.

Apathetic | 02/26/08

CL - Or perhaps they are people who see through the smokescreen of your false figures and generalizations. (For example, in fact the overall cancer survival rate between Franc and the US differs by a mere 3%). Your argument is rife with completely ludicrous statements - that the medical profession would stop being staffed by competent doctors if the pay dropped, for instance - in three statements you never once responded to my pointing out that universal health care would not remove the existence of med school or make it any easier to get through it, meaning doctors would be just as qualified as they are now. Which is odd, since you spent time in all three of your statements making the obviously untrue statement that the Tenth Amendment would prohibit national health care, and never once responded to my question about how or why national health care would be any more unconstitutional than Social Security. Your argument is rife with statements that are simply untrue, and does not respond to a single point I've raised. If anyone's votes are coming from a legion of like-minded dittoheads I am forced to assume it is yours.

PhilSandifer | 02/26/08

Socialist medicine is a hugeee mistake!

Bob | 02/26/08