Originally Posted by Sini
Originally Posted by Derid
Elsewhere you said that even the most cynical vision of gov't would be better than for-profit insurance. But have you really considered that?


I considered, and acted via personal choices, on this to a much larger degree than you probably realize. I stand by my words, and unless you can demonstrate that US is somehow uniquely more corrupt than the rest, the actual numbers - costs and outcomes - indicate that the universal health care is cheaper while delivering better outcomes. You can take about any health outcome metric and US is behind other first-world countries while paying significantly more.

US 15% GDP, 7K per person per year
Canada 10% GDP, 4K per person per year
UK 8% GDP, 3K per person per year
Australia 9% GDP, 3K per person per year



You are missing the most important part - the human part.

Using numbers from Japan is not going to tell you how Iraq will respond to your occupation program.

If you want numbers, heres an important one - UK has a ratio of representation in Parliament of approx. 1:100,000 - where US has ratio for Congress of about 1:600,000

In any case, you are going about it backwards. Instead of thinking about how it can work, you should work backward and figure how it can't. This isn't cynicism, it's solid planning.

Another question - without US market giving ROI via current methods, and with a single payer, how do prices get set? Who determines what something is worth, using what metrics? How then will the health market respond to the new paradigm?

I doubt there is anyone who could give a satisfactory answer to the former, let alone the latter which is dependent on the former.

Which brings us back full-circle to the question of why don't we just expand Medicaid, or provide a baseline stipend to people for health use? If there is a supply of money, there will be a demand for health services, and people determined to find ways to win that business, yet still allowing individuals and their doctors a large degree of control. It wouldn't be perfect, but at least the principles would be sound, and peoples natural inclinations would be aligned in the proper direction.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)