Monday, 22 March 2010

They Do Now

"But they don't have it America" has always been held up by such British opponents as the NHS has, as if it were somehow a clinching argument. Well, it would take a heart of stone not to laugh today. And every other day for ever hereafter.
Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. Thomas23 March 2010 at 22:23

    Why? The bill is not an NHS, it forces you to buy private healthcare at inflated prices. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

    It is not socialism. It is crony capitalism enforced by armed tax agents.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Piccolo24 March 2010 at 00:34

    @Thomas,

    A lot of progressives are making that argument, and I wonder if perhaps they are correct. But do you think there is a chance, though, that perhaps we might end up with a universal system with private insurers, but that is still workable and better than what we have now, like what they have in Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, or Switzerland? Basically, I guess I am wondering if you think the health care bill is a step forward or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Lindsay24 March 2010 at 00:44

    And you won't put with that for long. You'll soon be demanding the public option or even a single-payer system.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thomas25 March 2010 at 16:15

    Mr Piccolo,

    I do not know exactly how the health care systems of Germany, Netherlands, etc., work, except that they are not as centralised as the NHS. I currently live in Norway, which is NHS-like. However, I think that even if those countries are two-tiered, isn't the public health sector far larger? I see now that 77% of health spending in Germany is by the govt. That must make it about the same GDP% that the US govt currently spends on Medicare/Medicaid (to cover 1/4 to 1/3). Perhaps America could have been on the road to that if an expansive public option or had been included in the bill.

    The quality won't go up. Imagine, in Norway we get fairly mediocre coverage, the authorities try to deny the existence of my wife's documented physical disability, the fee for a doctor visit is high, etc. But my social security contribution is 7,8% which covers my wife and myself both. In the US, the contribution is 7,35% and does not grant universal coverage. On top of that, you will be forced to buy a plan that is usually about 10-15% of a family income. Tax credits are supposed to limit that to 8% for lowish incomes, but that starts some years later! So it is like you are taxed twice!

    And as for quality of care, what the Republicans are saying about "death panels" can be overemphasised, but basically they will introduce govt panels to mandate what type of care to be given (by the private companies). The companies like this because it will absorb much of their legal liabilities when they deny expensive treatments. It is not tort reform that literally limits legal compensation (and thus lawyers' fees - a major Democrat constituency) but it practically limits liability.

    So on most fronts, the bill is pretty bad. Half the Republican claims are justified but of course their position isn't much better. Probably they will get back in power and amend the legislation so we are still forced to buy from private companies but have even fewer protections. The main thrust of the legislation is what Romney did in Massachusetts.

    And David, the people aren't much in control. When there is no bill being debated, 2/3 of Americans are for universal health care. This even includes about half of Republicans (the more populist, social-conservatives they gained in the South from the destruction of the New Deal coalition), see here: http://typology.people-press.org/data/index.php?QuestionID=26

    The people are not strongly opposed to "socialism", they are suspicious of cuts in their care. That is why 60-65% were against this bill.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Piccolo26 March 2010 at 02:31

    @Thomas,

    Thank you very much, that was very helpful.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)