6 ms·

I have to say, it is quite bizarre, watching the US health "debate" from up here in Canada. At the end of the day, it's a philosophical difference. I see peopl

I have to say, it is quite bizarre, watching the US health "debate" from up here in Canada. At the end of the day, it's a philosophical difference. I see people in Sicko, or read any of the thousands upon thousands of horror stories (like the ones in the article) and my stomach turns. I find situations like that downright amoral, so I think having to pay higher taxes for UHC is great value. OTOH, opponents look at the same people and start to get mad that these people should get "something for nothing", that their tax dollars are used to help people that may have made bad choices. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think this will turn out well for you guys. Any bill that is passed will be very watered-down and if the republicans get back into power before American UHC gets ingrained in the social fabric, then they'll do their best to kill it or cripple it.

jfornear 17y ago
You're right that there is a philosophical difference, but opponents of Obama's plan are being represented unfairly by those who frame the "debate" in the way in which you just did. All anecdotal arguments aside, the premise that more government is the only avenue for reform (held by yourself and other "progressives") is why both sides can't seem to agree on anything more than the idea that reform is needed. Around 40% of the American health care system is already managed by the government. The idea that we have a free market health care system that is failing the less fortunate in our country is downright false. In Obama's current plan, there are plenty of free market solutions to expand coverage and bring down costs that are being ignored and avoided (some due to lobbyists and special interests and others by, IMO, power-hungry politicians with a deeper, anti-capitalist agenda). Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences from prior government policies (with good intentions) that have created some of the problems we have today. Without going into the specifics or giving your last sentence a serious thought, I would just like to say this: Both sides (for the most part) have good intentions so let's not paint each other as evil. Here's a good place to start to understand the other side: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020360920457431...
- javanix 17y ago
  Agreed on all of your points other than "power-hungry politicians with a deeper, anti-capitalist agenda". There are some true morons in office in this country, especially most of Congress, but if you can provide me with a single example of an elected official who appears to be truly "anti-capitalist" I'd be shocked.
  - jfornear 17y ago
    I've heard Rep. Jan Schakowsky say some things about wanting to destroy the private health insurance industry straight up. Her supporters erupted into a wild applause, too. Disturbs the hell out of me.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  Just read the article. The problem is, people are not ready to listen right now to the idea that markets naturally produce the best outcomes. We are trying to get out of a world wide economic collapse that was the result of unregulated markets. At least, that is the general perception. And I must admit, it is my perception as well. More specifically, if you make a mistake in the market for a new MP3 player, you just have a crappy MP3 player and you're out a couple hundred bucks or so, and you buy a different brand next time. If you make a mistake buying health insurance, and only discover that your policy does not guarantee you the right to continue purchasing insurance at your existing rate when you are diagnosed with an illness, it could result in bankruptcy or even death. So you understand the hesitancy to trust unregulated market forces when the issue is literally life and death.
  - jfornear 17y ago
    I would disagree (and others share this view) that the economic collapse was the result of unregulated markets. It was the result of bad regulation (e.g., the CRA of '95 caused the amount of mortgages issued that were subprime to jump from 1% to 12% by '98 alone) and bad government interference (e.g., low interest rates under Greenspan made money too cheap for too long). Greed was indeed a huge factor, but it came from directions that aren't currently being fingered. Now, I'm not going to defend all private institutions: AIG, for one quick example, had some sketchy things going on that definitely need looking into. But, for the most part, I am skeptical of any kind of central planning. I believe the federal government should stay out of things like health insurance. If Washington didn't help create the current environment where we rely so much on employer-based health insurance, maybe we would have individual health savings accounts and costs wouldn't have gotten so out of control because individuals would actually care what they were paying. And, in turn, hospitals would actually care what they are charging (i.e., competition). I mean, just read the Wikipedia page on HSAs to get a feel for how complicated one tiny part of our system is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account. I don't feel comfortable having this system reformed so quickly (especially when these bills aren't being read!). So much of the motives behind the current movement are purely political. I would rather take it slow and have a real, honest look at the problems from both sides. I think the ultimate obstacle is that we perceive America to be as free market as it gets, but that notion is, in reality, so far from the truth. This belief seems to render any free-market approach to reform as "out-dated" or "pro status quo". Sorry if I got off-topic. I've been trying to keep my political thoughts off of HN for too long. :)
TomOfTTB 17y ago
For the record, if you want to deal in conjecture and annecdotal evidence there's just as much stacked up against the health care system in canada. I can't tell you how many times I've read of people dying while waiting for a test or surgery. There are even the proven stories of wealthy canadians flying to the U.S. and paying for surgeries privately. More than anything stories like this (or the ones about Canada) are scare tactics to support a political agenda. The fact still remains, a hospital in the U.S. by law CAN NOT turn away a patient for financial reasons. No one is dying on the street for lack of health care. At the same time Canada generally manages to take care of the great majority of its citizens without killing them by making them wait. Bottom Line: The U.S. system has problems but so does the system in Canada, the U.K. and elsewhere. What we in the U.S. need to be doing is looking for a third option.
- dazzla 17y ago
  People die with no hope of health care as they don't have the $$. Would you rather be told you have to wait or can't have it at all?
- mgrouchy 17y ago
  I'm Canadian, and I don't really care very much what people think of our system here in Canada. In my opinion it is great. I think wait times are overstated, in situations where wait times matter. To espouse some personal stories to compare and contrast here, my girlfriends father had some pretty serious colon cancer, from the time it was found it took around a month to get the surgery he needed(including consults and whatnot) and to start treatment. Cost to him and his family 0$. My uncle lives in Texas, (I love Texas Btw :P ) and he had some serious issues with his spleen. It took him about a month to get his surgery(including consults), he is fine now but still requires continuing monitoring.Cost to him and his family with his insurance coverage ~40K. I honestly hope that everyone everywhere(not just in the US) gets free and available healthcare. While there might be some hybrid model in the middle somewhere that may work. I think dealing with a teired model of healthcare will leave people who can only get the public healthcare the shaft.
  - jfornear 17y ago
chrischen 17y ago
> OTOH, opponents look at the same people and start to get mad that these people should get "something for nothing", that their tax dollars are used to help people that may have made bad choices. I don't think the stigma of a lazy person is really associated with not being able to afford health care. I think it's generally understood that even a diligent individual may have a hard time paying for health care in our system. Basically all this plan is proposing is shifting more tax dollars to subsidize health care like we have it subsidizing the post office. I think there are two primary groups against this: rich people that are financially invested in the current health care system somehow, and middle and sub middle class people who do not believe in people getting "something for nothing"

jfornear 17y ago

You're right that there is a philosophical difference, but opponents of Obama's plan are being represented unfairly by those who frame the "debate" in the way in which you just did. All anecdotal arguments aside, the premise that more government is the only avenue for reform (held by yourself and other "progressives") is why both sides can't seem to agree on anything more than the idea that reform is needed. Around 40% of the American health care system is already managed by the government. The idea that we have a free market health care system that is failing the less fortunate in our country is downright false. In Obama's current plan, there are plenty of free market solutions to expand coverage and bring down costs that are being ignored and avoided (some due to lobbyists and special interests and others by, IMO, power-hungry politicians with a deeper, anti-capitalist agenda). Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences from prior government policies (with good intentions) that have created some of the problems we have today. Without going into the specifics or giving your last sentence a serious thought, I would just like to say this: Both sides (for the most part) have good intentions so let's not paint each other as evil. Here's a good place to start to understand the other side: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020360920457431...

javanix 17y ago
Agreed on all of your points other than "power-hungry politicians with a deeper, anti-capitalist agenda". There are some true morons in office in this country, especially most of Congress, but if you can provide me with a single example of an elected official who appears to be truly "anti-capitalist" I'd be shocked.
- jfornear 17y ago
  I've heard Rep. Jan Schakowsky say some things about wanting to destroy the private health insurance industry straight up. Her supporters erupted into a wild applause, too. Disturbs the hell out of me.
jimbokun 17y ago
Just read the article. The problem is, people are not ready to listen right now to the idea that markets naturally produce the best outcomes. We are trying to get out of a world wide economic collapse that was the result of unregulated markets. At least, that is the general perception. And I must admit, it is my perception as well. More specifically, if you make a mistake in the market for a new MP3 player, you just have a crappy MP3 player and you're out a couple hundred bucks or so, and you buy a different brand next time. If you make a mistake buying health insurance, and only discover that your policy does not guarantee you the right to continue purchasing insurance at your existing rate when you are diagnosed with an illness, it could result in bankruptcy or even death. So you understand the hesitancy to trust unregulated market forces when the issue is literally life and death.
- jfornear 17y ago
  I would disagree (and others share this view) that the economic collapse was the result of unregulated markets. It was the result of bad regulation (e.g., the CRA of '95 caused the amount of mortgages issued that were subprime to jump from 1% to 12% by '98 alone) and bad government interference (e.g., low interest rates under Greenspan made money too cheap for too long). Greed was indeed a huge factor, but it came from directions that aren't currently being fingered. Now, I'm not going to defend all private institutions: AIG, for one quick example, had some sketchy things going on that definitely need looking into. But, for the most part, I am skeptical of any kind of central planning. I believe the federal government should stay out of things like health insurance. If Washington didn't help create the current environment where we rely so much on employer-based health insurance, maybe we would have individual health savings accounts and costs wouldn't have gotten so out of control because individuals would actually care what they were paying. And, in turn, hospitals would actually care what they are charging (i.e., competition). I mean, just read the Wikipedia page on HSAs to get a feel for how complicated one tiny part of our system is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_savings_account. I don't feel comfortable having this system reformed so quickly (especially when these bills aren't being read!). So much of the motives behind the current movement are purely political. I would rather take it slow and have a real, honest look at the problems from both sides. I think the ultimate obstacle is that we perceive America to be as free market as it gets, but that notion is, in reality, so far from the truth. This belief seems to render any free-market approach to reform as "out-dated" or "pro status quo". Sorry if I got off-topic. I've been trying to keep my political thoughts off of HN for too long. :)

TomOfTTB 17y ago

For the record, if you want to deal in conjecture and annecdotal evidence there's just as much stacked up against the health care system in canada. I can't tell you how many times I've read of people dying while waiting for a test or surgery. There are even the proven stories of wealthy canadians flying to the U.S. and paying for surgeries privately. More than anything stories like this (or the ones about Canada) are scare tactics to support a political agenda. The fact still remains, a hospital in the U.S. by law CAN NOT turn away a patient for financial reasons. No one is dying on the street for lack of health care. At the same time Canada generally manages to take care of the great majority of its citizens without killing them by making them wait. Bottom Line: The U.S. system has problems but so does the system in Canada, the U.K. and elsewhere. What we in the U.S. need to be doing is looking for a third option.

dazzla 17y ago
People die with no hope of health care as they don't have the $$. Would you rather be told you have to wait or can't have it at all?
mgrouchy 17y ago
I'm Canadian, and I don't really care very much what people think of our system here in Canada. In my opinion it is great. I think wait times are overstated, in situations where wait times matter. To espouse some personal stories to compare and contrast here, my girlfriends father had some pretty serious colon cancer, from the time it was found it took around a month to get the surgery he needed(including consults and whatnot) and to start treatment. Cost to him and his family 0$. My uncle lives in Texas, (I love Texas Btw :P ) and he had some serious issues with his spleen. It took him about a month to get his surgery(including consults), he is fine now but still requires continuing monitoring.Cost to him and his family with his insurance coverage ~40K. I honestly hope that everyone everywhere(not just in the US) gets free and available healthcare. While there might be some hybrid model in the middle somewhere that may work. I think dealing with a teired model of healthcare will leave people who can only get the public healthcare the shaft.
- jfornear 17y ago

chrischen 17y ago

> OTOH, opponents look at the same people and start to get mad that these people should get "something for nothing", that their tax dollars are used to help people that may have made bad choices. I don't think the stigma of a lazy person is really associated with not being able to afford health care. I think it's generally understood that even a diligent individual may have a hard time paying for health care in our system. Basically all this plan is proposing is shifting more tax dollars to subsidize health care like we have it subsidizing the post office. I think there are two primary groups against this: rich people that are financially invested in the current health care system somehow, and middle and sub middle class people who do not believe in people getting "something for nothing"