Political Discussions
Do We Really Want More Government Involvement In our Health Care?
Posted by ForgottenLiberty • 8/19/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: Canada, canadian health care, health care, obama care
The Vancouver Sun is reporting that the government run-Canadian health care system is scrapping 6,000 necessary surgeries in the Vancouver metro area because there is not enough money to pay for them. This is common in countries with socialized medicine. Why are so many people pushing for more government involvement in health care when governments around the world have shown they are poor administrators. Wouldn't it be better to focus on ways of making health care more affordable as opposed to increasing government involvement?
More on the great Canadian Health Care System
forgottenliberty.com/2009/08/canadian-health-system-in-vancouver-is-cutting...
User Comments
-
So you're gonna dump on Canada and it's system as a reason for not reforming anything in the US. Are you aware that the Canadian system is not even a model for current reform efforts? Probably not. You seem to think the "government" label says it all. No need to think any further, I guess.-
Did you read what I said? I asked if it would be better to find ways of making health care more affordable as opposed to getting the government more involved. Tort reform, medical savings accounts, allowing people to cross state lines to buy insurance, detach insurance from employers, etc. These are all "reforms" that will lower the cost of health care without building a huge bureaucracy in Washington and getting the government more involved in our lives.
-
No he didn't read what you said.
Mark only read up until he figured you were against Obamas plan, then he makes his own deductions.
You're lucky, in the next post, he'll probably call you some derogatory term for "right" and maybe racist, faschist, or something similar.
Oh, and dumb, of course you are ignorant, dumb and whatever else he can come up with.
He can't argue the point, he can only belittle those that don't follow the dear leader. -
Well, when you drink THAT much Kool-Aid... -
Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress wouldn't listen to the other side even if they agreed with half of what the Democrats offer. The Democrats are such liars when they say they are trying.
-
-
Many options are possible for reforming health care, but many include government involvement. How do you accomplish tort reform without the government enacting legislation? You won't simply get the lawyers doing this as some will have a vested interest in the high payouts associated with what they can get for "their clients". As well, back in the 1970's the health insurance companies were asked by the federal government to lower their rates and find efficiencies so more people would be covered. We can see how well that went...
As for the comments about Canada's health system and the scrapping of 6000 surgeries in British Columbia, this is not something that has yet happened, so be careful what you report. It is only something that is proposed by one local provincial health authority and has not yet been enacted. Additionally, although it is indeed not very good, it would delay the surgeries, not cancel them completely. Keep in mind that British Columbia has been hard hit for some time by poor lumber prices and is largely supported by forestry and mining so is suffering far less from poor administration and far more from a really poor economy.
Now, you might argue that if people were on private insurance and in private hospitals, they would have access to the surgery, but given the numbers of people out of work and only partially employed in the province due to the economy, few would afford the health insurance costs necessary so the private system would simply offer the wealthy another option without helping the other 90% of the population.
Based on my readings, the comments made regarding government inefficiencies around the world needs a tad more supporting evidence. Given other sectors such as road maintenance, water supply management and energy generation that have been privatized in some countries, private management has largely increased costs. Try a google search for "vivendi water", "power privatization costs", "road privatization costs" for many good examples of how companies are not driving costs down for consumers.
Also search for "health care around the world" for a decent BBC article listing some options.-
But involvement by the federal government into states' tort laws and states' marriage laws, and state medical cannabis laws... that stuff is WAYYYY different!!!
-
-
Maybe concentrating on what needs to be fixed in US health care provision would be a good idea rather than muddying the waters by criticising other countries medical systems.
If the Canadians don't like their system they can change it. If the NHS in the UK is so bad why does it have the near universal support of voters?
The idea that state medicine is more expensive just is not true. The NHS in the UK has similar or better results to those of US healthcare for half the cost.-
polybore, just because the NHS has support from voters does not mean it's a great system. Our Social Security system has almost universal support but it will be bankrupt soon unless something drastic is done. Programs like these have so much voter support because people have paid into them their whole lives and they want to get something for their money, not because they provide a wonderful service at a great rate. My Grandpa thinks Social Security is a terrible program but does he want the government to get rid of it? No, he has paid into it his whole life and he wants to get some of his money back.
Health care might be cheaper in the UK but procedures are done much quicker here, more new drugs and treatments are developed here, our cancer survivor stats are much better, we have more MRI and CT machines per person and a gallon of gas is less than $3 here while it is over $7 in the UK. Cheaper health care but everything else is more expensive. Why? Taxes to pay for a nanny-state. -
"more new drugs and treatments are developed here"
Via government grants... ie. 'goverment involvement' -
And via big pharma R&D. As well as GE (which is almost a government entity now :P) and other medical device manufacturers.
And well said, ForgottenLiberty.
-
-
And the reinvestment of the profits those evil pharmaceutical companies make! Seriously, do you really believe all or even most new drugs come from government grants?
-
"The impact of these handouts to corporations on taxpayers is sad. A woman with ovarian cancer contacted us with her desperate story of having to pay about $14,000 for six treatments of Taxol, sold by Bristol-Meyers Squibb. Thirty-one million dollars of taxpayers' money developed this drug, right through the human clinical trials."
www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/nader.htm
-
-
Agit8r, Government involvement in things that it is constitutionally allowed to be involved in is fine with me. Changing tort laws is legal and should be done. That is a proper and legal role of Congress. Creating a government run health care system is not.
-
"Changing tort laws is legal and should be done"
technically true, but there does seem to be some "States' Rights" hypocracy here
-
Fair enough, but when the Fed wanted a 55 mph speed limit, it had no problem extorting highway funds for it. Why not do similar with tort reform?
-
wasn't that a states rights deal too? Seems like they repealed that under the 104 congress as such an infringement
I notice that you didn't respond to my criticism of "tort reform" in ethanre's thread -
I didn't? Let me go back, been back and forth from the 'puter and working on my 16 year old daughter's car. Her "power window doesn't work, sheesh Dad!"
-
Okay, I found what I think you are referring to. The medical mistakes articles, right?
-
haha. *note to self: get kids hand-crank windows*
-
Changing tort law is absolutely not a proper role of Congress. The federal government has already infringed far too greatly on an area that was reserved specifically to the states.
It's also not going to save any money for anyone except the insurance companies, who are doing quite well on their own.
-
-
77% of Americans say "yes". That's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for our so called "representatives" in Congress. What say we put the Public Option on the 2010 ballot as a public referendum and take it out of the hands of the 5-year-olds who toddle the halls of the world's largest daycare center (a.k.a. the U.S. Capitol building).
Back channel Wall Street sources indicate the U.S. Congress is the biggest consumer of diapers and pacifiers in the free world.-
ROFL mac. I could get behind that idea. (the referendum idea, that is)
-
-
I would rather have a referendum too. That way Congress can't ram something down the peoples throats. Most polls show about 40-43% favor a public option while 48-50% oppose it. Then when you ask how many are willing to have increased taxes to fund a public option support drops to 20 something percent. It would have to be a vote on a Constitutional amendment though for me to completely agree with it because I don't see how Congress has any power to be messing with our health care in the first place. We the people have not authorized them to do it.
-
Do you think that we've authorized them to regulate drug production and distribution? To create and enforce an extensive body of federal criminal law? To monitor and restrict agriculture? How do you see the health care issue as different from any of those (or many other) bodies of federal law?
-
This is because, for better or worse, our government operates on Hamiltonian priciples:
"Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things." -- A.H.
-
-
MadameX,
"Do you think that we've authorized them to regulate drug production and distribution?"
I don't think the FDA legally has power under the Constitution, yet Congress claims it does under the abused Commerce Clause. I don't think telling Americans what they can and cannot eat and what medicines they are allowed to take is Constitutional. An individual State can do it but I don't think the Federal Government legally can do it.
"To create and enforce an extensive body of federal criminal law?"
The executive branch Constitutionally has law enforcement power, but these powers are limited by things like the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.
"To monitor and restrict agriculture?"
I don't think most of the government's involvement in agriculture is Constitutional. Subsidies to farmers are definitely wrong.
"How do you see the health care issue as different from any of those (or many other) bodies of federal law?"
On one hand it is not different. It is just another instance of the government ignoring the contract it made with the people (Constitution). But because the government has ignored the Constitution before does not mean it should be allowed to ignore it now. On the other hand, this is much different than things the government has done in the past because the health care industry is such a large segment of our economy and if the government controls it they will have life and death power over us. Just ask the people in the U.K who are denied Lapatinib and Sutent (drugs most insurance companies willingly pay for in the U.S.) for their cancer because it is too expensive and they are too old for the government to justify spending that much money on them. If we become dependent on the government for all our health care we, in time may essentially becomes slaves to the government. It's the same as those people who are 3rd or 4th generation welfare recipients. They have become slaves to the monthly government check and pass that bondage onto their children. -
Agit8r,
I'm more inclined to go with Jefferson's view (which is consistent with the majority of our Founders) of the Constitution, over Hamiltons. Our country will be better off if we move back in the direction Jefferson envisioned.-
As I have noted in other threads, though I follow the Jeffersonian argument to a greater degree, it is worth noting that neither Jefferson nor Madison adhered to such a philosophy perfectly while serving in an executive capacity. (see also Louisiana Purchase, Second Bank of the United States)
-
-
Technically when the federal government gets out of line states can just tell them to get lost. Though this would be a difficult task to execute and sustain certain things. It might teach our federal devolving unification system a lesson or two.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
