Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Our National debt is the largest problem we have as a nation right now, I feel. Even more than Iraq, it is will be responsible for the upcoming economic collapse.

We are looking at the graphical representation of the beginning of the end of the United States as we know it.

Posted by: Gingerbaker | July 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Ed:

Those burdened by myths prefer them to the truth.

I'm visiting my brother who is quite conservative and he is having a hard time shedding the blinders, but he is doing so.

Truth can be a bitch, but it's preferable to living in denial.

Posted by: democommie | July 4, 2008 10:10 AM

Are those figures adjusted for inflation (note that even if they aren't, the rate of increase under Bush is steeper than the rate of increase in the late 70s when inflation was really rampant)?

Posted by: ebohlman | July 4, 2008 11:31 AM

But if those fiscally irresponible Democrats had comtinued President Clinton's crazy tax & spend antics the national debt would be around the levels last seen in the dying years of Saint Ronnie of Alzheimers' first term, only the direction of change would be opposite.

Posted by: DingoJack | July 4, 2008 11:45 AM

If we're honest with ourselves we know that the national debt declined under Clinton and the Republican congress. The Republican congress held spending in check. Up until that time, Republicans and their mouthpieces on talk radio bitched up a storm about the rising national debt. Once we started going into surplus the cry went out for tax cuts and all of a sudden the debt wasn't such a big deal to Republicans after all. If anyone thinks that a Democratic congress and a Democratic president are going to run a surplus, don't bet on it. Spending certainly won't go down, and neither will the rate of increases in spending.

Posted by: soboco | July 4, 2008 12:35 PM

If we're honest with ourselves we know that the national debt declined under Clinton and the Republican congress. The Republican congress held spending in check.

I'm not going to disagree with you entirely, but how many people who were in Congress from 2000-2008 were also in Congress during Clinton's term? I don't think that we can call the president an irrelevant variable here. It seems to me to be a simple matter of, "Lots of spending and no oversight for my team but not for yours."

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | July 4, 2008 1:30 PM

I find soboco's comments questionable. The debt increased nearly $2 trillion under a Republican controlled Congress.

Granted, this was the same time period when Congress began only meeting two or three days a week and attempted to squash debate on the floor and in committees.

I think this chart indicates that Republicans are not necessarily evil until they are in complete control of the money.

Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | July 4, 2008 2:25 PM

Jim - your wish is my command:
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Just the first two of my googling "US debt" & GDP. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 4, 2008 2:48 PM

The best basis for analysis of government debt depends on your assumptions.

To just get an idea of how big it is, I'd go with debt to GDP, as a country gets richer you'd expect its debt to get bigger.

To get an idea of how big a problem it is, you'd need to compare debt to government revenue (if you consider non-discretionary items "up for grabs") or debt to government revenue, after deducting non-discretionary expenses, if you think discontinuing these items is politically impossible.

I think this election is going to see a lot of libertarian voters voting for Obama, despite his economic positions. At this point the only common point between Republicans and "small L" libertarians is gun control.

Posted by: James K | July 5, 2008 6:17 PM

mrroberts - I've heard that claim quite a bit by conservatives. It's merely a rhetorical question if you haven't taken the time to read Obama's proposal funding his plans. Have you and if so, where exactly does his plan require we wear blinders?

BTW - while I'm leaning heavily towards Obama for other reasons, I am not happy Obama wants to increase the capital gains tax (I have read his funding proposals). Taxing businesses and wealth only harms an economy, especially one operating in a global marketplace, though it will help shrink our national debt.

The GOP has made one of dozens of massive strategic mistakes since 1994 and one of them was tax reform when they had the majority in both houses. I am a lukewarm supporter of the FairTax, which Bush/DeLay/Hastert rejected in favor of progressive taxation and our current dysfunctional tax system - lukewarm since my investigations find a lack of Economists consensus beyond the 1997 study that got me interested in it, supportive because I can conceive of no better plan to bring more wealth and better paying jobs to the States and provide transparency to us regular citizens to how much it costs to fund our government).

Posted by: Michael Heath | July 7, 2008 12:13 PM

>> The GOP has made one of dozens of massive strategic mistakes since 1994 and one of them was tax reform when they had the majority in both houses. >>

Agreed.

>> I've heard that claim quite a bit by conservatives. It's merely a rhetorical question if you haven't taken the time to read Obama's proposal funding his plans. >>

It's not a rhetorical question at all, and honestly, Obama's plans are almost irrelevant because he doesn't even address the primary issue. John Williams from shadowstats.com explains the real problem:

The statements show that the federal government's annual fiscal deficit, far from being officially in the low hundreds of billions of dollar -- although 2008 numbers rapidly are moving towards the $500 billion mark -- is careening wildly out of control, averaging $4.6 trillion dollars per year for the six years through 2007. The difference is in accounting for the net present value, and year-to-year changes in same, for unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities.

The government's finances not only are out of control, but the actual deficit is not containable. Put into perspective, if the government were to raise taxes so as to seize 100% of all wages, salaries and corporate profits, it still would be showing an annual deficit using GAAP accounting on a consistent basis. In like manner, given current revenues, if it stopped spending every penny (including defense and homeland security) other than for Social Security and Medicare obligations, the government still would be showing an annual deficit.

http://www.shadowstats.com/article/292

The federal government exempts itself from using the same accounting principles required of corporations so it is able to mask the true budget situation. The government has essentially been deferring payments into the Social Security trust fund so it is very behind where it should be to fund future expenditures. When the baby boomers hit retirement (there are 80 million of them) and if they draw just $500 on average from Social Security every month, it is going to be a $40 billion dollar hit to the budget every month. And that doesn't include Medicare, or any additional obligations Obama might want to throw on the pile. Folks, Obama is living in fantasy land and it cracks me up how so many people on this blog will criticize Republicans for being big spenders but completely ignore that Obama is a big spender too. Our current situation ought to be ample proof that we should completely disavow once and for all wasteful socialistic policies like universal healthcare, government pensions (like Social Security), etc. It is not the proper role of government to be caretaker for the people. It is wasteful and completely unsustainable and the day of reckoning is coming.

Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 12:32 PM

Our current situation ought to be ample proof that we should completely disavow once and for all wasteful socialistic policies like universal healthcare, government pensions (like Social Security), etc.

There is nothing more wateful, or more socialistic, than protracted war. If we really want to disavow "all wasteful socialistic policies," we might as well start with the worst.

It is not the proper role of government to be caretaker for the people.

Um...what other purpose does government exist to serve? Helping the rich to get richer?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 12:39 PM

>> mroberts: since you've explicitly admitted that YOUR PARTY has bankrupted our country to the point where we can't afford to do ANYTHING decent for our own people, how can you possibly go on believing that Obama would be any worse? Does McSame offer any bettrer policies? Or just more of the same as an excuse to resist any domestic spending program any Democrat might propose? >>

Raging Bee, I see you have crawled out of your hole to make another idiotic partisan attack, and as usual, you are bordering on the irrational. First of all, you ignorantly say that the Republicans are my party. LOL. I can't stand the Republican Party and I am the first in line to happily criticize the endless stupidity that comes from them, which is typically just a little less than the amount of stupidity that comes from the Democratic Party. Secondly, you erroneously imply that McCain is my candidate. LOL again. I think McCain is pathetic excuse of a candidate and would make just a slightly better president than Mr. Obama. In the future, why don't you figure out a little more about what and who I support instead of making blind assumptions. Secondly, let's not forget that the Democrats ran Congress for much of the time under the Republican administrations you criticized. Since Congress holds the purse strings - as mandated by the constitution - they hold even more responsibility than the President. The current Congress, under Democrats, has had almost 2 years to prove their fiscal responsibility and hardly a thing happens. Your attempt to cast the Republicans as the sole party of fiscal stupidity failed. Your ignorance is stunning to me sometimes Bee. BOTH parties deserve the maximum scorn for their stupidity when it has come to managing our nations finances. At least have the intellectual honesty to recognize it.

Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 1:03 PM

Wow, mroberts, I never realized that calling you a Republican would hit such a raw nerve. A little ashamed of Bush & Co., are we?

Since Congress holds the purse strings - as mandated by the constitution - they hold even more responsibility than the President.

If a President says he wants a balanced budget -- as all three Republicans promised -- then HE is responsible for proposing one -- which neither Republican ever did. And if he proposes tax cuts, then he's responsible for proposing spending cuts to offset the revenue loss -- which, again, neither Republican ever did.

The current Congress, under Democrats, has had almost 2 years to prove their fiscal responsibility and hardly a thing happens.

And the previous Colngress, under Republicans, with a Republican President, had SIX years to "prove their fiscal responsibility" -- and they didn't even want to pay for their own two wars.

But enough of your obvious double standard -- let's get to the heart of your problem, shall we?

I can't stand the Republican Party and I am the first in line to happily criticize the endless stupidity that comes from them...

Really? I've NEVER seen you criticizing the Republicans with even one tenth of the pathological (not to mention fact-free) rage you reserve for the Democrats.

...which is typically just a little less than the amount of stupidity that comes from the Democratic Party.

Once again you prove my point: your criticism of the Republicans is completely hollow because no matter how bad they get, you'll still cling to their trouser-legs because you can't let go of your hatred of the Democrats.

(How are the Democrats worse? Did Jimmy Carter send that rescue mission into the wrong country? Did more than four thousand Americans die at Chappaquiddick?)

I hate to say this, but you really are acting like some abused wives: you know your husband is worthless scum, but you can't bear to admit you made a mistake, and you're too scared of the big world outside, so you make up all sorts of self-defeating rationalizations to justify staying with him, and will continue to do so no matter how bad things get. You used to be laughable; now you're crossing the line into pathetic.

It's perfectly obvious you can't cope with the colossal failure your party has become. Why not just spare us all the pointless drama and admit you backed the wrong guys?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 1:36 PM

Do you think that our Founders actually believed that the role of government is to steal from those that have to give to those that do not have?

Um...does the phrase "promote the general welfare" ring any bells? How about "provide for the COMMON defense?" THe mere fact that you would call such mutual benefits "stealing" -- even when done by elected legislators -- speaks volumes about your maturity.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 1:44 PM

Wow, mroberts, I never realized that calling you a Republican would hit such a raw nerve. A little ashamed of Bush & Co., are we?

Saying that somebody is "ashamed" of Bush assumes that they actually support him in the first place. And yes, most people tend to react badly when you pretend that they are something other than what they are for the sake of convenience.

I hardly ever agree with mroberts, but he's got you pegged here, Bee. You're probably the most partisan person who has ever posted on this blog.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 7, 2008 1:56 PM

Bee, the foundation of your "points" is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you politically is a Bush-supporting Republican, and that anything a Republican does or wants is wrong, certainly in comparison with what Democrats do or want. It's hard to imagine a more clear example of partisanship than that. Even when you're clearly proven wrong, as in this case in your assessment of what somebody actually supports, you brush it aside and pretend that they're lying.

Case in point:

your criticism of the Republicans is completely hollow because no matter how bad they get, you'll still cling to their trouser-legs because you can't let go of your hatred of the Democrats.

Just switch "Repblicans" and "Democrats" around, and the pot couldn't be louder in calling the kettle black.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 7, 2008 2:18 PM

>> I call mroberts a Republican because he echoes right-wing Republican talking-points >>

Really? Which specific talking points have I "echoed"? Considering that all I have been doing is criticizing the Republicans, I must have a different copy of the official Republican talking points than you do.

Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 3:02 PM

>> Crying about wasteful soc1alistic spending (but not about protracted war) and saying Obama is "living in fantasy land" (without stating what he's actually proposed) >>

Uh, did I not mention universal healthcare? That is a policy of Obama is it not? Did I not say I agree with you that the war was a mistake? I said both under this blog post. LOL.

>> Are you aware that your previous statements are still available for us to read? >>

I sure am, and it appears that you are the one not bothering to read them.

Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 3:16 PM

Michael Heath wrote:

Taxing businesses and wealth only harms an economy, especially one operating in a global marketplace...

THat's a bit like saying that paying my bills harms my financial well-being. Are you really sure it's that simple? Doesn't it matter, for example, how the tax money is spent?

...though it will help shrink our national debt.

Isn't shrinking the national debt good for the economy? Less debt means more cash available for lending, which means more investment-capital for growth, which then creates more jobs. So here's at least one example of higher taxes being good for the economy.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 3:53 PM

>> How odd then that every other Western nation seems to be able to do it.

You are aware of the existence of other nations? And that things can be done differently? >>

Uh yeah Stu, I'm aware of other nations. I am not as aware of the intricacies of government in other nations - maybe because I don't live there, right? - but I do know that Europe is having the same problem we are with an aging workforce and not enough workers to support their socialistic programs. Whether or not it is working in other nations or not, it sure is NOT working in this nation. But anybody that tries socialism over the long term typically finds that it ends up being as follows:

1) Wasteful - government does not do it as well as the private sector generally speaking.
2) Encroaches on freedom - socialism requires that government retain more power, and because government is essentially coercion, it means there is more coercion in your life. When government is given more responsibility and power over you, it means you have less freedom to make your own choices, meaning you have less freedom period.
3) Unsustainable - socialism is essentially an institutionalized system of theft. It takes from one group to give to another, and when this happens, politicians end up making promises to various constituencies that they will give them goodies financed with the dollars of other people. This pits constituencies against each other for control of the government, and also leads to an ever-expanding government that continually is making bigger promises to its various constituencies. Eventually, this can lead to national bankruptcy, which is pretty close to where we are today.

Our Founders would never have supported the socialistic system we have today. I would hope that you would at least recognize that they had some wisdom on the subject of government. If you want to read some good books on this subject, read The Law by Frederic Bastiat or The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek.

Posted by: mroberts | July 7, 2008 5:01 PM

Bee said:

The only question is, which partisan is more in touch with reality?

That's like asking which flavor of ice cream is hotter. A partisan is a person who blames everything on members of another political party, and refuses to criticize his or her own. So pretty much by definition, a partisan is out of touch with reality.

Posted by: Gretchen | July 7, 2008 5:20 PM

If it wasn't for the entitlement programs, which are bankrupting us more than anything...

First, are "entitlement programs" really bankrupting us more than, say, a certain war we didn't have to start? (You did say "anything," remember?)

Second, to the extent that "entitlement programs" put money in the hands of people who wouldn't otherwise have it, they can have the effect of creating demand, and thus economic growth to meet the demand, and thus create more jobs and more taxable income; so your claims that they "bankrupt" us are simplistic at best.

(In fact, many conservatives object to such programs for that very reason: the increased demand by poor folks for things they wouldn't otherwise be able to buy leads to more inflation, labor shortages, and an "overheated" economy, which (they say) has to be cooled down by shafting the poor.)

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 7, 2008 5:30 PM

What, I gotta do your homework for you now? Get off your ass and carry your own weight for a change. You're the one pretending to know more about the evils of "socialist" Europe than the rest of us; so you need to be the one to back up your pretensions.

Geez, does this place look like a cradle-to-grave welfare-blog to you?

PS: "Socialism" means state control over the means of production and distribution. Regulation and control are not the same thing, except in the eyes of people who automatically scream "SOCIALISM!!!" every time anyone proposes any regulation of any business activity.

Posted by: RAging Bee | July 7, 2008 5:45 PM

Except, Mr. Roberts, all Bee said was that you should have stopped at "I am not as aware of the intricacies of government in other nations" instead of expounding upon them as if you did, when you know damn well you don't. That's actually pretty good advice.

And even if Bee wrote up this fool's errand of a homework assignment for you, it wouldn't improve your argument one whit.

Posted by: Leni | July 7, 2008 8:47 PM

Well Mrroberts I DO live in country with one of those "socialistic" healthcare systems. Everyone pays a little more tax so that getting care is affordable for all. Like most I don't mind doing this, my taxes help pay for someone's rotator cuff repair (so they can return to the workforce), thier taxes pay for my dad's hip replacement (as a reward for the years he put in), it's what humans do for eachother. I feel a sorry for a country that thinks that caring for thier citizens is "socialistic", and would much rather live in a country with affordable, universal heathcare (most, incidantly, are considered to have the best quality of life) than die in the shitty "capitalistic" system favoured by the US.

Posted by: DingoJaxk | July 8, 2008 2:40 AM

>> LOL, that's what I thought. I didn't think you would be able to offer anything more. Bee, you are just embarrassing yourself.

Says the person who said "I am not as aware of the intricacies of government in other nations" and then proceeded to speak like he knew all about them.

Physician, heal thyself. (Um, should I explain the allusion there, sir?) >>

So gwangung, you are an expert on all other governmental systems on our planet? How about I direct the question to you that Raging Bee could not answer. You are a moron if you think you can have a deep understanding of every nation on earth. Answer me the following, "expert":

Name me just two other "legal and economic systems that are different from ours" and give me five specific examples of how they are different. Since I know so little and you know so much, educate me. I'm sure you can give me specific points. Maybe you can throw in some specific laws we can change to make our system more like the other nations you so deeply admire.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 12:24 PM

Umm - Mrroberts think you got the directions wrong. Americans goto Canada so they can fill thier prescriptions, as they are unaffordable in the US. Yay capitalism! ☺ DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2008 1:09 PM

It is also interesting the your link to "City Journal" is warmly praised by one George F Will. Is this the same guy who had a very close relationship with the disgraced Canadan busnissman Conrad Black? Is this the same guy who helped Regan to power in 1980 by a little pilfering? (check the graph out again Mrroberts to see what a fiscal responsible president Ronnie was!). And, my favorite, was he the guy who fell for the Chinese drilling oil in Florida backyards story, hook, line and stinker without even a cursory attempt to check to facts?
He was forced to retract this (because it was a flat out rightwing lie):

"In a previous column, I stated that China, in partnership with Cuba, is drilling for oil 60 miles [97 km] from the Florida coast. While Cuba has partnered with Chinese companies to drill in the Florida Straits, no Chinese company has been involved in Cuba's oil exploration that close to the United States."

17 June 2007."

Posted by: DingoJack | July 8, 2008 1:28 PM

DingoJack -

That's simply an ad hom. attack. He's wrong now because he's been wrong before doesn't wash. Will has also been right, for instance when he attacks the notion of ID as science.

Posted by: Dave S. | July 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Bee, Dingo, let me point out a few key statements from the article and offer a little commentary:

>> But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin's insurance didn't: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. >>

This happens under managed care, which government health care essentially is. To keep costs down, the medical plan will regulate treatments. Instead of YOU deciding what treatments you want, the plan will decide. If they decide the cost is too high, they refuse treatment. This would never happen under a free system, where a doctor would willingly treat you because they are getting paid to do so. And with competition, instead of government monopoly, costs are kept down. If one doctor is too high, you go to another one, so costs for care are kept at the actual market value - which is the cheapest possible.

>> Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic--with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks. >>

Again, when you have bureaucrats who want to keep costs down deciding what care you are going to get, this is the nightmare you face. When supply and demand is allowed to operate without interference, more hospitals and doctors will enter the system to meet demand. When demand drops, doctors and hospitals will leave the system. This is by far the most efficient system. No bureaucrat can possibly know enough about the healthcare needs of an entire nation to structure it as efficiently as a capitalistic system can. They will ALWAYS be behind the ball because needs and technology change so much and so quickly.

>> My book's thesis was simple: to contain rising costs, government-run health-care systems invariably restrict the health-care supply. >>

A critical point. Either costs are reigned in, or taxes have to be raised to cover out of control costs.

>> Nor were the problems I identified unique to Canada--they characterized all government-run health-care systems. Consider the recent British controversy over a cancer patient who tried to get an appointment with a specialist, only to have it canceled--48 times. More than 1 million Britons must wait for some type of care, with 200,000 in line for longer than six months. A while back, I toured a public hospital in Washington, D.C., with Tim Evans, a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe. The hospital was dark and dingy, but Evans observed that it was cleaner than anything in his native England. In France, the supply of doctors is so limited that during an August 2003 heat wave--when many doctors were on vacation and hospitals were stretched beyond capacity--15,000 elderly citizens died. Across Europe, state-of-the-art drugs aren't available. And so on. >>

Canada isn't the only place with these problems.

>> In fact, government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province's population) can't find family physicians. Health officials in one Nova Scotia community actually resorted to a lottery to determine who'd get a doctor's appointment. >>

This would never happen in a free system. If more doctors were needed, they would enter the system to meet demand because of a profit motive. Again, no bureaucrat or group of bureaucrats can effectively manage a system as large and complex as universal healthcare for millions of people.

>> But this accidental revolutionary has turned Canadian health care on its head. In the 1990s, recognizing the growing crisis of socialized care, Chaoulli organized a private Quebec practice--patients called him, he made house calls, and then he directly billed his patients. The local health board cried foul and began fining him. The legal status of private practice in Canada remained murky, but billing patients, rather than the government, was certainly illegal, and so was private insurance. >>

Government healthcare is also anti-freedom. What right does a government bureaucrat have telling you who you can do business with and what kind of care you want? This is absurd. Fines for a doctor simply caring for patients that need it? DISGUSTING.

>> Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. >>

Again, the issue of freedom is raised. This guy wants a hip replacement tomorrow? He should be able to get one. This is ridiculous. I don't want some idiot bureaucrat making decisions about my healthcare.

>> Then there was the eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, her parents called Timely [to arrange for care in the states]. She's now back at school, her hearing partly restored."The father said, 'Mr. Baker, my wife and I are in agreement that your star shines the brightest in our heaven,' " Baker recalls. "I told that story to a government official. He shrugged. He couldn't fucking care less." >>

Big surprise there. A government official that doesn't care. Why should they? You are just a number and there is nothing in it for them to make sure you get prompt, good quality care.

>> Baker isn't alone: other private-sector health options are blossoming across Canada, and the government is increasingly turning a blind eye to them, too, despite their often uncertain legal status. Private clinics are opening at a rate of about one a week. >>

The private sector at work.

>>Government bureaucrats would be able to cut costs--but only by shrinking access to health care, as in Canada, and engendering a Canadian-style nightmare of overflowing emergency rooms and yearlong waits for treatment.

Note that costs can only be cut by SHRINKING ACCESS to care. This is what will happen folks. The article also mentioned that many European countries are moving toward privatization because they have seen how much gov't care sucks.

If what you really care about is QUALITY of care, I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to recognize that socialized medicine has PROBLEMS. Every time I have to go to the DMV or call some government agency, I am reminded once again how much government sucks at what it does. Do you really want your healthcare to be operated like the DMV? I hope not.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 2:17 PM

If what you really care about is QUALITY of care, I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to recognize that socialized medicine has PROBLEMS.

Also, I hope you have the intellectual honesty, yourself, that health care in this country HAS PROBLEMS.

The debate is not which system is perfect; the debate is which system has fewer problems. I have yet to see you address this in concrete terms. And I have seen you ignore contrary evidence and cite non-existent trends.

Posted by: gwangung | July 8, 2008 2:23 PM

>> Also, I hope you have the intellectual honesty, yourself, that health care in this country HAS PROBLEMS. >>

Yes, it does have problems. I freely acknowledge that. Let's not forget that healthcare in this country is largely MANAGED by bureaucracies, they just happen to be in the private sector, yet they are managed nevertheless. They also are heavily regulated, which contributes to costs. Think about this: one of the big problems is that legislatures have mandated that healthcare insurers cover certain procedures in their insurance packages. When they do this, it raises the costs for insurance for EVERYBODY. When legislators, in an attempt to buy votes from certain constituencies, pass laws mandating that insurers cover expensive treatments all the time, those insurers still have to pay for them somehow. So, they raise rates and they limit care to cut costs. It is not that uncommon for insurance companies to find ways to avoid covering your care. It happens all the time. Most of the ills of our healthcare system are the result of regulation, and more regulation is not the answer. The best solution is to keep idiot politicians out of our healthcare.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 2:36 PM

>> Most of the ills of our healthcare system are the result of regulation, and more regulation is not the answer.

You just admitted that blanket assertion was wrong, when you stated that "legislatures have mandated that healthcare insurers cover certain procedures in their insurance packages." Why do they do this? Because of pre-existing problems arising from private insurers' refusal to cover certain useful or life-saving procedures. >>

Bee, there is always somebody out there who will do the procedure. Forcing companies to insure it is not the answer. There is no doubt that healthcare is expensive. The question is, can government provide a better healthcare product for less? Based on the article I posted, I think the answer is NO. With all it's faults, our system provides better care. It could even be better if legislatures would stop meddling with it.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 2:55 PM

>> The US ranks poorly on tables of healthcare outcomes, several "socialistic" systems (notably in Scandinavian coutries) score up at the head. How do you explain this? -DJ >>

Dingo, you obviously didn't even bother reading the article. What is point of even posting stuff to back up my position if you don't even bother to read it? Read the article, it addresses your question.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 3:05 PM

Most of the ills of our healthcare system are the result of regulation,

Unsupported assertion.

On the other hand, I know in Taiwan's managed system, one of the BIG savings was standardization of records and forms. This is well documented.

Your turn.

Posted by: gwangung | July 8, 2008 3:23 PM

guns. not healthcare. oh yeah, we value our people.

Posted by: ~disgusted~ | July 8, 2008 3:28 PM

The controls often cap the rates doctors can charge at a rate that forces him to do the procedure at a loss.

And if there are no such controls, doctors raise their rates to what the big insurance company can pay, which is much higher than the uninsured can pay. In this case, the "price controls" merely compensate for the insurance company's effect on the market.

So, the doctor chooses not to do the procedure at all instead of doing if for a loss.

Which he would also do if he couldn't get paid at all. So now you've just admitted that an insurance plan, with or without price controls, can at least reduce the loss.

Look, no system is perfect, but government care is not the answer.

Neither is your simpleminded insistence that government is always bad. And pretending that one country's worst policies represent "socialized medicine" in general, isn't much of an answer either.

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2008 3:42 PM

>> The controls often cap the rates doctors can charge at a rate that forces him to do the procedure at a loss.

And if there are no such controls, doctors raise their rates to what the big insurance company can pay, which is much higher than the uninsured can pay. In this case, the "price controls" merely compensate for the insurance company's effect on the market. >>

What? Is that an educated response, or just the first thing you can think of. I honestly couldn't figure out what you are trying to say.

>> So, the doctor chooses not to do the procedure at all instead of doing if for a loss.

Which he would also do if he couldn't get paid at all. So now you've just admitted that an insurance plan, with or without price controls, can at least reduce the loss. >>

Again, I cannot even begin to comprehend where you are going on this.

>> Look, no system is perfect, but government care is not the answer.

Neither is your simpleminded insistence that government is always bad. And pretending that one country's worst policies represent "socialized medicine" in general, isn't much of an answer either. >>

"Simpleminded"? Bee, I am probably the only one of the two of us that has actually bothered to read and learn about what we are arguing about and you have the nerve to call me "simpleminded"? You are almost religious in your insistence that government can solve all of our problems. I don't get it. And when you try to explain why you think that way, I get about 1 coherent thought for every 20 that you express. Have you actually bothered to read about this subject and learn about it? Or do you get your "knowledge" and "expertise" from Katie Couric and moveon.org or something? Trying to have a rational discussion with you is almost impossible.

Seriously, how often do you read and what do you usually read? I am curious.

Posted by: mroberts | July 8, 2008 3:57 PM

You are almost religious in your insistence that government can solve all of our problems.

Where did I ever say that?

Posted by: Raging Bee | July 8, 2008 4:06 PM

Mrroberts - pithy as ever.
If the American system is based on market pricing why is the GOVERNMENT spending 4.8% more on healthcare (compared to "socialist" Australia)? If it is due to more R&D being conducted by PRIVATE companies, shouldn't it be spending LESS? And why are indivdual Americans spending almost twice as much on healthcare as Australians? Shouldn't market competition drive the prices down?
Europe BTW is not a country, it's a region containing over 30 countries, some have fanastic helthcare, some have abysmal healthcare, lower rates of recovery over widely variable sytems in highly selective catagories is not really proof of anything much. Two examples:
a) In 2006 over 13000 persons died of HIV/AIDS in the US; in Australia only 90 died. Does that intrinsically prove that Australian healthcare is better than US healthcare?
b) American drug companies spent untold amounts of time and money trying to find a cure for stomach ulcers; it took two Australian researchers ten years on a meagre budget to prove that cure was a short course of antibiotics and some peptobysmal. Is this intrinsic proof of the superiority of Australian R&D over the US?
I think you'll agree the answer to both expamples is no, it proves nothing. It's the aggregate figures that tell the whole story. Unfortunatly this does not favour the dysfunctional, expensive and patchy US healthcare system.
European healthcare system is moving to allow the option of private healthcare to move those that do not need help out of the system. If you can pay for private care, good for you! If you can't, you should not be denied care. I think you agree that, at very least, such a system would be immoral. -DJ
Apologies for the prolixity.

Posted by: DingoJack | July 10, 2008 3:42 AM