Is Healthcare a Right?

[JCM]

Spain.

I'll give you that our country is like 6 or 7 times smaller population wise, but actually healthcare is NOT run on an national level, so what does it matter?

Our economic system is fucked, but still our healthcare works damn well. Of course it's not single payer. You always have an option to go private even if the public one is payed from your taxes.


Anyway, I must admit all the discussion has convinced me that you need a tort reform before anything else. THEN reform the rest. Or at the same time at least...

There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

 

[Adam]

My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

 

[Chibibar]

There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

This is pretty much it. Each States pretty much govern themselves on many level. The Federal level do have some laws but a lot of stuff are control by the states.

If this doesn't change, then the federal healthplan won't work (I still think it won't work for the U.S.) each states will do things differently

 

[tegid]

My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

All of it sounds really good, and I really like the bolded part. I can't help but wonder, though: will 'rich' people who stay private be happy to pay through their taxes the money lacking on the lower-tier-insurance price?

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------

There are countless countries with public healthcare, however I do agree that it wont work in the US for the same reason its terrible in Brazil.

Too much corruption, bureaucracy, and the country is just too damn fucking big. Add the problem of every state running itself in the US, with its own laws, and you´d be pouring tens of billions into healthcare where the sick might be lucky if a quarter is left behind.

This is pretty much it. Each States pretty much govern themselves on many level. The Federal level do have some laws but a lot of stuff are control by the states.

If this doesn't change, then the federal healthplan won't work (I still think it won't work for the U.S.) each states will do things differently [/QUOTE]

And what's the problem with that? I don't see it, as long as you set common minimums or something.

 

[AshburnerX]

My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

All of it sounds really good, and I really like the bolded part. I can't help but wonder, though: will 'rich' people who stay private be happy to pay through their taxes the money lacking on the lower-tier-insurance price? [/QUOTE]

No they won't and they are the greatest obstacle towards a public option.

 

[Adam]

My Healthcare plan:

Lower the barriers to entry for more Insurance companies to enter the market.
Lower malpractice premiums for doctors.
Limit civil damages for accidental death during surgeries.
Introduce Standards in Medical Coding Act (obvious)
Lower medical tuition
Create a program analagous to the Medical Services Plan in BC. A tiered public insurance option that scales according to income.

All of it sounds really good, and I really like the bolded part. I can't help but wonder, though: will 'rich' people who stay private be happy to pay through their taxes the money lacking on the lower-tier-insurance price?[/quote]

MSP costs in BC are monthly:

$54 for one person
$96 for a family of two
$108 for a family of three or more

I think the issue with 'the rich' (and me for that matter) are they don't want freebies being given away. Once something is 'free', it is quickly abused. Look at crowded ERs filled with people that could have easily seen their GP for things like the flu or a sprained ankle. As long as there is a premium being paid, then there is some responsibility on the part of the user. At the same time, MSP requires a Health Card being issued. This while rankle the losertarians who believe that it somehow infringes on the right to privacy, but I've yet to see any way to determine the citizenship requirements for a health care plan. They don't want illegals using it, but they don't want people to have to prove they aren't illegal.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.

 

[Adam]

I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?

 

[crono1224]

Probably relating that US is the sole reason for why they live so close to the border.

 

[Adam]

Probably relating that US is the sole reason for why they live so close to the border.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that.

 

[tegid]

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

 

[Adam]

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.

 

[AshburnerX]

I'd also imagine weather and climate conditions play a serious part in it as well. I can't imagine it would be much fun living in those islands close to the arctic, for example.

 

[crono1224]

No, because trade, non-hospitable land and weather conditions are little or no factor.

 

[Chazwozel]

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.[/QUOTE]

Or, you know, the fact that the northern part of the country is cold as fuck. Granted trade is another factor. It's easier to trade close to the border, but it wouldn't be an issue if the northern area of Canada wasn't a tundra (trains/planes) and if more people were able to live and work there. There aren't many people that live in northern Alaska either; most of that population is located along the southern coast due to better weather, trade, and travel.

 

[Adam]

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.[/QUOTE]

Or, you know, the fact that the northern part of the country is cold as fuck. Granted trade is another factor. It's easier to trade close to the border, but it wouldn't be an issue if the northern area of Canada wasn't a tundra (trains/planes) and if more people were able to live and work there. There aren't many people that live in northern Alaska either; most of that population is located along the southern coast due to better weather, trade, and travel.[/QUOTE]

While I appreciate the American consideration that a place is 'cold as fuck', Canadians are a fairly hardy breed. You aren't really getting into sub-zero temperatures year 'round until well north of the Territories border. I would wager that places like North Dakota are actually colder at times than the west coast of BC would ever be. Plus large metropolitan areas like Edmonton, Price George, Rimouski, etc. sit fairly far north.

Trade plays a far greater role in population distribution than climate in Canada. Places like Fort McMurray which have seen a tremendous population explosion despite what would be considered 'intemperate' conditions at best.

 

[Covar]

No he didn't, but it's pretty clear he wanted to imply that, more or less strongly. Otherwise it makes no sense mentioning it.

Canadians live close to the border because the US is our largest trading partner by far - and you want to be close to your customers.[/QUOTE]

Or, you know, the fact that the northern part of the country is cold as fuck. Granted trade is another factor. It's easier to trade close to the border, but it wouldn't be an issue if the northern area of Canada wasn't a tundra (trains/planes) and if more people were able to live and work there. There aren't many people that live in northern Alaska either; most of that population is located along the southern coast due to better weather, trade, and travel.[/QUOTE]

While I appreciate the American consideration that a place is 'cold as fuck', Canadians are a fairly hardy breed. You aren't really getting into sub-zero temperatures year 'round until well north of the Territories border. I would wager that places like North Dakota are actually colder at times than the west coast of BC would ever be. Plus large metropolitan areas like Edmonton, Price George, Rimouski, etc. sit fairly far north.

Trade plays a far greater role in population distribution than climate in Canada. Places like Fort McMurray which have seen a tremendous population explosion despite what would be considered 'intemperate' conditions at best.[/QUOTE]

Hell look at the population skew in the United States. East and West coasts are heavily populated while the midwest is much more empty. Go back into American history the West Coast was like the rest of the midwest until the discovery of gold, and the massive influx of trade made possible by new modes of transportation.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I don't see how 33 million people living in a 100 mile ribbon across 5 and half time zones can be called "crammed." We could house the whole population of Western Europe in that ribbon and they'd probably have more space than they do now.

 

[Mr_Chaz]

Do you think party B deserves healthcare?

Yes. Why? Because you never know what impact the lack of healthcare would have. Maybe they would be productive in the future. Maybe their illness/death would spur them/their family and friends into some form of positive action. Maybe just because it would be really shitty to see someone else die just because they're a bit of a meany.

Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

Try the UK, where they're basically all publicly funded. Do you want to tell me that Oxford and Cambridge aren't up to scratch?

I don't even know if regulation is the key, but competition. The fewer the number of firms in a market, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the monopoly outcome (high price above marginal cost, low output). (A Nash equilibrium in an economic market is where all firms in the market are choosing their best output strategy given what the other firms are doing.) The larger the number of firms, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the perfectly competitive outcome (lower price equal to marginal cost, higher output).

While I'm hesitant to use the word 'collusion' to describe the actions of insurance companies, whatever they're doing isn't working...

Economics talk eh? I haven't studied for a while but I'll try to keep up for a while...

I like your idea of decreasing the monopoly, but reaching the perfect Nash equilibrium also requires having zero inequalities in the market. Perfect knowledge, no barriers to entry, no existing monopolising powers and so on. Since that doesn't exist in the whole world your capitalist ideal for the medical industry is flawed. This is where I have a problem with it. Not in the idea, but in the execution: there is no such thing as a perfectly competitive market, and you should know that. So regulation is required to actually increase the competitive nature of the market.

The other problem with treating the healthcare industry in purely capitalist terms as many people here seem to be trying to do is that it completely ignores the externalities. For example the social benefits of someone not being dead. Think about this, a cleaner may not earn enough to afford insurance, becomes ill, dies. Who's going to empty your bins, mop your floor? Their health matters to YOU, not just them. A simple example, but this is an element too often ignored in these sorts of debates.

 

[Chibibar]

Mr. Chaz, I see where you are coming from, but after working with some charities, I notice that some people just don't want to contribute anymore and just live off everyone's else penny.

I guess the question if true opportunities does open to anyone and freely, maybe these "freeloaders" will take up on it and become fruitful members of society, but that kind of resources doesn't exist or at least not enough of it. (depending where you are)

 

[Papillon]

I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?[/QUOTE]

- It's difficult to predict how Canadian military spending might change if we were not near the US -- it could easily change very little as Australia ($23 billion) and Spain ($18.9 billion) spend a similar amount of money to Canada ($18.3 billion). By contrast health care spending is closer to $160 billion. Military spending might even go down; for example if we deployed fewer troops in Afganistan.
- Although health care in Canada is national in scope, it is actually mostly administered at a provincial level. Since US states (excepting California, New York, Texas and Florida) have similar populations to Canadian provinces, a system administered at the state level would have similar bureaucracy to the Canadian system. Actually a US state would have advantages over a Canadian province since states are much smaller than provinces.

 

[Adam]

Are the privatized universities better than the public ones?

Try the UK, where they're basically all publicly funded. Do you want to tell me that Oxford and Cambridge aren't up to scratch?

I asked the question; I didn't make a judgement either way.

I don't even know if regulation is the key, but competition. The fewer the number of firms in a market, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the monopoly outcome (high price above marginal cost, low output). (A Nash equilibrium in an economic market is where all firms in the market are choosing their best output strategy given what the other firms are doing.) The larger the number of firms, the closer the final Nash equilibrium is to the perfectly competitive outcome (lower price equal to marginal cost, higher output).

While I'm hesitant to use the word 'collusion' to describe the actions of insurance companies, whatever they're doing isn't working...

Economics talk eh? I haven't studied for a while but I'll try to keep up for a while...

I like your idea of decreasing the monopoly, but reaching the perfect Nash equilibrium also requires having zero inequalities in the market. Perfect knowledge, no barriers to entry, no existing monopolising powers and so on. Since that doesn't exist in the whole world your capitalist ideal for the medical industry is flawed. This is where I have a problem with it. Not in the idea, but in the execution: there is no such thing as a perfectly competitive market, and you should know that. So regulation is required to actually increase the competitive nature of the market.

We don't need a 'perfectly' competitive market, we need a 'more' competitive market. Regulation can increase the barriers to entry as it becomes harder/more expensive to meet that regulation. Regulating prices also acts as an externality on marginal-cost pricing in oligopoly like healthcare - if there's no profit to be made, or there's little profit to be made, the likelihood of other companies entering into the industry approaches zero. The long run supply curve notes a profit of zero remember.

The other problem with treating the healthcare industry in purely capitalist terms as many people here seem to be trying to do is that it completely ignores the externalities. For example the social benefits of someone not being dead. Think about this, a cleaner may not earn enough to afford insurance, becomes ill, dies. Who's going to empty your bins, mop your floor? Their health matters to YOU, not just them. A simple example, but this is an element too often ignored in these sorts of debates.

There are social factors of course. I'm not going Galt here

 

[Rob King]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

 

[Adam]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.

 

[Krisken]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in the last year. I think it takes longer than that to populate an area.

 

[Adam]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in the last year. I think it takes longer than that to populate an area. [/QUOTE]

9 women can pop out a kid in 1 month!

Or so I've been led to believe

 

[Krisken]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.[/quote]
Yeah, in the last year. I think it takes longer than that to populate an area. [/quote]

9 women can pop out a kid in 1 month!

Or so I've been led to believe[/QUOTE]
And then they'd be instantly transplanted to the north.

I like you, you're funny!

 

[Rob King]

Regarding population distribution in Canada, of course trade has something to do with it, but have you ever been to the north? The only reason Canada goes up so far is because there's nobody else who wants that freaking land. Russia looks very similar. As do the countries that make up Scandinavia.

Haven't you been watching the news? Every country with even the smallest claim to the north has been sending ships and troops up there because of the significant mineral/oil claims there. Plus a safe northwest passage could be very lucrative.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, in the last year. I think it takes longer than that to populate an area. [/QUOTE]

Basically this.

You're going to see the population shift a little bit towards the north in the next few decades, but no matter how hearty a people we are, it is simply easier to live in the southern areas of the country.

There's oil there? Great! Let's build a town around it.

Where do we get the lumber? And, how much farmland is in Nunavut anyways? How easy is it to maintain highways and other travel links? And what other industries are around that can contribute to a population growth? I can't think of many. The only other one that makes sense to me is Whaling, and well ... for some reason we don't like the sound of that.

 

[Adam]

Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

 

[Armadillo]

Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's close to Vancouver?

(Sorry, I'm a diehard Minnesota Wild fan.)

 

[Adam]

Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's close to Vancouver?

(Sorry, I'm a diehard Minnesota Wild fan.)[/QUOTE]

Wild fans exist? Hmmm, the North Stars I can understand, but not the Wild.

 

[Shakey]

So, healthcare as a right is now about Canada eh?

For my part, no I don't think it's a right. I think as a nation it is needed to better ourselves, but it's not a right. Calling it a right is simply playing on emotions and not the reality of the situation.

 

[Rob King]

Ok then...if climate is one of the main drivers for why not many people live in northern canada and not trade, why is northern Vancouver Island so sparsely populated?

It's not the only one, but it's a big one.

My point isn't simply that bad climate = less population. I live in freaking Newfoundland, for god's sakes. I curse my forefathers every day for not staying on the ship an extra week and landing somewhere warm like Virginia.

No, my point is that if you took the US altogether out of the picture, and eliminated the trade factor completely, you would still have a very similar distribution. Perhaps a little more spread out, but not by much. Vancouver island might look a little bit more evenly distributed, for example, but maybe not. There's also the force of habit to be considered. Why start a new town further north, when we started one in 1785 just right over there? There will have to be a pretty damn good reason, and I don't know Vancouver Island well enough to say if there is or isn't a good reason in the north of the island.

Another case study that I'm more familiar with is my own home. Newfoundland isn't that affected by the American border, since we're an island quite distant from the states. About half of our population lives in a section of our province which is literally 1/100th of the whole. That one is just force of habit. Climate doesn't even factor in that much. We settled St. John's pretty early on, and there's no point to establish a new city anywhere else now, even if the west coast has better weather and is just more beautiful in general.

If we get some shipping lanes, or oil towns established up north there will be a population boom, but a few factors (one of the biggest being the climate and the holistic impact that will have on industry) will keep it from ever becoming as densely populated as the near-border areas.

 

[ThatGrinningIdiot!]

I can't stick around, but I just wanted to get this in... Medical care IS a limited resource. Anyone who's taken a look at the hours medical professionals put in can tell you that. The British NHS is spiralling into implosion, even according to its own creator, and the only reason Canada can afford single payer health without it also imploding is because a huge amount of what would be their national budget is covered by the mere existence of the US Military, and they're actually a very small country population wise, with a mere 33 million people, 90% of which are all crammed within 100 miles of the US border.

It's a little different a story when the country has 10 times that, and actually has to be self sufficient.

Please refrain from condescending my country with your Neo-Conservative nonsense.[/QUOTE]

Which part of what he said was incorrect?[/QUOTE]

I never said GB's assesment was incorrect, and it wasn't my intent to imply that it was. However, he could've relayed his point easily without the underlying derisive 'tone' in his post.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

Canada's population is not just concentrated along the border. It is also far more crowded along the border and at the coast.

Kind of. It's crowded in three spots, one on the West Coast, one on the St Lawrence, and one on Lake Ontario (which happens to be part of the the St Lawrence Seaway) . . . so yeah, international shipping seems to play a role. Which would mean it's not just access to the US that affects our population distribution, but our access to the whole world.