[pongeystrhjst]

Personally, I have to agree with aneeshm about monopolies, except the original is still a good game. It's all the rehashes and remakes and re-envisionings that suck.

[fount_pirat]

theres some confusion here, I think, not only about the left, but about the European right. Its absolutely not true, IIUC, that there are NO Europeans who share a "Republican economic ideology" There are some. Confusingly they are called "liberals" or "neo-liberals" and at least on the continent, they make up only a minority of the right, the majority of whom are Christian Democrats, who support a welfare state, but from generally a Catholic social ideology POV, rather than even a light pink socialist one. And even in Britain, where "dry tories" are rather more numerous than on the continent they have to face political reality. I doubt Maggie Thatcher like the national health service any better than most Republicans, or even national health insurance. But its already in place, part of the british scene - sometimes institutions have a certain "stare decisis", a social inertia that makes them hard to change. In general the US republicans have been far more successful at stoping new social programs than at reversing existing ones - in UK there is simply a larger base of existing ones.

Am i incorrect in the above?

[TRASIAOREXOLA]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Personally, I have to agree with aneeshm about monopolies, except the original is still a good game. It's all the rehashes and remakes and re-envisionings that suck.

You do realise you just agreed with Ned, not aneeshm

Originally posted by lord of the mark
theres some confusion here, I think, not only about the left, but about the European right. Its absolutely not true, IIUC, that there are NO Europeans who share a "Republican economic ideology" There are some. Confusingly they are called "liberals" or "neo-liberals" and at least on the continent, they make up only a minority of the right, the majority of whom are Christian Democrats, who support a welfare state, but from generally a Catholic social ideology POV, rather than even a light pink socialist one. And even in Britain, where "dry tories" are rather more numerous than on the continent they have to face political reality. I doubt Maggie Thatcher like the national health service any better than most Republicans, or even national health insurance. But its already in place, part of the british scene - sometimes institutions have a certain "stare decisis", a social inertia that makes them hard to change. In general the US republicans have been far more successful at stoping new social programs than at reversing existing ones - in UK there is simply a larger base of existing ones.

Am i incorrect in the above? Relatively so. There is a good base of economic conservatives in the UK who believe in small government and individual choice. They tend to believe in traditional family values too, so a Christian Democrat position too. Some of these I'm sure would like to remove the NHS, however most don't, because to most people, healthcare is an anomoly.

In most public services there's a debate between efficiency and equity. Take education - it's more efficient (in many senses) to have it privatised, however it would be inequitable. So some people want it privatised and some want it state-run, depending on which side of the fence they fall on. On healthcare, efficiency tends to fall on the same side as equity, the state-run angle. Now this isn't clear-cut at all, there's still a lot of debate, but it's worth looking at how little the US gets for the huge extra amount it spends on per capita healthcare each year.

So we do have Republican-like politicians, it's just for healthcare, they make an exception. I don't know too much about the rest of Europe, but I'm not aware of much Republican-like policies or parties doing well, it's more, as you say, about Christian Democrats vs Social Democrats.

[fkisjjdhh]

Originally posted by Drogue

You do realise you just agreed with Ned, not aneeshm


Relatively so. There is a good base of economic conservatives in the UK who believe in small government and individual choice. They tend to believe in traditional family values too, so a Christian Democrat position too. Some of these I'm sure would like to remove the NHS, however most don't, because to most people, healthcare is an anomoly.

In most public services there's a debate between efficiency and equity. Take education - it's more efficient (in many senses) to have it privatised, however it would be inequitable. So some people want it privatised and some want it state-run, depending on which side of the fence they fall on. On healthcare, efficiency tends to fall on the same side as equity, the state-run angle. Now this isn't clear-cut at all, there's still a lot of debate, but it's worth looking at how little the US gets for the huge extra amount it spends on per capita healthcare each year.

So we do have Republican-like politicians, it's just for healthcare, they make an exception. I don't know too much about the rest of Europe, but I'm not aware of much Republican-like policies or parties doing well, it's more, as you say, about Christian Democrats vs Social Democrats. cmon, are you saying Maggie Thatcher wouldnt have opposed the NHS if it were proposed in a US like environment? My sense was she accepted that it was there, and it would take an impossible amount of political capital to recreate private health care, but that she certainly didnt accept it as an anomaly.

Certainly some enthusiastic Brit Thatcherites whove come over here (Im thinking of Andrew Sullivan) are not supporters of national health insurance here.

[espenijij]

Originally posted by Ned
Droque, you speak as information availability justified state monopolies in health care, for example. Not quite, you already have a monopoly in the US due to the problems of competition in healthcare. I believe it should be state-run due to incentives.

Originally posted by Ned
I would just like to say that most doctors prefer to work in the US than in an socialized medicine country.
Firstly, perhaps because of other reasons (most people prefer to work in the US regardless of profession, and would still if you have state-run healthcare system). But secondly, says who? Any evidence for that? Plus there's the pay issue - US doctors earn more. However we still have plenty of them here, so much that they have to ration medicine places at university because too many people want to become a doctor.

Originally posted by Ned
Most drug companies make their profits in the US that allows them to conduct research in the first instance. That's exactly the problem. US healthcare is ridiciously expensive. You pay far, far more both per capita and as a percentage of GDP than anywhere else and yet the WHO rates it as the 15th best healthcare system in the world. You spend 15% of your GDP on healthcare, whereas Europe is like 6-10% or so, and are ranked better. There's very, very good evidence and studies (mostly American, incidentally) that show that a state-funded healthcare system operate sat lower costs than an insurance funded system for a given quality of care.

Originally posted by Ned
And, where possible, the sick of the world prefer health care in the US than anywhere else in the world How many people do you know from developed countries come to the US for healthcare? I'm not aware of it happening much at all. Those from developing countries, who can afford it, go to the US because Western Europe doesn't open it's healthcare to non-residents. You can't go to a hospital in the UK and pay for it. That's why people choose the US.

US healthcare is consistently ranked as lower than the majority of Western Europe's, and yet costs a lot more. As an economist, it's quite easy to see why - you have an inefficient system that costs an awful lot of money.


Ned: If you're interested in the issue, here is a US written report called The U.S. Health Care System: Best in the World, or Just the Most Expensive. Succinct and covers the points quite well.

[meencegic]

Assuming, of course, that one accepts/agrees with the basis for what the report considered to be good/better healthcare.

I honestly don't know what their definition of ideal healthcare was, but I could certainly imagine someone having a different opinion as to what constituted ideal health care, and thus disagreeing with the report.

-Arrian

[Imiweevierm]

US Heathcare ranked lower? On what measure? Quality? Quantity? Or some other, less obvious, socialist criteria such equality of service or access or whatever.

Doctors make more here because we have private medicine.

The better doctors make more than others.

The better hospitals and clinics charge more than others.

People choose doctors here. If they don't like the doctor or the service they get, they have choices.

The poor have access to medicine, better access in many cases than the middle class.

You cannot deny that in many, if not most of the socialized medicine countries, healthcare is rationed one way or another.

You cannot deny that without the US providing a source of profit, the pace of development of medicine and drugs would slow to a trickle or stop entirely.

The socialized medicine countries rely on the US for advancement of the science of medicine. You take profit out of anything, and you get nothing. Money moves on. You provide free markets, you get amazing progress, amazing service, and a satisfied client.

[smifatv]

You can't go to a hospital in the UK and pay for it.

You can come for free though.....

[Uhmavano]

Only if you're an EU citizen.

[ArrichMer]

Originally posted by Drogue
Only if you're an EU citizen. In theory they aren't entitled, there are easy loopholes to exploit in order to get around the problem however.

[flueftArete]

edit:ill repost this in multiculti thread

[yurawerj]

You have to understand that even European drug companies make their profits in the US. Location of reseach is not relevant. Location of the patents is.

[alskdjreyfd]

Originally posted by Ned
Drogue, I think you way underestimate the amount of choice most Americans enjoy in the area of healthcare.

Quite, how many 'mericans pop over to Canada for cheap drugs these days?

[carfAball]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, can you simply call up and get a doctor's appointment any time you want it? I doubt it. You might have to wait a couple of days, if that s the price of universal healthcare I'll take it.

[Clielldub]

Originally posted by TheStinger


You might have to wait a couple of days, if that s the price of universal healthcare I'll take it. I doubt even the Americans could call up and get an appointment the same day if the doctor is simply just busy with prior appointments.

Considering over the last three months, I've used the NHS relatively a lot (by my healthy standards) its worth it.

GP consultation = Free
prescpription = £6.50 flat fee
specialist consultation = Free
thorough checkup = Free
blood test + various other tests = Free
course of vaccinations = Free
Band 2 Dentist (checkup, consultation, fillings and cleaning) = £42 flat fee

Keeping me healthy and with peace of mind has cost me less than £50 (and I could reclaim that if I got my arse in gear).

Universal Healthcare rocks compared to what it was like when my family lived in the USA.

especially that year when we didn't have health insurance after my mum/step-father's divorce.

[hLabXZlK]

blood test + various other tests = Free

Wow. I was ill once and the doctor ordered such tests on me, and it cost me $400.

[Piemonedmow]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, can you simply call up and get a doctor's appointment any time you want it? I doubt it. Except that when you get there, if you don't have insurance, the doctor won't see you.

[indahouweres]

Originally posted by Lord Avalon

I don't entirely agree with you. Why would you assume the insured have greater demand for resources than what they need? Uninsured people also drive up the cost of health care, because they don't get preventative check ups, and then go to the ER when they're sick.

Actually, I think in the US it's easier for the insured to see specialists more easily than elsewhere, so there's more than marginal benefit there (at least to those getting that health care). Of course I can certainly see the point of using resources to provide basic health care for everybody, but what happens when those resources run out? Why would they run out?

Health crae should be primarily about disease prevention, not disease maintenance or treatment. Its is simply cheaper to ensure that people can stay healthy, and the US system in particulalrly does not do this, not that any current health system is really set up with disease prevention as a main goal.

As KH pointed out, the European system is cheaper anyways.

[Xlkl9SFd]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, can you simply call up and get a doctor's appointment any time you want it? I doubt it. Yes. I did it last term, got an appointment inside 20 minutes. But then I have the best doctors in the world - it was sort of out of hours, and so he said he'd stay in an extra half an hour Usually it takes a couple of days though, a week tops, perhaps, as others have said.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
I don't entirely agree with you. Why would you assume the insured have greater demand for resources than what they need? We don't need to ask why, we have evidence to show that they do. But the why seems quite obvious to me: doctors have an incentive to overprescribe, as they make money on the prescription, and you, the other person who chooses, doesn't pay for it. It's an externality, the person who pays for it (insurance company) doesn't make the decision to consume or not. KH is *exactly* right.

Lots of times there are more cost-effective alternatives than what is done. This will only get worse and more and more expensive proceedures are invented.

Originally posted by Lord Avalon
Actually, I think in the US it's easier for the insured to see specialists more easily than elsewhere, so there's more than marginal benefit there (at least to those getting that health care). Of course I can certainly see the point of using resources to provide basic health care for everybody, but what happens when those resources run out? They don't. But more importantly, it costs less, and they still don't.

[extessarere]

Originally posted by Drogue
We don't need to ask why, we have evidence to show that they do. But the why seems quite obvious to me: doctors have an incentive to overprescribe, as they make money on the prescription, and you, the other person who chooses, doesn't pay for it. It's an externality, the person who pays for it (insurance company) doesn't make the decision to consume or not. KH is *exactly* right.

Lots of times there are more cost-effective alternatives than what is done. This will only get worse and more and more expensive proceedures are invented. Since when do doctors make money on the prescription? (Unless they own stock in the company which makes the drug, or are getting kickbacks, etc.) I go to a pharmacy to get prescriptions filled. It's not associated with my doctor.

And actually, I have a co-pay on my prescription drugs, and my insurance company has a drug formulary, so depending on what the level of coverage is, I have a low co-pay for generics, more for non-generics (and this past year it went up from $25 to up to 50% of the cost), and there might be drugs not covered at all, for which, if I decided to take it, I would have to pay the whole cost.