Vermont passing a law to provide healthcare to its residents

[jmervyn]

J, you do like to argue. But I'm a scientist, I prefer to look at the facts.

That's one of the more notable failings of socialists - the false assumption that their political beliefs somehow are scientific. Is the study of economics a science? Furthermore, your attempt to cling to science as an aegis falls apart because what facts have relevance destroy your claims.

The facts don't seem to support your views, J. Not here, not elsewhere. Nice arguing though.

I've destroyed your claims with said facts, and you have utterly failed to rebut them. How does this support your presumption that they don't support my views? You have not been able to provide a shred of support for your political hallucinations, and they are directly contradicted by innumerable examples. One only need compare examples like East with West Germany, Cuba with Puerto Rico, Venezuela with Peru, or North with South Korea.

You have been completely unable to substantiate your hallucinations about a "right" to health care, how there could be free market competition between Gov't dominance and commercial enterprise, or why the "rich" are somehow far worse when they're not empowered to imprison you.

It's genetic. My son is always right too.

Or were you just posting this as mockery because, as I guessed previously, you're full of shyte and don't have any defense for your dangerous beliefs?

Basically, there are some very real consequences to offering sub-par care.

Doubtless that's one reason people find your system more acceptable - that's not what Obamacare is designed to do; it emulates the British creation of the NHS, which is no surprise given that they think the NHS is sweeet.

While your system attempts to address the problem of price disengagement (the system not being in tune with the consumer through the mechanism of price), I don't see how it addresses the issue of centralized control (the ruler deciding who gets what and when) despite its attempts at decentralization.

And then of course it is the whole business with the board having to be granted a "no fault card" (no idea what it is called in English) yearly, and there is also this thing called "elections" every now and then..

A bureaucratic review remains a bureaucratic review, even if performed by outside agencies. See, the reason Capitalism remains superior is that money is not only the tangible indicator of work, but it also functions as a vote - whereas political votes only happen at set intervals.

I said nothing about speed. But that is, imo, not about government/private, but rather about size. State-sized private conglomerates hardly move with the speed of light either..

Yeah, I'm not shocked that you didn't want to discuss speed. Kind of an important aspect, though, don't you agree? Since you're going to be putting people on waiting lists that can kill them? However, the "nimble" ability of commerce far exceeds that of gov't, again due to the feedback mechanism of prices and money. Gov't doesn't necessarily give a damn what you get, whereas in the private sector, it's their jobs on the line.

And, once again, I already said that the scrutiny of government is not what it should be, so not sure what you are getting at. I am just saying that the tools exist, and that there is no law of nature that a tax payer should be less worried about their money than a share holder.

Ah, I can expound. The 'tools' are owned by the gov't, so they will be inevitably blunted over time by the very group they are designed to prune or monitor. The taxpayer's role is insulated from the workings of gov't in an entirely different way from a customer being insulated from the workings of a corporation, in that the customer has the capability of walking away.

You can't choose not to pay your taxes, unless you want to be in prison - AKA the threat of force. The RIAA can make the same type of threat regarding music downloads, but despite their being a favored group with massive Leftist support, they still have to go through the courts where they generally lose.

Aha, so we live long in spite of public health care, not because of it.

Correct.

1. Choices for the middle class in the towns have diminished since the 1950s. One cannot get into a private clinic except in Stockholm and Gothenburg, and it is only the very well-to-do patients who can afford private hospital care. Patients have little consumer choice.
   
2. Productivity in hospitals has fallen sharply since the 1970s, when doctors began receiving fixed salaries and not a fee per patient.
   
3. Productivity in hospitals has increased recently only as a result of diminishing financial resources. The productivity of district doctors can be extremely low-it is not unusual for a doctor to treat an average of only six to 12 patients a day.
   
4. Long-term care reform has increased the number of available beds, but the quality of care for elderly patients is not satisfactory.
   
5. A worker with a wage of US$20,000 pays about US$3,000 a year in taxes for health care. A scientist at Astra with a salary of US$50,000 has to pay more than US$7,000 in taxes for health care, plus a fee of at least US$22 for prescription medicine or consultation with a doctor.
   
6. When Sweden was a rich country in the 1970s, there were few restrictions on the introduction of new medical methods, new pharmaceuticals, etc. Now the environment is different, and there is a tendency to block or restrict the availability of specialized care in order to save money. Some new medical procedures are introduced as standard later than they are in other countries. For example, while bypass operations were standard (with overcapacity) in Switzerland in 1983, patients in Sweden had to wait more than a year for bypass operations.
   
7. Waiting lists have become a big problem. "Care guarantees" have reduced the waiting list problem temporarily in the past, but these problems began reappearing during the last few months of 1995.

So I cant really see this "moving to the US boon effect" you are talking about..

No, it's the former - the faults of the comparison occur when someone claims heathcare in Sweden is better than that in the U.S., because they're comparing a homogenous group with a heterogeneous one.

Once again, I never claimed that public health care (in most countries, maybe there are exceptions I dont know about) is more cost-efficient. Actually I said the exact opposite.. So, yea, try again?

Wait, so your system is slower, less cost-efficient, and produces poorer results - so why is it so great? And I didn't even bring up forbidding care...

TBH I dont think that has to do with a big public sector, but rather some other systemic flaws.. (otherwise we would have WAY more corruption than the US since we have a much larger public sector, no? Yet this is not the case..)

You don't realize what you're addressing. Your federal gov't is akin to one of our state gov't, and your 'state' gov't akin to our county gov't. The per capita scale is massively different, and the devolution desirable, which is why your socialism works better than others. However, socialism remains an exercise in appealing to authority, in that having someone 'more important than you' solve the problem, so it's natural mechanism continues to push problems "upward". Capitalism, OTOH, is intended to push problems downward, ultimately to the individual level.

*shrug* Guess this is another one of those "must be different over there" things. Because here having a job in public health care is no more safe than having a job in the private sector. I know more than one hospital director who were sacked for not being able to keep on budget. And more than one board who were voted off after not setting the budget responsibly to begin with.

One would have to ask where they hired on next. As to 'firing' people, while overt communist countries often do so with rifles, the process remains an exercise in propaganda rather than system improvement - the 'new guy' doesn't really have the ability to change operations the way a new manager in a company would.

Actually, I am kinda curious on how you are going to spin it so that the ONLY way for a hospital to get feedback on how they are doing is by profit. Surely even private hospitals must be doing regular quality checking?

In reality, they wouldn't have to. The thing is, if you go to a doctor who <doesn't> have his certificates on the wall, who has a reputation of slipshod performance, or who doesn't really seem to be up to date, are you going to go there again? Or even take a seat in the waiting room? Under your system, if you've waited 12 months for your angioplasty, you're not likely to skip the appointment even if you're being treated by "Dr. Nick" from The Simpsons.

Incidentally, I can't help thinking of The Kingdom ("Riget") during this discussion.

[Alaris]

Furthermore, your attempt to cling to science as an aegis falls apart because what facts have relevance destroy your claims. (...)

Have you read the book? No? Well, you should. You'd recognize yourself in it a lot, I would hope. It describes such tactics as claiming that you have destroyed your opponent's tactics (whether you did or not). Or ignoring valid arguments and nitpicking good arguments if there is a way to show that part of it is true. All stuff you do love to use...

The point is, J, you don't talk like someone who seeks the truth. You talk like someone who believes he knows the truth, and seeks to inform others of it. This is what science was built to defend itself against.

The difference is clear... many links you give, I'll go read, sometimes even learn something. I'll evaluate it given other sources of info I get. I mean, I can now parse fact from spin in your posts.

But you, you just claim that we're unreasonable, all of us, that we're deluded and stupid, and that we're sheep. And you will use any shred of evidence to support this, and ignore anything that contradicts it. Systematically.

I don't claim to know what's going on in this world. But at least I can recognize a charlatan.

[Lensor]

@J
Bleh this is starting to become way tooo many quotes..
Let's just say that NO, Swedish health care is not the best, nor the fastest nor the cheapest in the world. And I never claimed that it was. The only thing I claimed is that it is not really worse either, and that at least no one has to sell their house to buy meds.
It does have problems, but we are trying to get to grips with it. The biggest problem is really waiting lines, and much is being done to combat them. Like hospitals that can cut waiting lines get more funding. Opening up for private options (yes, we have quite a lot of private clinics too!) and so on. And we also have an ageing population that cost more and more to care for.

However, I will just comment your references, because I have seen some of them before (probably from you) and, really,especially one is just full of bullcrap.

Article1
This article is from over ten years ago, and not really current. Since then we have had a "right" ("far left" from a US perspective) government that have made some major reforms, based on those problems pointed out in this article. Like aforementioned bonus to areas that can keep down their wait times, opening up for private options etc. Although I am kinda surprised that you would use an article that touts the dangers of privatization as an argument against socialized welfare..

Article 2
Now this is the really bullcrappy one, and the one I remembered. Just getting something as small and easy to fact check as how much Swedes pay to go to the doctor says a lot of the author's credibility (pro tip, it is not two bucks..)

Article 3
This one is also pretty much accurate, though outdated. I would say that a lot of the problems pointed out here have improved in the last ten years (just as some probably have gotten worse).

Article 4
That you are not allowed to pay extra for "non-generika" is just not true. You are. If you want another drug than the generika, or some other drug not covered by the "high cost shield", you are very much free to pay for the difference in price (if your doctor have signed that you need a special brand you still get it for the lower prize though). Also, every woman over the age of 40 get (free) mammographies. Really, just read the VERY FIRST comment on that article.

[Alaris]

I think J's a paid agent of the left.

I mean, he's managed to strenghten our leftist positions, rather than bring us back towards the center or shift us right. I consider myself fairly neutral and objective, and even I have shifted left due to J's obvious propaganda.

Don't fall for J's double lie.

[RD]

I think J's a paid agent of the left.

I mean, he's managed to strenghten our leftist positions, rather than bring us back towards the center or shift us right. I consider myself fairly neutral and objective, and even I have shifted left due to J's obvious propaganda.

Don't fall for J's double lie.

lol!!! I literally laughed at my desk at this. And yet, it makes complete logical sense.

[jmervyn]

All stuff you do love to use...

Meh. My posting habits are irrelevant, when you refuse to back your own claims and simply try to distract me with ever-more-spurious extrapolations in order to avoid answering them.

Have you answered any of the questions? No. Have I? Obviously. Who has the real interest in "seeking the truth"? I do, while you cling with bleeding fingernails to your totalitarian fantasies.

There's nothing of science to your beliefs, but plenty of radical ignorance - the same which has led inevitably to death and destruction.

But you, you just claim that we're unreasonable, all of us, that we're deluded and stupid, and that we're sheep. And you will use any shred of evidence to support this, and ignore anything that contradicts it. Systematically.

Answer the questions. Do it. Then you've got something to discuss. Lensor makes valid points, in that he claims his system isn't so bad - and I'm sure it's not, as I have been cared for in other socialized medical systems - but it's like comparing Veteran's Administration hospitals to private care.

But at least I can recognize a charlatan.

Mirrors aside, is that, like, someone who makes statements that don't contain a shred of truth, and then pretends that they're patent?

Let's just say that NO, Swedish health care is not the best, nor the fastest nor the cheapest in the world. And I never claimed that it was.

Fair enough - what is quite bothersome is that most of the New Left displays it as the shining example of perfection that America ought to aspire to, and uses it as the rationale for destroying America's system (which under Medicare/Medicaid/other Gov't regulation isn't that fantastic either; perhaps you've read horror stories about our VA hospitals?).

The only thing I claimed is that it is not really worse either, and that at least no one has to sell their house to buy meds.

The waiting times alone are sufficient to make me disagree. What good is free care if you can't get it before you're dead?

Opening up for private options (yes, we have quite a lot of private clinics too!) and so on. And we also have an ageing population that cost more and more to care for.

And it doesn't seem strange to you that to resolve your problems you're industry is being forced to privatize, while the U.S. Gov't claims that to resolve our problems we need to socialize?

Although I am kinda surprised that you would use an article that touts the dangers of privatization as an argument against socialized welfare..

I've never said that capitalism is without pain; far from it. "Creative destruction" is the common term. The point is that the capability isn't squelched by the State.

Article 2
Now this is the really bullcrappy one, and the one I remembered. Just getting something as small and easy to fact check as how much Swedes pay to go to the doctor says a lot of the author's credibility (pro tip, it is not two bucks..)

Ok, so he's got the fee wrong? High/low? What else? As I said previously, I'm not versed specifically in Swedish health care, just the inevitable problems which arise from socialism.

Article 4
That you are not allowed to pay extra for "non-generika" is just not true. You are. If you want another drug than the generika, or some other drug not covered by the "high cost shield", you are very much free to pay for the difference in price (if your doctor have signed that you need a special brand you still get it for the lower prize though). Also, every woman over the age of 40 get (free) mammographies. Really, just read the VERY FIRST comment on that article.

I was of the impression that the inference about seeking commercial medicine was the fact that it was new, and therefore not covered. Here's the journal article it refers to, and it certainly doesn't paint a rosy picture.

I mean, he's managed to strenghten our leftist positions, rather than bring us back towards the center or shift us right.

Cute. I can't help it if you can't handle the truth, and have to double-down on your faith in the "Big Lie" because you have no defense.

I consider myself fairly neutral and objective,

Now THAT is funny. You support Gov't standards of beauty and IIRC forcible confiscation of children from "unfit" parents... put the two together and you'll be advocating sterilization of the undesirables, just like your historical predecessors.

[Alaris]

Meh. My posting habits are irrelevant

They are because it betrays your intent.

Have you answered any of the questions? No.

To quote what Bush once tried (and failed) to say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Your questions are only traps, and my answers only goldmines for finding anything at all to discredit me.

I've played your games enough to know that there is no point to it. Remember the infanticide thing? Yeah, spin, mostly. Of course, just for saying that, you'll call me a murderer. Remember all those debates on how to interpret scientific data? Cherry-picking.

I'll answer to those who listen.

Besides, Lensor here is more knowledgeable on the current issue, so I'll let her handle that.

(...) bleeding fingernails to your totalitarian fantasies (...) nothing of science to your beliefs (...) radical ignorance (...) death and destruction (...) destroying America's system (...) What good is free care if you can't get it before you're dead? (...) "Creative destruction" (...) I can't help it if you can't handle the truth, and have to double-down on your faith in the "Big Lie" because you have no defense.

This is not rational discourse. It's emotional manipulation.

I am immune to it. Besides, I'd listen to your truth (and still do), but like I said before, many posters can deliver the truth in a much more clear and unbiased way than you.

By the way, the strongest attack on Obama I've read on this forum hasn't even come from you, J. While you are busy fighting on non-issues, someone else has posted a real issue.

you'll be advocating sterilization of the undesirables

Like I said above, emotional manipulation.

[Lensor]

And it doesn't seem strange to you that to resolve your problems you're industry is being forced to privatize, while the U.S. Gov't claims that to resolve our problems we need to socialize?

Here is a thought; what about having mix? Does it really have to be ALL one or the other to be any good? Currently the Swedish system is striving for a predominantly public system with some private options to fill in the gaps of service and to also have the public basically be the buyer of health care from private actors competing on a free market. Whereas the US system is a predominantly private system, very heavily embedded with the insurance industry, with some public options to care for the ones who otherwise cannot afford it.

Ok, so he's got the fee wrong? High/low? What else? As I said previously, I'm not versed specifically in Swedish health care, just the inevitable problems which arise from socialism.

Not only, but that was most glaring, considering it is barely a Google search away.
In fact, the cost is 150/visit (can vary a little depending on area).

I am not going to go through every single thing claimed in that article, it would take like forever, but here are a couple more factual mistakes I noticed at first glance:

"For prescription drugs, patients pay no more than 200 kronas annually."
Wrong. Meds are subsidized so you do not have to pay more than 1800/year.

"The Pharmaceutical Benefits Boards is charged with deciding whether a drug is included in Sweden's pharmaceutical benefits scheme and setting the price"
Wrong. they do not set the price of anything. They only decide if something is covered by the state or not. They can decide that the state will only cover the cheapest equal version of a drug though.

In any case, even with all the errors, posturing and rhetoric, the author still comes to the conclusion that a mix of public and private health care (like in Stockholm) does actually work rather well, as long as it is allowed to.

I was of the impression that the inference about seeking commercial medicine was the fact that it was new, and therefore not covered.

Not all new versions of medicine is immediately covered, no. There is some bureaucracy to get it "On the list". But that does not mean that you are not ALLOWED to buy the uncovered medicine (which is what the article claimed), just that it is, well, not covered (yet). Although surely that must be the case in the US as well? Or does the insurance companies really cover any and all drugs you may want, no matter if there exist another (cheaper) drug with the same active compound and effect, or if it is not even proven to work for your condition? Now it may be biased as hell, but I remember a movie about this very subject (you know "based on a true story"); how insurance companies do not cover treatments they consider "experimental", even long after the treatment in question was deemed standard by the medical profession, just to save the money..

Also, that other article is just.. wow. I am sure there are never anyone ever being on the receiving end of malpractice in the US either... because you have PRIVATE hospitals, and they are not run by people who can make errors. Those malpractice lawyers we see in every hospital TV show are not real. And if they exist, they never have anything to do, because no one ever makes a mistake. And certainly not due to stress. Please.

Besides, that article is full-shock full of errors. As if Malmö would have only one clinic.. right. And the mammography thing has already been mentioned as hogwash. Even the quote from the debate article by Stendahl is taken completely out of context. If anything he was proposing bigger (public) budgets for clinical research, not further privatization.

[RD]

To quote what Bush once tried (and failed) to say: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Your questions are only traps, and my answers only goldmines for finding anything at all to discredit me.

"I know it's in TX, probably in TN, too..... Fool me once........ shame on... shame on you.... Fool me... can't get fooled again!"

[jmervyn]

They are because it betrays your intent.

So since I have a bias, I'm not credible? Hi, Mr. Kettle.

Your questions are only traps, and my answers only goldmines for finding anything at all to discredit me.

Oh, so since you can't argue your claim credibly, you have no need to answer. Yeah, I guess, far better to not have any credible defense for views which have led inevitably to millions dead. Hey, at least I haven't called you a fascist!

I've played your games enough to know that there is no point to it. Remember the infanticide thing? Yeah, spin, mostly. Of course, just for saying that, you'll call me a murderer. Remember all those debates on how to interpret scientific data? Cherry-picking.

Infanticide, when a child is removed from the womb <and then let starve or killed>? Infanticide by any definition but yours or Barbara Boxers'. Interpreting scientific data? As if SCIENCE!! is the monolithic entity you would love to pretend endorses socialism. In other words, you have no defense and pretend you don't need one - inferring that those who demand you defend insane views are themselves insane, or at least irrational. Great. And people wonder why we're in the hole we are.

I'll answer to those who listen.

Actually, you've sniped and sneered in precisely the same manner you accuse me of doing, without having the balls to mount a defense of your dangerous beliefs. Furthermore, you apparently really don't have a grasp on <why> you're so horribly wrong, as shown not only in your belief in things like Gov't-run beauty pageants but thinking the phrase "Creative Destruction" is somehow emotionally-tainted. I suppose next you'll say that "There's no such thing as a free lunch" (TANSTAAFL) means that I want to snatch food from the mouths of starving children...

This is not rational discourse. It's emotional manipulation.

What a joke. So it's only rational when you leftists do it, but I'm a monster.

By the way, the strongest attack on Obama I've read on this forum hasn't even come from you, J. While you are busy fighting on non-issues, someone else has posted a real issue.

Yeah, it's not like falling into a double-dip recession thanks to Dear Leader is relevant (except to those who have homo-erotic fixations over me). Maybe you'll change your mind when Canukistan starts having to turn back illegals who can't get a job here.

Like I said above, emotional manipulation.

Your beliefs lead inevitably to these sorts of conclusions. Like Federal boards adjudicating beauty standards.

**************************************

Here is a thought; what about having mix? Does it really have to be ALL one or the other to be any good?

It's a rational idea on the surface. As in your country's case, any attempt to decentralize the process has benefits - the problem is that due to the very nature of socialism, a key component of which will always be The Plan, the market-driven system will inevitably be squeezed out by the bureaucracy. One of the more notable interests is in a voucher system, such as seen with American food stamps or some attempts to decentralize the thoroughly socialist American public education system. Unfortunately, these simply slow the Progressive march down.

Furthermore, there's a apropos reason for my being so strident about ideologues like Alaris. They demand compromise between statism and freedom. Their opponents compromise. Then they make another demand. Their opponents compromise. So on and so on. The end result is the totalitarianism they desire, even if they didn't really recognize they desired jackboots and concentration camps all along. When you demand someone take charge of your affairs rather than bearing responsibility on the individual level, SOMEONE will always be eager to take care of you. Those people tend towards the same behavior over time. Socialism actually benefits only those elite who control the proles, and they generally exempt themselves from the system. Sadly, people like Alaris imagine that as Party Members in Good Standing they will be exempt from what they cause.

Not only, but that was most glaring, considering it is barely a Google search away.
In fact, the cost is 150/visit (can vary a little depending on area).

So $25 USD. Yeah, that's probably a significant error, given that the delta due to inflation shouldn't be more than about $5.

In any case, even with all the errors, posturing and rhetoric, the author still comes to the conclusion that a mix of public and private health care (like in Stockholm) does actually work rather well, as long as it is allowed to.

That last caveat is the root issue. America already has significantly socialized medicine, and as with most other countries, it is going bankrupt. The GOP plan, which you might have seen in the commercial where Paul Ryan throws an old lady out of her wheelchair and off a cliff, is to push down the responsibility to the American state level - the very sort of decentralization which works well for you.

But that does not mean that you are not ALLOWED to buy the uncovered medicine (which is what the article claimed), just that it is, well, not covered (yet).

Seems like the claim was solid, as printed in the medical journal. Why forbid someone from private purchase of un-covered medicine?

Although surely that must be the case in the US as well?

Getting medication which is not FDA approved is difficult - the rationale is because of malpractice accusations against the manufacturer more than actual regulation, not that you actually can't purchase and take some substance.

Or does the insurance companies really cover any and all drugs you may want, no matter if there exist another (cheaper) drug with the same active compound and effect, or if it is not even proven to work for your condition?

This is actually a fine example of Gov't collusion. The insurance companies would love to have generic products prescribed, but the pharmaceutical companies have convinced the Gov't to protect their commercial interests by attempting to postponing the timeframe that generics could begin production, and misleading the public as to the relevance of trademarked medicine. The FDA both helps and hinders the process, which is why the pharma companies resort to licensing or protectionist schemes (like buying drugs off the Internet or from outside CONUS.

I am sure there are never anyone ever being on the receiving end of malpractice in the US either...

The difference being, of course, that the Gov't has control of the justice system which malpractice would be adjudicated under.

Besides, that article is full-shock full of errors.

Like I said, I have to take your word for it, but I kind of think that something published in a notable medical journal and with the examples thoroughly cited has credibility (Alaris, et al would certainly claim so).