Oh, Stilli, I howled all the way through that thing. If this guy ever had an original thought, he didn't keep it for long.

First of all, if I thought that our elected officials would actually be in charge of running a single payer system, I too would run screaming for a cave in the woods. I mean lately these guys can't even get hiking the Appalachian Trail to go well for them. Luckily for us, the job is turned over to people that actually know much more about running health care than the politicians. Can you imagine John Ensign working for the National Weather Service in charge of predicting where the hurricane is going to go? Well, by now he probably can. It will go wherever he lives right now. But you get my point. :-)

Other points:

We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is worth so much more to us.

Umm, health care is worth exactly what it is worth. As far as benchmarks with the other OECD countries, the US isn't always last, but it's only first in one category that I know of. And that's early detection of certain cancers, like breast and prostate. So I'm not quite sure why mediocre to really bad care, with one flash of bright light should be worth so much more to us than people in other countries, unless we are just really stupid.

The Canadian Pill deal. You see, the company would never get back the massive fixed cost of creating the drug in the first place, and so no company would try to develop one.

Drug companies sell drugs. If they don't do R&D and develop new drugs, they won't have anything to sell when the patents run out on the drugs they have already developed, turn generic. It will probably go back to how they used to do it. From academia to the private sector, the scientists work to find the next cure for the next disease. When the cure starts to look promising, the government kicks in with grants and other forms of helpful monies. In return, the government doesn't have to pay as much for the drug if it does indeed cure the next disease. But this is the drug companies favorite scare tactic and propaganda, and this shill falls for it like a puppy in love.

Even the successes you gin up for them would not be possible without the last best hope of humankind (the US) on the front lines again making the miracles for the world.

Has this guy been hiding under the bed for the last 20 years or so. Not all geniuses are born in the US and many of the latest medical techniques aren't either. But it's not even about which country invents more. It's about the collaboration of scientists in all countries getting together to invent new technologies. Particle physics, which has contributed greatly to cancer therapies, is basically centered in Europe, but all nations contribute their scientists thinking to it. In fact, that's the reason the Internet was invented (by the government). To make collaboration among scientists easy and to share each other's thoughts in a productive way.

Anyway, the Nordic country’s touted “success” is going to go the way of the Soviet Union’s plan to bury us, as their changing demographics (far more economic diversity and an aging population) change their culture and show the cracks in their utopian fantasy.

They have been saying the same thing about the chances of China's success with a market economy and a socialist government for years, also. We're still waiting.

Doesn’t the already massive competition in health care keep things honest?” Of course, this leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that by their logic the government must be a major player in every industry.

Uh, no. Just the ones that have proven to be too big for the private sector to handle alone. Sorta like defense. Would you want Goldman Sachs or GM in charge of defending the country. Me either.

Finally, it cannot be a fair competitor if when the “public option” screws up (can’t pay its bills), the government implicitly or explicitly guarantees its debts.

To even come out with this after bailing Wall Street out, shows a complete lack of understanding of anything. How does this man go the bathroom alone?

That the schools provided by the government pale next to the private options, which themselves pale next to what we would have with a full private system (even if publicly funded) is beyond sad, but not the direct point here.

Guess he didn't read the report that the Bushies tried to hide. The one where public schools either matched or exceeded the benchmarks of the vouchered private ones?

We are not here yet, but in a world where the “public option” replaced all private options, would we still be allowed, if we had the resources, to pursue private medical alternatives?

Oh for the goddess of sanity's sake. It's not like Congress has disappeared off the face of the earth or anything. He doesn't wear the tinfoil on his head to encourage recycling, that's for sure.

Health Care is Not A Right.

Either is driving a car, but most people can afford to get a driver's license. They can't afford health care. Does it have to be a right for it to be accessible to all?

I blame this mostly on excessive regulation, a complex employment-based insurance system strongly encouraged by tax law, and litigation for the benefit of trial lawyers rather than patients or anyone else.

Huh. Personally I put a lot of the blame on stupid people like him. But that's just me.

:-)

THE END

Oceankat - That's useful information. I agree that drug costs are a relatively small fraction of total health care costs, but still large enough to make a difference, and therefore worth reducing via the negotiating leverage of a public option component of healthcare reform. Regarding R&D, I've previously posted on this topic, and some of that material may complement what you had in mind - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/fredmoolten/2009/06/prescription-drug-costs-can-be-2.php

I started to read this and got to Myth #1 and stopped right at the very first line.

Please excuse me for assuredly stepping in shit but I find it absurd that you were asked, apparently honestly, by your significant other to read this with an open mind. WTF!!!

Why are you worried about single payer? I don't understand why you are falling for scare stories about it as it's not going to happen right now, and furthermore, it won't happen at all if a public option (and Medicare) don't show good performance with both cost and coverage under the new law. That was the point of both Hillary and Obama's plan when they were running for president: incremental transition, the idea that people will be sold on the government doing it better and shouldn't be forced into doing it, that forcing them is impossible and self-defeating, but that they will eventually want single payer or something similar of their own volition by virtue of how well they see a trial working compared to for-profit.

It's just not going to happen now, that's not in anyone's plan and it wasn't in the stated plans of the two major Dem candidates, either. Those trying to scare you about it are making a straw man to distract and to get their libertarian base riled. Here's a summary of the House Bill by Maggie Mahar on her Healthbeat blog, for instance. See how it says The details of the House bill make it clear that Medicare reform will pave the way for healthcare reform as Medicare leads the way by changing what we pay for, how we pay for it and how healthcare is delivered. and Private insurers will be regulated and Payments to primary care providers will rise. Payments to other providers will not be cut across the board.?

We're not going to single payer anytime soon. We are going to be transitioning toward being able to do it, but it's still not a sure thing that even that will be a success. It depends how things work out. If they fail at the transition, we won't be going at all, i.e., if they can't figure out how to slow the projected spiraling costs of Medicare for the boomers and at the same time attract enough physicians and other health providers to take it. If they end up like Massachusetts universal coverage is doing right now (not single payer, but universal), for one example, we won't be going to single payer at all for quite some time. They have to do better than that or it's not going to happen.

I wouldn't worry about single payer from the side of being fearful about it. If what they are trying works like it's supposed to, we will move naturally to single payer because the public plan is being chosen by nearly everyone and because private insurers are dropping out because they can't compete. It's not going to be forced on anyone. They've got to get the cost and coverage reform of Medicare done first for the boomer generation. Then they will have a good model to work from to attempt single payer if that's what the majority still wants. The people who are rightly worried are those who really want single payer right away, it's a pretty sure thing they are going to see their dreams fulfilled.

What you are probably going to se is much more input from a government panel of doctors etc. with recommendations of what should be standard coverage for all insurers. And many insurers will no doubt be quoting that like the bible to any policy holders who complain. But at the same time, that's not going to keep any insurance company from offering plans that give much more at much higher price if they want to. It's really the same situation now, if you have by some stroke of luck gotten the golden care insurance plan, you can still pay for and get that golden care insurance plan that's supposedly so much better than like, Medicare. I don't see many people bragging that they adore their health insurance right now, that's it's perfect, but I guess there are some out there that feel that way. My guess is those who say they are thrilled with their coverage haven't had any major illness, hah. In any case, nobody is going to stop them, wherever these rare birds are, from continuing to provide the miraculous coverage they are supposedly providing, at a higher fee than a public plan.

P.S. I recommend you read Ms. Mahar's blog if you want the straight skinny on individual related issues, if you get involved in debates like this with friends or family, rather than spend a lot of time reading opinions of anonymous bloggers you don't know or trust. She won't lead you wrong, she is not an ideologue, she's a long time reporter on the beat health insurance and health care industry in the U.S.A. She debunks spin rather than offering it, spin from all sides:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/
Of course, she is for reform, anyone right left or center who has studied our health care system in depth knows it needs reforming, anyone who says it's not is just full of bullshit (either that or they have the same rare sweet deal of health coverage as our Senators do and want to keep it that way, hah.)

Hi, Stilli. Nice post showing a sincere desire to get the facts right.

Cliff has it all wrong, but before I reiterate what others have said above, let me tell you about my trip to Texas in February to visit my father just days before he succumbed to lung cancer.

I meet no fewer than seven drug company representatives at airports and on board my flights during that one round trip from St. Louis via Dallas to San Antonio. These people, with whom I became acquainted at random, represented more than HALF of all the passengers I met during these flights. Extrapolating these numbers means that thousands—if not tens of thousands—of pharmaceutical sales people are flying around the country each day to visit doctors and hospitals in search of more sales volume.

In short, the drug companies are spending truly MASSIVE amounts of money promoting the doping of America. In many cases, these drugs have side effects that far outweigh any benefit that might be obtained by using them as directed. The side effects also create NEW COSTS borne by consumers and the delivery system overall.

I wouldn't worry about the drug companies. Their R&D is largely paid for by taxpayers through research trials funded by and conducted under the auspices of the National Institutes for Health.

I will not drone on. Cliff is mistaken purposely. He is making an argument, not presenting facts.

Cheers, to the many who fought their way through this (homework) assignment. I almost quit when I saw his footnotes weren't footnotes at all. Determined to fulfill my commitment to you I drudged onward through the mire of factless swill.

You have done well to bring this here. Through your inquiry and the responses of others, you have amassed a page worthy of bookmarking. This is a collection of facts and thoughts on a subject of gigantic complexity and these contributions will be an invaluable resource for all of us as we carry the fight forward.

Thank you Stilli et al.

Fear not Stilli! Single payer or the bogey man of "socialized" or "government run" healthcare is just that: a bogey man, a phantom, a scary myth.

I saw an ad the other day featuring some woman claiming to be a Candian citizen who had a brain tumor and would be dead had she stayed in Canada and waited for years before getting the operation she needed. I was amazed to see such blatant lies on the air but there are a lot of people with a lot to lose if we get a healthcare system designed to serve human health needs and they'll do anything to preserve the cash cow they have found in our system of healthcare run for profit. It was very scary story but also false, but the businessmen who profit don't care about the truth. They care only about their money.

The truth is that we already have rationing and bureaucrats deciding what we can and cannot receive by way of medical care. It's just that they are the employees of private corporations so when Americans are denied care of blocked from receiving the treatment they need it is solely for the purpose of maximizing profits. It is beyond question that our government run single payer system known as Medicare is cheaper, more efficient and those who use it are more satisfied with their healthcare than are those who have for profit health insurance.

I have found no credible stories of people in countries where some form of single payer exists where people are denied treatments or medical care of any kind or where they have to wait for treatment of any serious medical condition. That's just a pack of lies. What I have heard is the opposite, that if you have a major condition, problem, etc... that the care is superb, quick, and thorough. But, it is for routine things, that such systems have an annoying tendency to be a hurry up and wait situation. Seems like a pretty good trade off to me if trade offs must be made.

Here in our great country, you don't have to wait if you have limitless funds, but if you are an average American or (God forbid) if you are poor you may as well forget getting the treatment you need in case of serious ailments/disease or if you just have a non-serious condition. People die in the US every single day because they are denied access to the healthcare they need. Kids suffer daily because their families cannot afford to take them to the doctor.

Many people who valiantly do whatever is necessary to get the treatment a family member needs lose everything and go bankrupt in the effort to obtain medical treatment. Not one person in Canada or any other country using some form of single payer files for bankruptcy due to medical costs. In contrast, that is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA. This is all because our system of health care is run by insurance companies for profit and if it takes denying people the care they need up to and including killing them as a result of their being unable to get treatment from the insurance bureaucrats then so be it. The insurance companies couldn't care less. The best, most efficient, morally defensible and common sense system for healthcare is one in which the profit motive is entirely eliminated and that meanss some form of single payer. It's just that simple.

A personal hero of mine, a very strong individual of rare intelligence, achievement, and the toughest moral fiber, had the thoughtful comment below.

And it's fortunate that he approached it in an organized fashion, and didn't simply blurt something out (however apt albeit) such as, "Overreach THIS!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83FvLjsUOJg&eurl=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/&feature=player_embedded

"If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." - Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University

Substitute "health care" and "wealth care" for "education" and "ignorance" respectively, and the same point stands.

Asness, as I sense you suspected, is disseminating propaganda rather than information. You should have plenty of bullets in your forensic gun the next time someone brings you tripe like this, camouflaged as objective analysis. :-)

I stopped at Objectivist.