I’m supposed to be on Dyland Ratigan‘s MSNBC show at 9am EST this morning, talking about medical reform. While I think I have a solid grasp of the long-term basics, I feel very conscious of all the things I don’t know about who exactly has just said what about which proposals that may or may not have what features depending on who makes what deals. I suspect the fear of looking stupid on all those ephemeral details detracts most pundits from taking the time to really understand the fundamentals.
Dyland, why do you have guest? Your sentences and questions are soooo long your appear to turn blue in the face. Please, a little less of you and a little more of your guest.
The reason healthcare is expensive is that government licensing requirements for doctors artificially reduce the supply of doctors, raising the price. It's silly to talk about the health care problem without talking about the damaging effect of the AMA licensing cartel.
How did you even get invited on a mainstream media program? I'm considering trying that to promote my blog.
You think yours is a moral argument for the reduction of suffering. I think it's an immoral argument for the increase of violence and coercion in a medical system which is already 46% directly in the hands of our various US governments and otherwise tied to employment through government stupidity. If left wingers want to alleviate the pain of the small percentage of Americans who are uninsured, they can form a collective and pay outright instead of using guns to bend everyone else to their vile, collectivist will. This, of course, will not happen because leftists prefer taking money from a villified minority to pay for their schemes.
I don't know such a country, but that isin't a proper argument against universal health care. In my country, there's public and private health care, and you can choose freely which to take. Of course, some people travel to Estonia for example, since the costs are cheaper there (as Estonia is a poorer country).
In your country there are millions of people who will get no health care, I'd classify the USA as a crazy right wing developing country. People actually can say that non-rich people should die from the lack of health care.
Sure if costs exceed the benefits, I'd agree with you, but the benefits of receiving health care can't exactly be as easily quantified as the costs of paying for it. What price do you put on a person being given (say) chemotherapy for cancer? Obviously the treatment can be costed, but the benefits for the patient (and his/her family) of saving their life, not to mention any future productivity they might do as a worker, can't be ignored. What price do you put on saving a life?
I'll cop to being a right-wing extremist. If the cost of providing a person with care exceeds the benefits it is then inefficient to provide them with care and they should not get it.
Nawitus, to defend your position more effectively, please name a country with the universal health care you so admire, where none of its citizens ever feel compelled to travel to other countries (such as to the USA) to obtain essential medical care in a timely manner. Thanks.
You should choose universal healthcare, it provides healthcare to everyone and at a cheaper cost. Only people in a far right/extreme right country like the USA can say that not everyone should have access to healthcare.
Don't forget that you were on an entertainment show - for which they care more for ratings than they do epistemology. You can't get a Critical Review caliber debate (which IMO are still normatively shallow) into a half hour or hour show.
Let's not confuse TV with real intellectual debate.
Dyland, why do you have guest? Your sentences and questions are soooo long your appear to turn blue in the face. Please, a little less of you and a little more of your guest.
You're entirely missing the point.
The reason healthcare is expensive is that government licensing requirements for doctors artificially reduce the supply of doctors, raising the price. It's silly to talk about the health care problem without talking about the damaging effect of the AMA licensing cartel.
How did you even get invited on a mainstream media program? I'm considering trying that to promote my blog.
OB,
You meant "deters" instead of "detracts"
Nawitus,
You think yours is a moral argument for the reduction of suffering. I think it's an immoral argument for the increase of violence and coercion in a medical system which is already 46% directly in the hands of our various US governments and otherwise tied to employment through government stupidity. If left wingers want to alleviate the pain of the small percentage of Americans who are uninsured, they can form a collective and pay outright instead of using guns to bend everyone else to their vile, collectivist will. This, of course, will not happen because leftists prefer taking money from a villified minority to pay for their schemes.
I don't know such a country, but that isin't a proper argument against universal health care. In my country, there's public and private health care, and you can choose freely which to take. Of course, some people travel to Estonia for example, since the costs are cheaper there (as Estonia is a poorer country).
In your country there are millions of people who will get no health care, I'd classify the USA as a crazy right wing developing country. People actually can say that non-rich people should die from the lack of health care.
Yes, I'd say you're a crazy extremist when you essentially advocate the death of the non-rich.
Sure if costs exceed the benefits, I'd agree with you, but the benefits of receiving health care can't exactly be as easily quantified as the costs of paying for it. What price do you put on a person being given (say) chemotherapy for cancer? Obviously the treatment can be costed, but the benefits for the patient (and his/her family) of saving their life, not to mention any future productivity they might do as a worker, can't be ignored. What price do you put on saving a life?
You mean like all those Americans who cross the border into Canada to use their health care system or get their medical drugs?
I'll cop to being a right-wing extremist. If the cost of providing a person with care exceeds the benefits it is then inefficient to provide them with care and they should not get it.
where none of its citizens ever feel compelled to travel to other countries (such as to the USA) to obtain essential medical care in a timely manner.
A government policy might reasonably choose to trade off that advantage against other desirables, like maximizing heath overall or minimizing cost.
Nawitus, to defend your position more effectively, please name a country with the universal health care you so admire, where none of its citizens ever feel compelled to travel to other countries (such as to the USA) to obtain essential medical care in a timely manner. Thanks.
You should choose universal healthcare, it provides healthcare to everyone and at a cheaper cost. Only people in a far right/extreme right country like the USA can say that not everyone should have access to healthcare.
Don't forget that you were on an entertainment show - for which they care more for ratings than they do epistemology. You can't get a Critical Review caliber debate (which IMO are still normatively shallow) into a half hour or hour show.
Let's not confuse TV with real intellectual debate.
Too much yelling for my taste. Wish there was a bigger market for bloggingheads-style talks.
Is there a clip online yet?
Robin,
Cool.
As someone who has been on CNBC a few times and felt what you suggest you have no need for such worry.
And even if you were, you will not be expected to know or even care about the waxing and waning of those with a far shorter term perspective than you.
Look forward to seeing the clip.
John Delaney