Allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines?

[hadit]

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

You're still paying for it, only you pay through taxes, not directly.

I agree,I pay half of what you guys pay on average. Hece my assertion that it is cheaper here.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia

What percentage of your income do you normally pay in income taxes?

wonder if you will get a truthful answer. Wonder if he even knows how much he pays.

I've never been much for holding back information, even if the info doesn't fit my story. In actual numbers it's a bit over 50 percent.

Sure my taxes are way higher than yours. On the other hand my standard of living is just as high if not higher than most Americans. I own my house, Drive a 3 year old Mercedes, my kid is going to a nice school and will be able to go to college without me having to save my entire live to allow it. We all can go to the doctor and dentist without going broke. Taxes are not a punishment, they are simply a alternative way to fund a standard of living

Basically, your post confirms my point. You pay twice as much or more in income taxes as the average American poster on here does. You're paying for your health care, a lot.

 

[forkup]

You're still paying for it, only you pay through taxes, not directly.

I agree,I pay half of what you guys pay on average. Hece my assertion that it is cheaper here.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia

What percentage of your income do you normally pay in income taxes?

wonder if you will get a truthful answer. Wonder if he even knows how much he pays.

I've never been much for holding back information, even if the info doesn't fit my story. In actual numbers it's a bit over 50 percent.

Sure my taxes are way higher than yours. On the other hand my standard of living is just as high if not higher than most Americans. I own my house, Drive a 3 year old Mercedes, my kid is going to a nice school and will be able to go to college without me having to save my entire live to allow it. We all can go to the doctor and dentist without going broke. Taxes are not a punishment, they are simply a alternative way to fund a standard of living

Basically, your post confirms my point. You pay twice as much or more in income taxes as the average American poster on here does. You're paying for your health care, a lot.

You don't seem to understand or want to understand what that table represents. My high income tax pays for more than just healthcare. But what is put on the table is the actual number that we spend per person on healthcare. We get to that number by combining what we annually spend on out of pocket plus the annual amount the government spends out of our income taxes on health care.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So if Federal government allows it, it's irrelevant.

If the Federal government forces it, then one might think that conservatives would object to the federal government interfering with the states.

Try to keep up here. The OP's premise of a national free market insurance market being legal is a myth. There was obviously many other problems present in the law to make it unworkable. Simply saying it was okay to offer the plans, does little to make it reality. It is the federal government's interference that makes it a problem. Again it boils down to free markets and less government.

I agree. Competition brings prices down and if all insurance companies have to compete for you're dollar prices will go down.

Don't know bout you but I'm the cheapest bitch on the planet and I shop for the best I can get for the lowest price. So will everyone else. Insurance companies will have to lower prices to compete for you're dollar.

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

 

[Reasonable]

 

[Redfish]

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

You're still paying for it, only you pay through taxes, not directly.

I agree,I pay half of what you guys pay on average. Hece my assertion that it is cheaper here.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia

What percentage of your income do you normally pay in income taxes?

wonder if you will get a truthful answer. Wonder if he even knows how much he pays.

I've never been much for holding back information, even if the info doesn't fit my story. In actual numbers it's a bit over 50 percent.

Sure my taxes are way higher than yours. On the other hand my standard of living is just as high if not higher than most Americans. I own my house, Drive a 3 year old Mercedes, my kid is going to a nice school and will be able to go to college without me having to save my entire live to allow it. We all can go to the doctor and dentist without going broke. Taxes are not a punishment, they are simply a alternative way to fund a standard of living

your idea only works if the government handles your tax payments efficiently and honestly. If you live in one of the Scandinavian countries you are like a large family, you all look alike, think alike, dress alike, and have a common philosophy of life. Those things don't exist in the USA.

Personally, I will take our system and out tax rates over yours any day. At least here WE decide how to spend the money we earn and we are financially rewarded for hard work and innovation. I don't want to live where everyone is a carbon copy of his neighbor.

 

[Redfish]

I agree. Competition brings prices down and if all insurance companies have to compete for you're dollar prices will go down.

Don't know bout you but I'm the cheapest bitch on the planet and I shop for the best I can get for the lowest price. So will everyone else. Insurance companies will have to lower prices to compete for you're dollar.

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

You're still paying for it, only you pay through taxes, not directly.

I agree,I pay half of what you guys pay on average. Hece my assertion that it is cheaper here.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia

You pay a lot more than we do in taxes, VAT, etc. As to the quality of care, I will put the US up against any European country any day. Why do you come here when you have anything serious? Why do Canadians come south when they have major medical issues?

Socialized medicine may sound good, but it doesn't work, just like socialism in general doesn't work. NOTHING is free. That is a fact of life.

As to it not working. It seems to work here, and from personal experience better than in your country.

'

I have Swedish relatives. They tried living in Sweden after graduating from college in the USA. They got fed up with the govt telling them how to live and what to think and moved back here. To each his own, I guess.

 

[forkup]

Try to keep up here. The OP's premise of a national free market insurance market being legal is a myth. There was obviously many other problems present in the law to make it unworkable. Simply saying it was okay to offer the plans, does little to make it reality. It is the federal government's interference that makes it a problem. Again it boils down to free markets and less government.

I agree. Competition brings prices down and if all insurance companies have to compete for you're dollar prices will go down.

Don't know bout you but I'm the cheapest bitch on the planet and I shop for the best I can get for the lowest price. So will everyone else. Insurance companies will have to lower prices to compete for you're dollar.

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

 

[forkup]

You're still paying for it, only you pay through taxes, not directly.

I agree,I pay half of what you guys pay on average. Hece my assertion that it is cheaper here.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia

What percentage of your income do you normally pay in income taxes?

wonder if you will get a truthful answer. Wonder if he even knows how much he pays.

I've never been much for holding back information, even if the info doesn't fit my story. In actual numbers it's a bit over 50 percent.

Sure my taxes are way higher than yours. On the other hand my standard of living is just as high if not higher than most Americans. I own my house, Drive a 3 year old Mercedes, my kid is going to a nice school and will be able to go to college without me having to save my entire live to allow it. We all can go to the doctor and dentist without going broke. Taxes are not a punishment, they are simply a alternative way to fund a standard of living

your idea only works if the government handles your tax payments efficiently and honestly. If you live in one of the Scandinavian countries you are like a large family, you all look alike, think alike, dress alike, and have a common philosophy of life. Those things don't exist in the USA.

Personally, I will take our system and out tax rates over yours any day. At least here WE decide how to spend the money we earn and we are financially rewarded for hard work and innovation. I don't want to live where everyone is a carbon copy of his neighbor.

In all material things I have just as much freedom. You do have a point when you say it stifles innovativeness a bit. We Belgians are not as prone to take risks, since we are in general pretty comfortable in life. Your system rewards those who succeed better than here. On the other hand you punish those who don't way harder than here. America is the richest, and most unequal, nation . My assertion is, that it is not wrong to be a bit more equal. I'm sorry to tell you but the American dream is more rare in the US than in a lot of countries.
The findings from cross-country research challenge the traditional view of the United States as a land with more mobility and opportunity than other countries. As I said I'm not one to hold back info and the rest of the conclusion, puts the opening paragraph in some perspective but it is interesting that the reason you think your system is superior isn't actually true for most Americans.
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I agree. Competition brings prices down and if all insurance companies have to compete for you're dollar prices will go down.

Don't know bout you but I'm the cheapest bitch on the planet and I shop for the best I can get for the lowest price. So will everyone else. Insurance companies will have to lower prices to compete for you're dollar.

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

 

[forkup]

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

You know, I like to debate. I like it because I think I'm good at it, my own personal little ego trip. But more importantly it helps me define my opinion and on rare occasions change it. Therefore I will always try to be both particular on the issues I talk about and the people I have a sustained conversation with. I also give myself certain rules I mostly stick to. I respect the person I talk to, I try to be polite. I try to stick to the points. I don't dodge the hard questions. I try distinguish between what I think and what I know. This means I put myself at an inherent disadvantage. I don't lie,insult, dodge, deflect or change the subject. I concede when the other person makes a decent point. I have found that it is frustrating when people I talk to don't hold themselves to any of these standards. You mostly have and I thank you for it. I'm sorry to tell you though, that this last post is a dodge. I will reply to the premise of it in the next post, but you seem to be unwilling to answer the premise of my last post.Explain to me how changing healthcare to the individual states,will improve your healthcare system in an appreciable way? Give a few examples? Make me see why it is better?

 

[forkup]

The problem with the US health care system isn't government. It's the whole idea that people's health is a tradable commodity. I'm European and I pay way less for at least comparable, if not better healthcare. Our system is government controlled and it's more efficient and cheaper. My wife is American so I can make these claims both by personal experience and researchable facts.

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

-I have made a comparison between both healthcare systems in dept lol. Not saying it is complete but I do have bases for comparison and I have thought about it a great deal. I have given you no less than 7 differences. Cost of education,tendency to sue, mandatory health insurance, vested interest in healthcare by the government, election system, less entities in the system having a for profit motive.
I gave practical examples how it plays out in real life. What do you mean it's hard to compare?
-You make a few assumptions here. You seem to say that healthcare needs change with ethnicity. How if I may ask? You might be able to make a case that larger surface to cover makes healthcare a bit more expensive, but on the total budget I can't see how that would make a real difference. But unless you can make a case for someone from Mississippi being sick in a completely different way than for instance New Yorkers I don't see how it matters. As to relative size of government. Belgium has 4 separate governments and 3 separate language areas on a population of 11 million so that is a pretty ironic thing to say to me.
-I did address your last point. I said that all these innovations coming out your country are not freely given, they are sold so it's false to claim you guys are making a sacrifice when researching. Oh and btw. It is true that you do better in innovation than some countries but compared to Belgium the relative difference is marginal .26 percent of the GDP and compared to quite a few major European countries or some Asians you are actually behind.List of countries by research and development spending - Wikipedia. You are unsurpassed in actual numbers of course. But the percentage of GDP is more applicable to your argument.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Yes, and your welcome. The fact is the US leads the world in medical research and innovation. Other countries, especially those in Europe, benefit from the money spent here to advance medical care. The US is subsidizing European healthcare in a sense. You should thank us. On another note- it is much more feasible to have a universal healthcare system for a smaller population.



Referencing How much of the medical research in the world is done in the US? Sure you can say that Oxford and Cambridge are some of the most important medical institutions in the world and that the UK makes some major contributions to the medical world but those two institutions generate no where close to the same volume as all 50 US states.


Here is a map of where all of the registered clinical trials are running. Even when you combine all of Europe, the US still runs more trials.
Studies on Map - ClinicalTrials.gov


From Christopher VanLang's answer to How much of the cost of designing and manufacturing a new drug do U.S pharmaceutical companies recover from the U.S compared to Europe or Asia?

By my own calculations, ~40% of the world's medical R&D budget is spend in the US.
For comparative years here are the numbers and percent of Global R&D.

• 2002: 31.0 Billion 45.3%
• 2004: 37.0 Billion 42.9%
  
• 2006: 43.4 Billion 41.4%
  
• 2008: 47.4 Billion 37.7%
  
• 2009: 46.4 Billion 37.3%
  
• 2010: 50.7 Billion 39.7%
  
• 2011/2: 49.5 Billion 37.4%

Most of the hoopla about "Them Asians are catching up to the US in medical innovation" or "Those Europeans are more civilized than the fat unhealthy Americans" are actually complaining about how the impact of the US fell from 39% to 37% of the world's total output. It's like complaining that the US armed forces are losing ground.

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

You know, I like to debate. I like it because I think I'm good at it, my own personal little ego trip. But more importantly it helps me define my opinion and on rare occasions change it. Therefore I will always try to be both particular on the issues I talk about and the people I have a sustained conversation with. I also give myself certain rules I mostly stick to. I respect the person I talk to, I try to be polite. I try to stick to the points. I don't dodge the hard questions. I try distinguish between what I think and what I know. This means I put myself at an inherent disadvantage. I don't lie,insult, dodge, deflect or change the subject. I concede when the other person makes a decent point. I have found that it is frustrating when people I talk to don't hold themselves to any of these standards. You mostly have and I thank you for it. I'm sorry to tell you though, that this last post is a dodge. I will reply to the premise of it in the next post, but you seem to be unwilling to answer the premise of my last post.Explain to me how changing healthcare to the individual states,will improve your healthcare system in an appreciable way? Give a few examples? Make me see why it is better?

The most obvious example are the highly touted systems by socialist like yourself, that being the Scandinavian healthcare systems. They serve a small population in a close geographical area with a similar lifestyle. Here in the US we have a much more diverse, less homogenized population which is spread over a much bigger geographical area with very diverse lifestyles. The obesity rates, the rate of diabetes, the rate of different types of cancer varies drastically by region and states. They eat different food, they enjoy vastly different leisure activity, they have different industry, and they have different healthcare needs. It's silly to make a one size fits all system to cover such a diversity.

It is more efficient to allow states or region to be proactive and adjust their healthcare systems to the needs of the given population. Think about how we organize school systems. They are closely managed by states, and counties to fit the needs.

Another consideration is the potential for catastrophic failure. If all 330 million Americans are under one system, and they get it wrong, it will be catastrophic. If an individual states system fails it would be bad, but not as catastrophic as a failure across the entire country. Further, with each individual state designing and managing their system there exist the potential from learning from one another. States can see what works in other states or what fails and adapt their system accordingly.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There are not many countries anywhere with gov't run HC that don't have really high taxes and/or rationing and/or long waiting lines for specialists and testing. And everyone pays those taxes too, not just the upper half of the income earners. Show me the democrat who tells us that when they talk about how great Single Payer is.

Sure my taxes are way higher than yours. On the other hand my standard of living is just as high if not higher than most Americans. I own my house, Drive a 3 year old Mercedes, my kid is going to a nice school and will be able to go to college without me having to save my entire live to allow it. We all can go to the doctor and dentist without going broke. Taxes are not a punishment, they are simply a alternative way to fund a standard of living

48% of the people in the US pay NO federal income tax. That is why it would not work in the US.

Those are the very people demanding a tax cut.

 

[forkup]

Explain to me how, you feel you are subsidising our healthcare? Last time I checked all those medicines coming from all those clinical trials are sold not given. I understand that you haven't gone through all my posts, neither would I since we are on page 22 on this OP but I have repeatedly conceded that American medical research is second to none. Last time was literally the post before this but saying that because you guys are the trendsetters, you are actually subsidising us is wrong. The only difference when it comes to how we get our meds on the global market, is that our government actually negotiate for fair prices with big pharma. one of the factors that keeps prices down. Also I want to place some caveats by your actual information. I assume the facts are correct but it's safe to assume that a lot of the high volume of American clinical trials has to do with the fact that the US is the most lucrative market for new medicine for the reason previously stated. So you actually have a point that you are subsidising something but it is not Social healthcare, it is big pharma.

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

You know, I like to debate. I like it because I think I'm good at it, my own personal little ego trip. But more importantly it helps me define my opinion and on rare occasions change it. Therefore I will always try to be both particular on the issues I talk about and the people I have a sustained conversation with. I also give myself certain rules I mostly stick to. I respect the person I talk to, I try to be polite. I try to stick to the points. I don't dodge the hard questions. I try distinguish between what I think and what I know. This means I put myself at an inherent disadvantage. I don't lie,insult, dodge, deflect or change the subject. I concede when the other person makes a decent point. I have found that it is frustrating when people I talk to don't hold themselves to any of these standards. You mostly have and I thank you for it. I'm sorry to tell you though, that this last post is a dodge. I will reply to the premise of it in the next post, but you seem to be unwilling to answer the premise of my last post.Explain to me how changing healthcare to the individual states,will improve your healthcare system in an appreciable way? Give a few examples? Make me see why it is better?

The most obvious example are the highly touted systems by socialist like yourself, that being the Scandinavian healthcare systems. They serve a small population in a close geographical area with a similar lifestyle. Here in the US we have a much more diverse, less homogenized population which is spread over a much bigger geographical area with very diverse lifestyles. The obesity rates, the rate of diabetes, the rate of different types of cancer varies drastically by region and states. They eat different food, they enjoy vastly different leisure activity, they have different industry, and they have different healthcare needs. It's silly to make a one size fits all system to cover such a diversity.

It is more efficient to allow states or region to be proactive and adjust their healthcare systems to the needs of the given population. Think about how we organize school systems. They are closely managed by states, and counties to fit the needs.

Another consideration is the potential for catastrophic failure. If all 330 million Americans are under one system, and they get it wrong, it will be catastrophic. If an individual states system fails it would be bad, but not as catastrophic as a failure across the entire country. Further, with each individual state designing and managing their system there exist the potential from learning from one another. States can see what works in other states or what fails and adapt their system accordingly.

Your argument to me sounds like someone claiming that he is able to up the value of his house by 50 percent by fixing a leaky faucet in the kitchen. Even if you right and that it is more efficient that states have full control over their health care system. Something that raises obvious questions, how to fund it for example, since not all states are equally strong economically and that would seem to cause serious problems in some states. And something that is partially the case now.
In the U.S., ownership of the health care system is mainly in private hands, though federal, state, county, and city governments also own certain facilities.

The non-profit hospitals share of total hospital capacity has remained relatively stable (about 70%) for decades.[47] There are also privately owned for-profit hospitals as well as government hospitals in some locations, mainly owned by county and city governments. The Hill-Burton Act was passed in 1946, which provided federal funding for hospitals in exchange for treating poor patients.[48]


US Department of Veterans Affairs vertical logo
There is no nationwide system of government-owned medical facilities open to the general public but there are local government-owned medical facilities open to the general public.
It doesn't fundamentally changes anything. So let me ask again. You give me a broad statement saying that needs vary from state by state so it's more efficient and therefore better. But let's look at your example of diabetes. Diabetes is treated by medicine and diet. Something that doesn't change from state to state. Cancer rates are 0.5 percent at it's highest and 0.35 percent at it's lowest annually. Hardly something that takes a completely different approach state by state CDC - Cancer Rates by U.S. State. Give me a real life practical example of it being better, if you do it state by state? As to your second argument. Laws don't work as an all or nothing proposition. Changes to our healthcare system happen constantly. It changes by budget constraints year by year. It changes by demographic changes. So saying that if we get it wrong we can't fix it, so it's better to hedge our bets is a bit silly.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Healthcare is complicated, and it's true that big pharma plays a major role in the problem in US healthcare. That I think we can agree on. They buy political power to keep their money machine cranked up. Which is why I am opposed to the federal government being involved in healthcare. Leave it to states to manage. Smaller populations in a close geographic proximity, you know, like they do in Europe.

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.

The problem with these systems is that they are all half measures. I'll give you my amateur analyses why our system is cheaper. It's starts quite simply with education. Becoming a doctor in the US takes over 2 million provided you don't have a scholarship. Here it takes about 30000 euro. This is ballparking it here. This makes it that doctors don't have to charge as much because they don't have to pay back student loans. Our health insurance is mandatory. This has a couple of consequences. No need for advertising, no need for pharmacy techs calling health insurances to ask if they cover a medicine. It means about 20 people can service my town population 30000 plus for their health insurance needs. It means that the government has a vested interest in keeping the prices of healthcare down. They for instance make it mandatory for doctors to prescribe generics over name brands. And most importantly the only people who have a for profit motive in the system, are to a small extent the doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies, both of which who are carefully monitored by the federal government to not price gouge.

I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

You know, I like to debate. I like it because I think I'm good at it, my own personal little ego trip. But more importantly it helps me define my opinion and on rare occasions change it. Therefore I will always try to be both particular on the issues I talk about and the people I have a sustained conversation with. I also give myself certain rules I mostly stick to. I respect the person I talk to, I try to be polite. I try to stick to the points. I don't dodge the hard questions. I try distinguish between what I think and what I know. This means I put myself at an inherent disadvantage. I don't lie,insult, dodge, deflect or change the subject. I concede when the other person makes a decent point. I have found that it is frustrating when people I talk to don't hold themselves to any of these standards. You mostly have and I thank you for it. I'm sorry to tell you though, that this last post is a dodge. I will reply to the premise of it in the next post, but you seem to be unwilling to answer the premise of my last post.Explain to me how changing healthcare to the individual states,will improve your healthcare system in an appreciable way? Give a few examples? Make me see why it is better?

The most obvious example are the highly touted systems by socialist like yourself, that being the Scandinavian healthcare systems. They serve a small population in a close geographical area with a similar lifestyle. Here in the US we have a much more diverse, less homogenized population which is spread over a much bigger geographical area with very diverse lifestyles. The obesity rates, the rate of diabetes, the rate of different types of cancer varies drastically by region and states. They eat different food, they enjoy vastly different leisure activity, they have different industry, and they have different healthcare needs. It's silly to make a one size fits all system to cover such a diversity.

It is more efficient to allow states or region to be proactive and adjust their healthcare systems to the needs of the given population. Think about how we organize school systems. They are closely managed by states, and counties to fit the needs.

Another consideration is the potential for catastrophic failure. If all 330 million Americans are under one system, and they get it wrong, it will be catastrophic. If an individual states system fails it would be bad, but not as catastrophic as a failure across the entire country. Further, with each individual state designing and managing their system there exist the potential from learning from one another. States can see what works in other states or what fails and adapt their system accordingly.

Your argument to me sounds like someone claiming that he is able to up the value of his house by 50 percent by fixing a leaky faucet in the kitchen. Even if you right and that it is more efficient that states have full control over their health care system. Something that raises obvious questions, how to fund it for example, since not all states are equally strong economically and that would seem to cause serious problems in some states. And something that is partially the case now.
In the U.S., ownership of the health care system is mainly in private hands, though federal, state, county, and city governments also own certain facilities.

The non-profit hospitals share of total hospital capacity has remained relatively stable (about 70%) for decades.[47] There are also privately owned for-profit hospitals as well as government hospitals in some locations, mainly owned by county and city governments. The Hill-Burton Act was passed in 1946, which provided federal funding for hospitals in exchange for treating poor patients.[48]


US Department of Veterans Affairs vertical logo
There is no nationwide system of government-owned medical facilities open to the general public but there are local government-owned medical facilities open to the general public.
It doesn't fundamentally changes anything. So let me ask again. You give me a broad statement saying that needs vary from state by state so it's more efficient and therefore better. But let's look at your example of diabetes. Diabetes is treated by medicine and diet. Something that doesn't change from state to state. Cancer rates are 0.5 percent at it's highest and 0.35 percent at it's lowest annually. Hardly something that takes a completely different approach state by state CDC - Cancer Rates by U.S. State. Give me a real life practical example of it being better, if you do it state by state? As to your second argument. Laws don't work as an all or nothing proposition. Changes to our healthcare system happen constantly. It changes by budget constraints year by year. It changes by demographic changes. So saying that if we get it wrong we can't fix it, so it's better to hedge our bets is a bit silly.

Frankly, I have become bored discussing this with you. You are a hopeless socialist, and I am a committed conservative who lives in the most powerful, and by most measures, successful country in history. The fact that the USA is the standard around the world should make anyone with a rational and open mind envious. However I understand that many, especially those in European countries who know their best is behind them, tend towards jealousy, and that is expressed as arrogance.

 

[forkup]

Germany, France or Japan for that matter aren't that small and all have universal healthcare. I hear this argument a lot, can you tell me how putting healthcare with the states would improve it? I can't see it solving any of the problems with healthcare. It might be helpful if I give you the reasons I came up with as to the price difference. I did this before so I will simply copy paste.
I want to add 2 more reasons. We don't have the tendency to litigate as easily and when we do the numbers involved don't run in the millions ( no need for sky high malpractice insurances). And big pharma has less, mind I do not say no, lobbying power because of the fact that elections are publicly funded and regulated, so a politician isn't allowed to take money from anyone for election funds. I realise that Americans not even the die hard liberals probably would stand for the level of involvement of the government in day to day life. But it does work and I don't and neither do most people in my country experience it as oppressive. I choose my doctor, I choose the school my daughter goes to it's just all a bit less of a struggle. So explain to me please how you feel making healthcare a responsibility of the individual states would lower costs appreciably or would make health care better?

You outlined that the US system of government is different, primarily we are less socialistic. Therefore making comparisons of the respective healthcare system is difficult. A few facts you glided over or didn't address- Japan is a geographical small country, as is Germany and France relative to the US. Japan, the largest of the examples you cited, is slightly more than a third of the population of the US with a much less diverse population which makes a single healthcare system more easily applied. Considering that lifestyle has a huge influence on healthcare needs, it should be obvious why smaller populations with similar lifestyles and less cultural diversity can more easily have a standardized system. Not to mention the relative size of government. Your attempt of comparisons of Japan, Germany, and France to the US fails in very important factors. And you never addressed the amount of money the US spends and thus provides to the world healthcare systems thru research and innovation. Again, your welcome.

You know, I like to debate. I like it because I think I'm good at it, my own personal little ego trip. But more importantly it helps me define my opinion and on rare occasions change it. Therefore I will always try to be both particular on the issues I talk about and the people I have a sustained conversation with. I also give myself certain rules I mostly stick to. I respect the person I talk to, I try to be polite. I try to stick to the points. I don't dodge the hard questions. I try distinguish between what I think and what I know. This means I put myself at an inherent disadvantage. I don't lie,insult, dodge, deflect or change the subject. I concede when the other person makes a decent point. I have found that it is frustrating when people I talk to don't hold themselves to any of these standards. You mostly have and I thank you for it. I'm sorry to tell you though, that this last post is a dodge. I will reply to the premise of it in the next post, but you seem to be unwilling to answer the premise of my last post.Explain to me how changing healthcare to the individual states,will improve your healthcare system in an appreciable way? Give a few examples? Make me see why it is better?

The most obvious example are the highly touted systems by socialist like yourself, that being the Scandinavian healthcare systems. They serve a small population in a close geographical area with a similar lifestyle. Here in the US we have a much more diverse, less homogenized population which is spread over a much bigger geographical area with very diverse lifestyles. The obesity rates, the rate of diabetes, the rate of different types of cancer varies drastically by region and states. They eat different food, they enjoy vastly different leisure activity, they have different industry, and they have different healthcare needs. It's silly to make a one size fits all system to cover such a diversity.

It is more efficient to allow states or region to be proactive and adjust their healthcare systems to the needs of the given population. Think about how we organize school systems. They are closely managed by states, and counties to fit the needs.

Another consideration is the potential for catastrophic failure. If all 330 million Americans are under one system, and they get it wrong, it will be catastrophic. If an individual states system fails it would be bad, but not as catastrophic as a failure across the entire country. Further, with each individual state designing and managing their system there exist the potential from learning from one another. States can see what works in other states or what fails and adapt their system accordingly.

Your argument to me sounds like someone claiming that he is able to up the value of his house by 50 percent by fixing a leaky faucet in the kitchen. Even if you right and that it is more efficient that states have full control over their health care system. Something that raises obvious questions, how to fund it for example, since not all states are equally strong economically and that would seem to cause serious problems in some states. And something that is partially the case now.
In the U.S., ownership of the health care system is mainly in private hands, though federal, state, county, and city governments also own certain facilities.

The non-profit hospitals share of total hospital capacity has remained relatively stable (about 70%) for decades.[47] There are also privately owned for-profit hospitals as well as government hospitals in some locations, mainly owned by county and city governments. The Hill-Burton Act was passed in 1946, which provided federal funding for hospitals in exchange for treating poor patients.[48]


US Department of Veterans Affairs vertical logo
There is no nationwide system of government-owned medical facilities open to the general public but there are local government-owned medical facilities open to the general public.
It doesn't fundamentally changes anything. So let me ask again. You give me a broad statement saying that needs vary from state by state so it's more efficient and therefore better. But let's look at your example of diabetes. Diabetes is treated by medicine and diet. Something that doesn't change from state to state. Cancer rates are 0.5 percent at it's highest and 0.35 percent at it's lowest annually. Hardly something that takes a completely different approach state by state CDC - Cancer Rates by U.S. State. Give me a real life practical example of it being better, if you do it state by state? As to your second argument. Laws don't work as an all or nothing proposition. Changes to our healthcare system happen constantly. It changes by budget constraints year by year. It changes by demographic changes. So saying that if we get it wrong we can't fix it, so it's better to hedge our bets is a bit silly.

Frankly, I have become bored discussing this with you. You are a hopeless socialist, and I am a committed conservative who lives in the most powerful, and by most measures, successful country in history. The fact that the USA is the standard around the world should make anyone with a rational and open mind envious. However I understand that many, especially those in European countries who know their best is behind them, tend towards jealousy, and that is expressed as arrogance.

Well if you are becoming bored you can stop of course. I'll reply to this post still though. It's interesting that you refer to me as arrogant here, while at the same time saying that you are committed to your political beliefs, while I'm hopeless believing in mine. It's interesting that you refer to me as arrogant while at the same time claiming our country is the most successful, in HISTORY no less. The British Empire spanned the Globe for over 2 centuries. The Roman Empire spanned most of Europe while being at the same leaps and bounds technologically above the rest. China was first unified 221 BCE, but The US is the sole superpower for 28 years and all of a sudden you are the most successful in history. They call this irony. I find it interesting you claim jealousy as my reason for comparing my system to yours. I've been clear as to why I want to stay in Belgium. If I'm jealous wouldn't in want to go to the US? I find it interesting that you now claim boredom as the reason you want to stop, just when I'm asking you to argue the merit of your assertion." We will fix healthcare by making the states responsible for it." To me it feels like a kid refusing to continue playing monopoly because the other person just build his hotel on park place.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The states are the ones prohibiting interstate purchasing, not the Federal government.

Is that really too hard for you to understand?

Liberals are known for attaching huge amounts of forbidden Federal authority to relatively simple Constitutional phrases such as "Congress shall have the power... to regulate Commerce... among the several states."

But here we see a liberal trying to pretend that phrase does NOT give Congress the power to regulate Commerce among the several states. It's OK, he says, for states to regulate the sale of health insurance across state lines, and even for the state to forbid the its own citizens to buy health insurance from a different state.

I have no doubt that many states are doing that. Many of them try to regulate firearms, too. Whether it's LEGAL for them to do those things, is another question.

Is insurance interstate commerce?
Sustaining the demurrer, the District Court held that "the business of insurance is notcommerce, either intrastate or interstate"; it "is not interstate commerce orinterstate trade, though it might be considered a trade subject to local laws either State or Federal, where the commerce clause is not the authority

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Marion Morrison]

. Let's put what you say here [capitalism makes things better and cheaper] to the test. If what you say is true, then health care should have become both higher quality and cheaper.

I have explained to you 8 times that liberal utter idiots made capitalism in health care illegal in 1946 with McCarran Furguson. Have you ever seen a conservative who has to run from a debate like you do? What does that teach you?

Lol love how your counter goes from 6 to 8 lol seems you math isn't in your repertoire. As to the McCarran Ferguson act.
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.
How does this in any way prevent capitalism? And if you say the it restricts the ability to shop around read this.http://www.naic.org/documents/topics_interstate_sales_myths.pdf And I notice that you still have nothing but putting out talking points. Let's try this. If your next reply doesn't answer this question I will simply not reply anymore.
According to a 2000 study of the World Health Organization, publicly funded systems of industrial nations spend less on health care, both as a percentage of their GDP and per capita, and enjoy superior population-based health care outcomes. If Capitalism is the answer why do publicly funded programs fair better????

I'll point out the fallacy here.

To the bolded: Of course they do, the government wants to spend as little as possible. The government also gets to choose who gets treatment.

To the italicized: No nation enjoys medical care superior to the US, that's a lie.

 

[forkup]

. Let's put what you say here [capitalism makes things better and cheaper] to the test. If what you say is true, then health care should have become both higher quality and cheaper.

I have explained to you 8 times that liberal utter idiots made capitalism in health care illegal in 1946 with McCarran Furguson. Have you ever seen a conservative who has to run from a debate like you do? What does that teach you?

Lol love how your counter goes from 6 to 8 lol seems you math isn't in your repertoire. As to the McCarran Ferguson act.
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution and that the federal antitrust laws applied to the insurance industry.
How does this in any way prevent capitalism? And if you say the it restricts the ability to shop around read this.http://www.naic.org/documents/topics_interstate_sales_myths.pdf And I notice that you still have nothing but putting out talking points. Let's try this. If your next reply doesn't answer this question I will simply not reply anymore.
According to a 2000 study of the World Health Organization, publicly funded systems of industrial nations spend less on health care, both as a percentage of their GDP and per capita, and enjoy superior population-based health care outcomes. If Capitalism is the answer why do publicly funded programs fair better????

I'll point out the fallacy here.

To the bolded: Of course they do, the government wants to spend as little as possible. The government also gets to choose who gets treatment.

To the italicized: No nation enjoys medical care superior to the US, that's a lie.

I'm having a little trouble understanding the point your trying to make. That's my fault because that post wasn't the clearest I've put out. Can you rephrase?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Republicans are so keen on letting people buy insurance across state lines, why don't they just write a specific, standalone bill mandating just that,

and pass it? How hard could that be?