Sarah Palin: bat****, or howling-at-the-moon bat****?

[Drake Tungsten]

And you deal with the poor being ****ed under such a system how?

Negative income tax.

[Guynemer]

Why not just scrap the whole thing and follow the French or German or British or Canadian model, Drake?

We know that works: equal (or greater) quality care, for everyone, at a fraction of the cost.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why not just scrap the whole thing and follow the French or German or British or Canadian model, Drake?

We can do better.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

We can do better.

.....Based on what? And, more importantly, when?

[notyoueither]

NYE, you're just going to have to continue talking to yourself. Your stupidity and obstinacy have convinced me of the futility of attempting to teach you anything at all. I hope that's something to be proud of.

Awwww, Muffin.

[notyoueither]

you ****trumpet.

That's some quality Roland, right there. That's what that is.

[Zkribbler]

Why not just scrap the whole thing and follow the French or German or British or Canadian model, Drake?

We can do better.

[notyoueither]

Ugh, this isn't a difficult concept. Workers supply labour depending on their marginal benefit they recieve. In the case of a labourer, the marginal benefit recieved is the sum total of all wages and fringe benefits recieved by employment. The greater the marginal benefit, the more workers that will supply labour. When healthcare becomes a right that one gets due to their residency of a certain country, rather than a benefit from working, their marginal benefit of working decreases. This is extremely intuitive. We're talking introductory micro-economics stuff here. To use the argument that "people still need to eat so they'll work in a society where their marginal benefit for working is lower for the exact same (or perhaps even lower) wages" is ridiculous and shows a very poor understanding of economics.



Okay wait what? Are you trying to insinuate here that an employer cares whether the compensation their employees recieve is cash or healthcare benefits? What exactly is your point wrt "a larger pool of people in good health who are not working some other job just for the benes"? (I presume benes=benefits). Why would an employer care whether I am working my job for health care benefits or for cash? Further, do you seriously think that someone leaving one job for another has an effect on the aggregate supply and aggregate demand for labour?

The even worse thing I just realised is that going down this line of logic, is actually counterproductive to your point. (An own goal perhaps?)

You see, you are saying there are people who choose to work for a specific firm due to the health benefits they recieve. Thinking on it, this seems somewhat intuitive. Somebody who has a chronic health condition, or maybe just a person that is for some reason not healthy and is always getting sick, may be insensitive to wage levels, but very sensitive to changes in their health benefits. Such a person may choose to cut back their hours under a universal healthcare system (generally you have to work full time to recieve full healthcare benefits), or they may choose not to work at all.

I don't know whether such a scenario would occur, but I do think it is not at all reasonable to conclude that somebody who is working at a specific firm because of healthcare benefits, will under a universal healthcare system, work more hours. They would either work the same or (if they are insensitive to changes in salary and healthcare benefits made up most of their percieved marginal benefit from employment) would cut back their hours, lowering the aggregate labour supply.



The thing is, I don't think that KH has argued that universal healthcare would absolutely hurt exports. His argument, as far as I understand has been two-fold:
1) Universal healthcare may hurt exports.
2) If universal healthcare helps exports, the mechanism by which this occurs is not nearly as intuitive as you are making it out to be, and moreover, the mechanisms by which you are trying to argue that it would help exports ("PEOPLE HAVE TO EAT! NOBODY WOULD EVER QUIT A JOB IF THEIR MARGINAL BENEFIT DECREASED! NOBODY HAS EVER IN THE HISTORY OF MAN CHOSEN TO BE UNEMPLOYED WHEN THEY FEEL THEIR MARGINAL BENEFIT FROM WORK IS LESS THAN THEIR MARGINAL COST!") show a very poor understanding of even the most simplest micro-economic principles.

That you are continuing this argument and trying to insist that you are "right" just makes your lack of understanding basic micro-economic principles even more apparent. Your final conclusion may very well be correct. Yet, you are no more right than the kid who sees a drag race the first time and says "I think the blue car will win because BLUE cars are always faster!" Just because the blue car wins, does not make him any more right, nor does it make the people who said "The driver in the blue car is inexperienced. He is not likely to win. Even if he does, it isn't because the car is blue" wrong.

I'm going to have to continue this fascinating discussion tomorrow.

In the meantime I feel compelled to point out that you are being silly.

Everyone knows that red cars go fastest.

[Arrian]

We can do better.

I'd like to believe that, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that it's true. I mean, have you been watching this cluster****?

-Arrian

[DinoDoc]

I'd like to believe that, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that it's true. I mean, have you been watching this cluster****?

Well it has been killing the most onerous aspects of the bill that the CBO says fail to do anything to bend the cost curve in the right direction?

[Straybow]

Because the UK health care system does appear be a used car. (Just not the lemon that Straybow and the similarly ignorant keep claiming it to be)

Whoopdedoo, the statistic I heard and quoted is skewed, yet the central point, that prostate mortality rate is significantly lower in the US, is true.

But that UK health system is a lemon, The Daily Mail says that a shortage of beds and midwives causes an increasing number of women to be turned away from maternity wards to give birth in ambulances, elevators, hallways, toilets, etc.

HR 3200 would place an across the board ban on all hospital expansions, and require hospitals to appeal to the National Health Czar/Death Panel/Tooth Fairy to get permission to expand capacity. Hooray, can't wait 'til we have bed shortages; so much fun!

[Kuciwalker]

Whoopdedoo, the statistic I heard and quoted is skewed, yet the central point, that prostate mortality rate is significantly lower in the US, is true.

The statistic you heard is meaningless, but happens to be meaningless in the correct direction.

[Guynemer]

Why not just scrap the whole thing and follow the French or German or British or Canadian model, Drake?

We can do better.

BAM!


I'm not saying we shouldn't try to do better, but those would be at least good places to start, wouldn't they? Being as they are far more cost-effective than our current cluster****?

[KrazyHorse]

Guy, you had your own BAM here:

We know that works: equal (or greater) quality care, for everyone

[Drake Tungsten]

but those would be at least good places to start, wouldn't they? Being as they are far more cost-effective than our current cluster****?

Only if you think cost-efficiency is the only important goal of a healthcare system. Switching to a copy of a European-style system seems likely to stifle the good aspects of the American system (innovation, responsiveness, limited rationing) while not completely solving the problem of cost inflation that is the ostensible reason for reform. The UK and Germany are doing better on fighting cost inflation than we are, but they haven't solved the problem by any means and are also going to have long-run budget difficulties due to increased medical costs and an aging population. We need to do better than that if we're going to give up the advantages of our healthcare system.