This Looks Like the Start of a Second Great Depression

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

There are countless regulations that private enterprises have to live with. And most of them manage to run efficiently nonetheless. Except in the health care field where the private industry in the US is outperformed by any government anywhere in the world. The US health care industry is a disgrace and deserves to be tanked. Let the government run it. If the market can do better, let the competition begin.

Depends on how you define "outperformed". Profit-wise, they are doing great.

I'd define "outperform" as providing the product - health care - efficiently.

[tmma 467]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

There are countless regulations that private enterprises have to live with. And most of them manage to run efficiently nonetheless. Except in the health care field where the private industry in the US is outperformed by any government anywhere in the world. The US health care industry is a disgrace and deserves to be tanked. Let the government run it. If the market can do better, let the competition begin.

"Outperformed by ANY government in the world"...Big Dog, I like reading your posts, but I REALLY disagree with this statement. I have first hand experience of Govt run healthcare-------IMO and experience---IT SUCKED! Personally, I would much rather pay for my health insurance every month, to a provider of my choice, than trust my care to a Govt employee or Healthcare Trust. The Govt is the least efficent entity known, there is NO WAY I want my health in their hands.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

There are countless regulations that private enterprises have to live with. And most of them manage to run efficiently nonetheless. Except in the health care field where the private industry in the US is outperformed by any government anywhere in the world. The US health care industry is a disgrace and deserves to be tanked. Let the government run it. If the market can do better, let the competition begin.

"Outperformed by ANY government in the world"...Big Dog, I like reading your posts, but I REALLY disagree with this statement. I have first hand experience of Govt run healthcare-------IMO and experience---IT SUCKED! Personally, I would much rather pay for my health insurance every month, to a provider of my choice, than trust my care to a Govt employee or Healthcare Trust. The Govt is the least efficent entity known, there is NO WAY I want my health in their hands.

I have first hand experience with two different models of governent run health care systems (both in East and later in the united Germany) and either one of those experiences is far superior to the joke, rip-off and failure that the purely profit oriented US health care system is. In the US, where "care" is managed by private enterprise, we pay by far the most for by far the least in return. Nowhere in any government run health care system will you ever find the amount of bureaucratic waste and excess as in the system that is managed by private enterprises here.

If the private heath care industry is superior to a government run system, then the private industry should have no problem competing with and outperforming any service the government would ever offer. But they know that they can't which is why they're lobbying so strongly to keep the profit oriented (as opposed to patient oriented) syetm in place.

I don't know how anyone can be content with or even promote the kind of red-tape and bureaucratic waste that the private health care industry is shoving down America's throat. I don't know how anyone can be content with America lagging all other developed countries in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and any other quality of health care indicator while leading all other nations in the expenditures in this sector. The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

[Heracles 417]

These neo-New deal ideas that Paul Krugman is proposing have never worked. What these Keynesians will never understand is that wealth cannot be created by a bureaucrat signing a bill. It can be shifted to other areas, but not created out of nothing.

Forcing the wage rate above actual real market levels, and creating temporary "dig a hole, then fill it" jobs is exactly what perpetuated 20+ percent unemployment in the 30's. What's Krugman have to say about this? That the government didn't spend enough money. Wow.

I suppose intellect is not a requirement for the 'ol Nobel.

Both Canada and Australia are prime examples that Keynesian economics does work and very well actually. This is something that should have been done years ago. Government spending in key areas is essential for a country. Even in this economy, both Australia and Canada are still doing relatively well. Yes even with their generous welfare and extremely high minimum wage. They may even weather the storm only to come out stronger than ever. All while the living standard for the average American is flushed down the toilet. This is not free market, this is a consequence of idiots allowing anyone to do as they please. Erroneously believing that the lack of regulation, rules, is the way to go.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Aficionado

[tmma 467]

Everything is relative and relative to private enterprise, government is more efficient in this sector. Which is to say that contrary to your belief, private enterprise isn't any more immune from perpetual inefficiency than government.

But inefficiency in the private sector is punished with profit losses, layoffs, and eventual bankruptcy.

The perpetual, in fact increasing, inefficiency in the private industry in the health care sector tells a different story.

I would hardly call the health sector in America a private industry.

AMA, brought to you by government.

FDA, brought to you by government.

HMO, Medicare/Medicaid, all brought to you by government.

Healthcare is probably the biggest government intervention mess of them all.

Didn't we spin on this merry-go-round already?

There are countless regulations that private enterprises have to live with. And most of them manage to run efficiently nonetheless. Except in the health care field where the private industry in the US is outperformed by any government anywhere in the world. The US health care industry is a disgrace and deserves to be tanked. Let the government run it. If the market can do better, let the competition begin.

"Outperformed by ANY government in the world"...Big Dog, I like reading your posts, but I REALLY disagree with this statement. I have first hand experience of Govt run healthcare-------IMO and experience---IT SUCKED! Personally, I would much rather pay for my health insurance every month, to a provider of my choice, than trust my care to a Govt employee or Healthcare Trust. The Govt is the least efficent entity known, there is NO WAY I want my health in their hands.

I have first hand experience with two different models of governent run health care systems (both in East and later in the united Germany) and either one of those experiences is far superior to the joke, rip-off and failure that the purely profit oriented US health care system is. In the US, where "care" is managed by private enterprise, we pay by far the most for by far the least in return. Nowhere in any government run health care system will you ever find the amount of bureaucratic waste and excess as in the system that is managed by private enterprises here.

If the private heath care industry is superior to a government run system, then the private industry should have no problem competing with and outperforming any service the government would ever offer. But they know that they can't which is why they're lobbying so strongly to keep the profit oriented (as opposed to patient oriented) syetm in place.

I don't know how anyone can be content with or even promote the kind of red-tape and bureaucratic waste that the private health care industry is shoving down America's throat. I don't know how anyone can be content with America lagging all other developed countries in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and any other quality of health care indicator while leading all other nations in the expenditures in this sector. The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

Well, I totally get what you are saying, you present a great arguement and POV but I still do not think that ANY Govt healthcare system in the world is better than our system. Maybe I am not unbiased. I only base my opinion on my own experience in the UK, and here. That's the only comparison I have. I needed a surgery in the UK, the Healthcare Trust I was under could not afford it without me waiting for a year to do it ( even if I had used my pvt insurance there)--I was packed off back to the States for it. My insurance paid for all of it here. I received the surgery quickly, efficently and at one of the best cancer centers in the world ( IMO).That surgery saved my life. So maybe I am speaking more from emotion than raw fact.

Edited January 8, 2009 by tmma

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I've had hospital outpatient and ER visits both here and in the UK. Honestly - the quality of care (and the quality of the hospital) weren't really much different.

The only difference with the US system is that you can get pretty much anything done almost on demand, so long as you can pony up the cash for it - which in some cases may mean bankrupting yourself.

[Heracles 417]

I have first hand experience with two different models of governent run health care systems (both in East and later in the united Germany) and either one of those experiences is far superior to the joke, rip-off and failure that the purely profit oriented US health care system is. In the US, where "care" is managed by private enterprise, we pay by far the most for by far the least in return. Nowhere in any government run health care system will you ever find the amount of bureaucratic waste and excess as in the system that is managed by private enterprises here.

If the private heath care industry is superior to a government run system, then the private industry should have no problem competing with and outperforming any service the government would ever offer. But they know that they can't which is why they're lobbying so strongly to keep the profit oriented (as opposed to patient oriented) syetm in place.

I don't know how anyone can be content with or even promote the kind of red-tape and bureaucratic waste that the private health care industry is shoving down America's throat. I don't know how anyone can be content with America lagging all other developed countries in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and any other quality of health care indicator while leading all other nations in the expenditures in this sector. The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

Well, I totally get what you are saying, you present a great arguement and POV but I still do not think that ANY Govt healthcare system in the world is better than our system. Maybe I am not unbiased. I only base my opinion on my own experience in the UK, and here. That's the only comparison I have. I needed a surgery in the UK, the Healthcare Trust I was under could not afford it without me waiting for a year to do it ( even if I had used my pvt insurance there)--I was packed off back to the States for it. My insurance paid for all of it here. I received the surgery quickly, efficently and at one of the best cancer centers in the world ( IMO).That surgery saved my life. So maybe I am speaking more from emotion than raw fact.

The US healthcare system is one of the best in the world. Anyone denying that doesn't know what they are talking about. The only issues is that not everyone can afford it and your level of access depends on where you work, where you live and what the employers health insurance coverage is. The US only ranks poorly by the WHO because access is limited. I have had friends who had to wait over half a year for surgery in Germany, whereas the same surgery here is performed within a week. NHS are also get-in-get out types of systems. They are all about providing basic healthcare to the masses, on the cheap. That is how and the only way the system works. Which system is better, well that all depends on someone's circumstances. For someone poor NHS is awesome. For someone with money, the private sector is much better. So why not have both as we do abroad.

My solution for the US would be as follows:

• Setup a NHS to compete with the private system (Supply and demand). Build and run government owned and operated not-for-profit hospitals. Also an excellent boost for the economy and money well spent.
• Regulate the existing system to ensure all illnesses (pre-existing or not) are covered.
• Add a tax levy for everyone from 2% to 4% to cover the new system.
• Ensure that all employers provide adequate coverage or are paying into the NHS.
• Allow people and the government to buy medication from the overseas or whoever can supply it for a reasonable price.
• Ensue that only Citizens and legal residents can use the system.

The biggest obstacle facing the US is that you guys are not a federal oriented economy. I have heard people say that health system should be operated by the local government. Much in the same way the fire, police, schools are administered. Which is not a bad idea. Unfortunately a county alone cannot run a billion dollar health care system. It either has to be administered on a state level, federal level or even a regional level. Yet, once again is extremely difficult as you guys don't have a Federal GST / VAT style tax to collect the appropriate taxes to pay for the system, like everyone else who runs nation healthcare systems.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Aficionado

[awaterlily 0]

I'm hopeful

[Heracles 417]

I'm hopeful

Death to hope!!

Just kidding. We need more than hope, we need leaders and politicians who are more than three worded slogans.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The US healthcare system is one of the best in the world. Anyone denying that doesn't know what they are talking about. The only issues is that not everyone can afford it and your level of access depends on where you work, where you live and what the employers health insurance coverage is.

I can't disagree with everything you said, but we definitely DO NOT have the best "health care system." Our current system would be hard pressed to suck worse.

We may have some of the best doctors, medical equipment etc. But the system sucks. And not merely because almost 1 in 5 have no health insurance, even those who do, when used, often find their "coverage" to be beyond inadequate to cope with the costs of their care.

I definitely agree that instead of scrapping the current system, create a federal health care system to compete, cover those not covered, those who wish to switch, and things not covered by private insurance which too often is only good while you are paying but sucks when actual costs begin to be incurred.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It certainly is the best in the world (if money is no object).

For everyone else - you get a level of service comparable to national health systems, only it costs you a lot more.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I have first hand experience with two different models of governent run health care systems (both in East and later in the united Germany) and either one of those experiences is far superior to the joke, rip-off and failure that the purely profit oriented US health care system is. In the US, where "care" is managed by private enterprise, we pay by far the most for by far the least in return. Nowhere in any government run health care system will you ever find the amount of bureaucratic waste and excess as in the system that is managed by private enterprises here.

If the private heath care industry is superior to a government run system, then the private industry should have no problem competing with and outperforming any service the government would ever offer. But they know that they can't which is why they're lobbying so strongly to keep the profit oriented (as opposed to patient oriented) syetm in place.

I don't know how anyone can be content with or even promote the kind of red-tape and bureaucratic waste that the private health care industry is shoving down America's throat. I don't know how anyone can be content with America lagging all other developed countries in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality and any other quality of health care indicator while leading all other nations in the expenditures in this sector. The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

My solution for the US would be as follows:

• Setup a NHS to compete with the private system (Supply and demand). Build and run government owned and operated not-for-profit hospitals. Also an excellent boost for the economy and money well spent.
• Regulate the existing system to ensure all illnesses (pre-existing or not) are covered.
• Add a tax levy for everyone from 2% to 4% to cover the new system.
• Ensure that all employers provide adequate coverage or are paying into the NHS.
• Allow people and the government to buy medication from the overseas or whoever can supply it for a reasonable price.
• Ensue that only Citizens and legal residents can use the system.

Sounds good to me.

[mRx 16]

The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

Negative. The US health care system is a mess for precisely the intervention placed on it. (Which I explained in my last post)

The answer is less intervention, not more.

More intervention will only give us more problems, as existing intervention has shown us.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The US health care system is sad joke at best. And private enterprise has made it such.

Negative. The US health care system is a mess for precisely the intervention placed on it. (Which I explained in my last post)

The answer is less intervention, not more.

More intervention will only give us more problems, as existing intervention has shown us.

Nonsense. Less intervention will cause more people left behind - i.e. make the system less efficient as it will deliver care to an ever smaller portion of the population. A sector that should be about patient care cannot be effectively run by profit oriented entities. The bureaucratic overhead is not a result of regulation but a result of attempts by the private insurance industry to maximize profits.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In theory, the role of government intervention in healthcare is to ensure individuals have a fair access to a reasonable array of health services. That doesn't conflict with the current philosophy that if you have more money - you will be able to afford better services.