Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Moore and Castro, Sittin' in a Tree
More Cuban embargo idiocy, more Michael Moore publicity-mongering, or both? The Treasury Department is investigating the filmmaker for taking some 9/11 rescue workers to Cuba for some sweet Castro-style health care as a set piece in his forthcoming shock doc on the health care system, Sicko.
Old Hit-and-Running from Matt Welch on how the Treasury Dept's Cuban madness has affected an entertainment form second only to Michael Moore flicks in Americans' hearts, baseball.
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 11:21AM|#
I'll vote both.
It would be much cooler if Moore were making a documentary about
the embargo.
Ryo|5.10.07 @ 11:33AM|#
I could swear Moore did something like this a long time ago on one of his short lived TV shows (The Awful Truth or TV Nation). They staged a health care olympics between the US, Canada and Cuba.
|5.10.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Of course Moore will make it seem like the healthcare given out
by the Cuban government for propeganda purposes is the healthcare
recieved by the typical Cuban. Those 9-11 workers also get to go
home to a free country as opposed to living on the prison island
known as Cuba. Moore will mention none of that either.
In addition, Moore's point will be to advocate for a single payer
socialized healthcare system. Last I heard such a system was on of
the list of things Reason and libertarians in general object
to.
The law is the law. Does Reason expect the treasury department not
to enforce the law because it is Michael Moore? OF you don't like
the law change it, but I don't think you can blame the people who
enforce the law. Moreover, the fact Michael Moore might get in
trouble for his propagandizing for socialized medicine is pretty
low on the harms associated with the embargo.
|5.10.07 @ 11:45AM|#
Sounds like John has either seen this movie or has knee-jerk reactions to the words "Michael" and "Moore" when placed together.
|5.10.07 @ 11:54AM|#
It would be much cooler if Moore were making a documentary
about the embargo.
But even cooler still if he did a documentary about how the Castro
family has enriched itself while the Cuban people have slid deeper
into poverty.
You'd think a real populist would be all over that.
|5.10.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Not to comment on Moore or the project, but the Cuba embargo is a friggin' joke. Is there any reason that it's kept in place right now except for politicians being scared of losing Florida in the next election if they drop the embargo?
|5.10.07 @ 11:57AM|#
RC Dean: you mean to suggest that a dictator enriched himself at the expense of his citizens? How will I ever get over the shock?
|5.10.07 @ 11:58AM|#
Is there any reason that it's kept in place right now except
for politicians being scared of losing Florida in the next election
if they drop the embargo?
No.
|5.10.07 @ 11:59AM|#
John's assessment of MM is dead on. He's not that complicated of
a man and has been pulling the same stunts for decades. It's a no
brainer.
As far as "the law is the law" goes; There are plenty of laws
libertarians object to. While there is merit in the argument that
it is better to repeal bad laws than to have the law unenforced, it
never the less shocks the conscience to see bad laws enforced and
we can rightly object to it. Think "fugitive slave act" for
example.
|5.10.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Not to comment on Moore or the project, but the Cuba embargo
is a friggin' joke. Is there any reason that it's kept in place
right now except for politicians being scared of losing Florida in
the next election if they drop the embargo?
That and the possibility that a socialist state might succeed if
given a fair chance.
|5.10.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Sicko isn't autobiographical?
Is there any reason that it's kept in place right now except
for politicians being scared of losing Florida in the next election
if they drop the embargo?
Of course! Just think the moolah to be had from all of those
meticulously maintained classic American cars in Cuba that will go
on the market when the embargo drops. The longer it holds, the more
they'll be worth in the end.
Castro isn't a shill for Big '58 Chevy; he just wants to maximize
his investment.
Bhh|5.10.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Exiles + Big Sugar = this bonehead policy.
My fav embargo story: they've found what might be a few billion
barrels of oil of the coast of Cuba. Not an insignificant find.
It's like 20 miles off Florida or something. But we can't touch it
due to the embargo. So it's going to be exploited by spanish,
indian, norwegian, canadian etc oil companies. Maybe that's why HAL
went to Dubai.
|5.10.07 @ 12:04PM|#
But even cooler still if he did a documentary about how the
Castro family has enriched itself while the Cuban people have slid
deeper into poverty.
RC Dean: you mean to suggest that a dictator enriched himself
at the expense of his citizens? How will I ever get over the
shock?
Thank goodness this type of thing never happens in America, though
and it only happens in dictatorships like Cuba.
|5.10.07 @ 12:05PM|#
That and the possibility that a socialist state might
succeed if given a fair chance.
It's for classic one-liners like this that I don't kick in the
filter for Dan.
Hee-larious!!
|5.10.07 @ 12:09PM|#
"That and the possibility that a socialist state might succeed
if given a fair chance."
You mean like Romania under Ceausescu?
|5.10.07 @ 12:17PM|#
I oppose the embargo and the travel restrictions (embargoes I
might support in some cases, in theory; travel
restrictions I don't support, period). Moore should be able to make
his stupid movie without government interference.
Moore bends the truth too much to be respected. I don't need more
evidence of that to come to that conclusion. Feel free to disagree
with me, but I've seen enough of his work to make my own
decision.
Cuba is not a nice place to live, and the government is quite
oppressive. People who fawn over Castro are fools and have a
distorted conception of what freedom and democracy truly are.
Communism and large-scale socialism are flawed institutions that
usually lead to tyranny and impoverishment of the general
population. Of course, the overlords somehow always end up wealthy.
Whether socialism-lite will end up in the same place over the long
term is an unanswered question.
David Ross|5.10.07 @ 12:23PM|#
Cuba WAS given a chance; it had the whole of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s to run its affairs with free access to the entire Soviet bloc, and to many countries outside it (Mexico for one). That amounted to many billions of people, all of whom were living under varying grades of socialism.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 12:24PM|#
You mean like Romania under Ceausescu?
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending far
less on healthcare?
|5.10.07 @ 12:29PM|#
RC Dean: you mean to suggest that a dictator enriched
himself at the expense of his citizens? How will I ever get over
the shock?
It may not be a shock, but a little outrage from people who purport
to be on the side of the common man would be nice.
Otherwise, your populism starts looking more like a pose than a
conviction.
David Ross|5.10.07 @ 12:35PM|#
clown12: France is not in the United Kingdom; the French healthcare system is not the NHS. French healthcare is regulated by the state, as it is in the US, but it is not run by the state to nearly the extent of Britain's or Cuba's.
|5.10.07 @ 12:38PM|#
David Ross:
No need to change clone12's name to mock it. One gets the idea that
folks like that get stamped out in a factory, somewhere...
clone12|5.10.07 @ 12:44PM|#
70% medical subsidy for *all* French citizen seems to me more "socialist" than the US system.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 12:47PM|#
Nothing says high-minded, intellectual Libertarianism like
thrid-grade name-calling.
Of course this could be also why Libertarians are much better at
sniping rather than at actually running things.
Chucklehead|5.10.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending
far less on healthcare?
It's the foie gras.
|5.10.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending
far less on healthcare?
They just prop up their dead to make it *look* like they're
alive.
You do have some link that shows that every dollar of French
"health care spending" is the same as every similar dollar in the
US, right?
|5.10.07 @ 1:19PM|#
JW: What do you mean by your last sentence? Seems like hemming
and hawing by somebody who doesn't want to be convinced. Of course
the dollars are spent differently, as both systems are quite
different. But I admit, I really don't understand your question
(and I may not even disagree with you). Why don't you just tell us
what you're getting at?
Healthcare spending per capita
Private healthcare spending per capita
Public healthcare spending per capita
As you can see, the US spends more per person on healthcare. We
spend more public money, and we spend more private money.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 1:19PM|#
The Cuba travel ban is still stupid regardless of Moore's inexcusable admiration of Fidel.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 1:21PM|#
On an unrelated note, here's something for you, Dan T. I'm gonna keep posting it until you respond.
|5.10.07 @ 1:25PM|#
"Of course this could be also why Libertarians are much
better at sniping rather than at actually running
things."
You're just jealous because you're not funny.
|5.10.07 @ 1:28PM|#
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending
far less on healthcare?
No, Silly, it's the red wine. Whee--time for another bottle.
|5.10.07 @ 1:33PM|#
That and the possibility that a socialist state might
succeed if given a fair chance.
This is how we find out if Dan T. is a troll or not a troll.
Dan T. do you really believe this statement? Or was it just
intended to be red meat for the wolf-pack here at H&R?
Guy Montag|5.10.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Cuba trades freely with every country in the world but the USA
and somehow it is our embargo that is making them poor?
JFC, is the Pacifica Network passing out the Commie Kool-Aid
today?
|5.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending far
less on healthcare?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are payroll taxes counted in that
estimate?
If there not, then those figures are nonsense because a large chunk
of the spending for health care in France comes out of payroll
taxes.
|5.10.07 @ 1:38PM|#
That and the possibility that a socialist state might
succeed if given a fair chance.
Bwahahahahah!
Yeah cuz that is the problem....maybe if they were given a fair
chance 200 million people would have been killed by socialist
states in the 20th century rather then only 100 million.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending
far less on healthcare?
Well, I doubt high-fructose corn syrup and Big Macs make up a big
part of the average French diet, so that's half the battle right
there.
This isn't to say I think the U.S. has the best health care system
in the world, but I also think there are other factors at work
besides levels of spending and who does a better job at health
care.
|5.10.07 @ 1:46PM|#
maybe if they were given a fair chance 200 million people
would have been killed by socialist states in the 20th century
rather then only 100 million.
Socialist states don't even give each other a fair chance,
what with Vietnam overthrowing the Khmer Rouge and all.
And look at the way the Soviet Union and China became mortal
enemies after the Korean War. Just imagine all the opportunities
for outsourcing of gulags and cultural revolution that were
missed!
|5.10.07 @ 1:50PM|#
Michael Moore has boobs.
This paste eater epitomizes the millions of americans with self
inflicted diseases clogging our hospitals. And really, I couldn't
care less. That is until Moore and his ilk ask me to pitch in "my
fair share" when it comes time to cut off his foot cause he
couldn't keep his hand out of the cookie jar.
Take a trip over to the CDC's website and you'll find that
americans are killing themselves with booze, fatty foods, tobacco,
and sedentary lifestyles. Maybe they are on to something over in
Cuba; poverty.
I hope he ends his film with a pack of skinny cubans floating his
fat ass to Florida.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Cuba trades freely with every country in the world but the
USA and somehow it is our embargo that is making them poor?
JFC, is the Pacifica Network passing out the Commie Kool-Aid
today?
|5.10.07 @ 2:19PM|#
Dan T. do you really believe this statement? Or was it just
intended to be red meat for the wolf-pack here at
H&R?
I sort of believe it - I mean, if Communism is destined to fail,
why do we need the embargo?
Consider that it's been official US policy to try to make Cuba as
poor as possible, and then Americans look at Cuban poverty as an
example of how its system doesn't work.
I will confess to a little of the "red-meat" factor - obviously I
posted that knowing that it's heresey around here to even
consider that socialism might work given the right
circumstances.
|5.10.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Everyone seems to be piling on Dan T. But, it seems a lot of
people would characterize the extensive welfare states of the
Nordic nations as "socialism," but they seem to be doing not just
fine, but better than the US.
http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/society/UNreport.htm
The World FactBook shows Norway to kick the collective butt of the
US in GDP per capita, to take one example...
Secondly, I'm sensitive to the idea that restricting freedom
economically often is directly correlated to other forms of
tyranny, but some of you guys seem to have a simplistic view on
this. I mean, the very laissez-faire US killed and tyrannized
millions of people of color for a large chunk of its history (and
its more laissez-faire portions of its history to boot), but I
think it would be weird to blame this tyranny on 'capitalism.'
Likewise varying degrees of government intervention have existed in
nations with varying degrees of tyrannical governments
(Russia/socialism, Spain/capitalism, Sweden/socialism,
UK/capitalism).
Third, it's just a fact that the US has worked very hard to
destabilize Cuba. Anyone care to disupte that?
That being said, Castro is a meglamanicial, evil dictator. He may
have dones some good policy changes, but his failures are more
telling. For folks like Moore, or recently Oliver Stone, to cover
this up stinks.
|5.10.07 @ 2:27PM|#
Let me see if I have this straight..
As a US citizen, if I travel to Cuba I can be subject to
prosecution.
But as a Cuban, if I can make it 90 miles or so to the US I get
automatic asylum?
Only in America.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#
This isn't to say I think the U.S. has the best health care
system in the world, but I also think there are other factors at
work besides levels of spending and who does a better job at health
care.
I agree
|5.10.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I sort of believe it - I mean, if Communism is destined to
fail, why do we need the embargo?
We don't need an embargo to show that Communism failed. Communism
self-destructed years ago.
"We" (as in U.S. sugar growers) need an embargo in order not to
have to compete with Cuba in a free market.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 2:31PM|#
They just prop up their dead to make it *look* like they're
alive
JW,
You do realize that it's the US who inflated its life expectancy
average by putting Terri Schiavo on a machine for 20 years
right?
|5.10.07 @ 2:31PM|#
That and the possibility that a socialist state might
succeed if given a fair chance.
I sort of believe it
Sorry Dan T., but that is a cop-out. We are not talking about
single-payer systems for deliverying medical care, we are talking
about true socialism.
A Socialist State means the State owns everything; plans the
production of everything; and distributes the results of production
to the populace however it sees fit.
The scandinavian countries are not socialist states even though
they are heavily into socialized medicine and other social
services.
Russia has more natural resources to work from than any other
country on earth, including the US. And yet the socialist state
could not support itself, and it collapsed from within (with a
little help from the US military spending spree under Reagan).
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 2:32PM|#
...if Communism is destined to fail, why do we need the
embargo?
Every once in a while, Dan T., you ask a good question.
|5.10.07 @ 2:35PM|#
A Socialist State means the State owns everything
the means of production; plans the production of
everything; and distributes the results of production to the
populace however it sees fit.
A quick clarification.
|5.10.07 @ 2:40PM|#
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the embargo was designed
primarily to prevent Cuba from becoming a giant Soviet military
base. With that problem solved, the embargo seems rather pointless,
apart from Florida politicking.
Free trade is almost always the better option.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 2:45PM|#
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are payroll taxes counted in
that estimate?
why should that be counted? You can calculate the expense by simply
adding up all the medical bills, whether those bills were
ultimately paid by the government or individuals are irrelevant for
the purpose of calculating aggregate cost.
|5.10.07 @ 2:54PM|#
You can calculate the expense by simply adding up all the
medical bills, whether those bills were ultimately paid by the
government or individuals are irrelevant for the purpose of
calculating aggregate cost.
I trust you mean medical bills paid, or the US will look
awful in comparison to a more publicly funded system.
US health care providers routinely send people bills that everyone
knows will never be paid. The shortfall is met by raising the
charges on the people and insurers who do pay their bills.
Do you actually know whether this difference is properly accounted
for in these comparisons?
|5.10.07 @ 3:02PM|#
"A Socialist State means the State owns everything the means of
production; plans the production of everything; and distributes the
results of production to the populace however it sees fit."
I'm glad that you crossed out "everything" since if that were the
definition then there would be about as many socialist states as
unicorns. I'm not even sure the qualification "owns the means of
production" helps out a great deal as even in the USSR there were
elements of the economy that were not necessarily planned by the
state (Ayn Rand even wrote about these in We the Living, for
example the various forms of the New Economic Program). According
to your reasoning China is not a socialist state, and I guess not
even Cuba (Cuba makes a ton of money off of tourism a great deal of
which is not 'planned by the state).
I think it is better to admit that there is a continuum of
government involvement in the GDP (either by planning or
'steering'). Different nations have varying scores on that. Some
nations with higher 'socialism' scores than the US have better
outcomes (Norway or Sweden) while many nations with higher scores
have worse outcomes (think North Korea). I think libertarians
should point out that especially when one gets to the outliers at
the socialism end things get pretty miserable. But clearly some
level of 'socialism' is compatible with economic success, liberty
and well being. It makes for poor bumper stickers, but nuance will
win out in the end if the goal is truth attainment.
|5.10.07 @ 3:08PM|#
I'm not even sure the qualification "owns the means of
production" helps out a great deal as even in the USSR there were
elements of the economy that were not necessarily planned by the
state (Ayn Rand even wrote about these in We the Living, for
example the various forms of the New Economic Program).
No doubt that the "smaller" the enterprise involved, the more
opportunity to operate without state intervention. But as far as
any significant industry was concerned, the state controlled it
all.
There isn't anything, including food, that you would find in the
average Moscovites apartment that didn't come originally from a
state operated facility. Second-hand goods may have passed from
individual to individual, but you couldn't buy a new TV that didn't
come from the state-operated TV factory.
|5.10.07 @ 3:12PM|#
The USSR and China went in different directions in the 90's. The
USSR tried to free-up "social" aspects of society while maintaining
central control of production. It didn't work out. China tried
free-up "enterprise" while maintaining strict social control of the
population. That worked better, but even that is starting to
unravel.
I give China a much better chance of emerging as true free-market
society with civil liberties in the near future than Russia has.
Russia seems to be devolving at this point.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 3:16PM|#
US health care providers routinely send people bills that
everyone knows will never be paid. The shortfall is met by raising
the charges on the people and insurers who do pay their
bills.
So? The fact these unrealistically high medical bills are
ultimatley paid by someone meant that it is an actual healthcare
cost.
|5.10.07 @ 3:19PM|#
There isn't anything, including food, that you would find in
the average Moscovites apartment that didn't come originally from a
state operated facility.
I should qualify that. Imported goods were just starting to be
accessible and affordable to the masses during my first trip to
Moscow in 1995. But even at that times, imported goods found in my
guests apartments would have been limited to Nikes, CDs, and VHS
tapes.
|5.10.07 @ 3:22PM|#
What do you mean by your last sentence? Seems like hemming
and hawing by somebody who doesn't want to be convinced.
No hemming. No hawing.
My point is to assume that when the old "we spend more" than other
countries on healthcare is that we are all spending on the exact
same thing.
I haven't looked at your links yet, and they may answer the
questions I ask below--I'll have time later--but we don't know what
"healthcare spending" means in France or in the US. This has
meaning and all we are doing is filling in the blanks of the
definition with our own biases.
Does France exclude certains things that are counted in the US?
Does the average health consumer in the US spend their money on
things that the average Frenchman doesn't? Are the 2 figures even
comparable by what's being measured to begin with? Or are we just
supposed to presume that they are measuring the exact same
thing?
|5.10.07 @ 3:23PM|#
By the way, I was advised that the only thing scarier than
waking up in a Russian jail was waking up in a Russian
hospital.
My company had insurance programs in place that would airlift us to
Finland if we had any life-threatening accidents or illnesses while
in Russia.
XaabaZu|5.10.07 @ 3:24PM|#
No, medical bills are not generally paid at the billed charges,
certainly not the ones that make it to insurance companies. I'd
guesstimate somewhere about a 20-30% return, and that's only
because I work in the industry, adjusting medical claims all
day...
Somewhere in there is something to be said about 'price-gouging'
the uninsured. But then, I wonder how many uninsured people pay the
full billed amount? I suspect that most providers would be willing
to accept much less than they are billing for.
|5.10.07 @ 3:24PM|#
I think part of the spending in the US is that our doctors prescribe an MRI everytime somebody gets heartburn.
|5.10.07 @ 3:27PM|#
You do realize that it's the US who inflated its life
expectancy average by putting Terri Schiavo on a machine for 20
years right?
Huh. I didn't realize 'ol Terri skewed the mean like that. That you
took that statement seriously only amplifies mediageek's
post.
So, what, do the French just take their elderly out to a field afar
and leave them to die?
|5.10.07 @ 3:30PM|#
So, what, do the French just take their elderly out to a field afar and leave them to die?
Wasn't it France that was letting all those old people die last
year?
|5.10.07 @ 3:30PM|#
The fact these unrealistically high medical bills are
ultimatley paid by someone meant that it is an actual healthcare
cost.
No it doesn't.
To take a trivial example, Joe Homeful and Joe Homeless get the
same emergency medical procedure done. The procedure costs the
hospital $1000. The hospital, knowing 50% of its patrons don't pay,
makes it up by raising the rates so the paid bills totally cover
the costs.
Thus two bills are issued for $2000. Only the one sent to Joe
Homeful is paid.
Total health care costs: $2000
Total billed health care: $4000
Total paid health care bills: $2000
One hopes that no one is using the billed charges to determine how
much health care actually costs in the US, but you are now making
me worry.
|5.10.07 @ 3:30PM|#
One more point that hasn't been addressed yet: regardless of your feelings about Moore or his films, why are no libertarians protesting here the fact that the US government is trying to drum up pointless charges against a filmmaker who has been highly critical of the government in the recent past?
|5.10.07 @ 3:31PM|#
On an unrelated note, here's something for you, Dan T. I'm
gonna keep posting it until you respond.
I'm not trying to duck a challenge but I'm not clear as to what
this is about or what response you're looking for.
XaabaZu|5.10.07 @ 3:34PM|#
Lamar @3:24,
Right on. That's been my experience, both at my job and in my
personal medical treatment. You wouldn't believe the amount of
tests some of these claims are larded with. My old doc was crazy
about blood tests. Then I'd see this bill where they were
'charging' 300-400 dollars each for them, then later I find out
through my job that the insurance company pays them about 5-20
dollars for those tests...
It's disconcerting. Sadly, when we get saddled with some
busted-dick government medical system that we're not allowed to opt
out of or not pay for, I think a good amount of blame will be able
to be levelled at the providers themselves. Or something.
|5.10.07 @ 3:36PM|#
One more point that hasn't been addressed yet: regardless of
your feelings about Moore or his films, why are no libertarians
protesting here the fact that the US government is trying to drum
up pointless charges against a filmmaker who has been highly
critical of the government in the recent past?
A film-maker filming himself breaking the law is pleading with the
government to punish him. Moore obviously wants this to happen.
|5.10.07 @ 3:37PM|#
(Just getting back from lunch and catching up....)
Let's assume that the claim that the French live longer despite
lesser medical spending is true for the moment.
This only speaks to quantity. Who cares, if those extra
few years are spent in geriatric misery? Is the US higher in
spending because we offer a greater quality health care,
in general terms, than the French do? Ther is no indication of any
health-related happiness (IOW, you're "healthier" or at least feel
better) relative to health care spending.
I don't know the answer to that question, but to assume that
because X lives longer and therefore is better off is a
fallacy.
I'd rather have 60 great years in better health than 80 mediocre
years. Note, I'm not making affirmative statements as to any
disparities bewteen the 2 countries in terms of health care, just
challenging assumptions.
Statistics are a poor way to make a point, since nobody has any
idea what the data contained within them are.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Huh. I didn't realize 'ol Terri skewed the mean like that.
That you took that statement seriously only amplifies mediageek's
post.
Maybe I should never take you Libertarians seriously, eh?
|5.10.07 @ 3:47PM|#
The French count zombies.
Since they never bathe, it is difficul to tell the difference.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 3:51PM|#
This only speaks to quantity. Who cares
So it doesn't matter if capitalism leads to greater material wealth
than communism if you can't measure the "happiness" of one versus
the other?
|5.10.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Maybe I should never take you Libertarians seriously,
eh?
Or at least learn to recognize satire.
Lamer--Looked at your links and it doesn't shed any light on what
the stats really *mean.* Right now, they're just numbers in the
abstract.
How much R&D is conducted in the US compared to other countries
and is that counted? Are Cialis commercials and other pharma
marketing counted as "spending," assuming that's something that is
much higher in the US? Are Vioxx verdicts in that mix? What about
tobacco settlement money? Cosmetic surgery? Counted in the US, but
not in France?
Does this make my point any clearer?
|5.10.07 @ 3:58PM|#
So it doesn't matter if capitalism leads to greater material
wealth than communism if you can't measure the "happiness" of one
versus the other?
Maybe I shouldn't be taking you seriously.
Of course they're happier in Communist countries. Isn't that what
they're told to be?
clone12|5.10.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Or at least learn to recognize satire.
Like the fact you really think I think Terri Schiavo materially
inflated US' life expectancy? Or are making obviously hyperbolic
statements something reserved for Libertarians?
As for your claims about the pharma R&D costs, unless they were
counted in the US aggregate healthcare costs, which I highly doubt,
they are irrelevant to the issues at hand.
|5.10.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Some nations with higher 'socialism' scores than the US have
better outcomes (Norway or Sweden)
Just to be fair, all those Scandinavian countries score in the top
20 of the Index of Economic Freedom, and their scores are only
marginally different than the U.S.. Places like Sweden are even
more free market than the U.S. when it comes to things like airline
competition, investing Social Security/Insurance withholdings,
etc.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to hold up some of the most
capitalist countries in the world as being beacons of successful
socialism.
|5.10.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Like the fact you really think I think Terri Schiavo
materially inflated US' life expectancy?
Yep, mg is right. You can't tell a joke worth a damn.
As for your claims about the pharma R&D costs, unless they
were counted in the US aggregate healthcare costs, which I highly
doubt, they are irrelevant to the issues at hand.
Even though you don't know yourself, you're willing to dismiss the
idea and soldier on. Now that's irrelevant!
clone12|5.10.07 @ 4:12PM|#
JW,
You objected to data showing the superiority of the French
healthcare system in one generally agreed upon dimension because it
is merely "quantitative". For you to not be a hypocrite, you would
also have to ignore the higher material wealth generated by
capitalism compared to communism because it is likewise only a
"quantitative" measure.
And your throw-away sarcasm merely undermines your own point. We
don't have a "measure" for happiness in communist countries, but we
are reasonably sure that there is some correlation between material
well-being (up to a certain level) and happiness. Likewise, for you
to say that higher life expectancy in France says nothing about the
system there without knowing how happy they are is a completely
cop-out because while it's not a one-to-one relationship between
longevity and happiness, we are reasonable sure that there is a
correlation.
Furthermore I suspect were the numbers the other way around, you
would not be so prone to these convenient objections.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Even though you don't know yourself, you're willing to
dismiss the idea and soldier on. Now that's irrelevant!
Funny, I thought the burden of proof belongs to the one who brought
it up. Please show us your contention that Pfizer's R&D cost
are counted in the US aggregate healthcare cost.
|5.10.07 @ 4:21PM|#
You objected to data
WHAT data?
Likewise, for you to say that higher life expectancy in France
says nothing about the system there without knowing how happy they
are is a completely cop-out because while it's not a one-to-one
relationship between longevity and happiness, we are reasonable
sure that there is a correlation.
I know absolutely nothing about French health care, nor did I claim
to. I simply pointed out that bandying about statistics with no
concrete meaning is just jerking off.
Furthermore I suspect were the numbers the other way around,
you would not be so prone to these convenient
objections.
Only if I were a mindless jingoist.
I'm a consumer of health care in the US. You can be damn sure that
if I'm getting far less bang for my buck than the average French
that I'll be mighty annnoyed. Your factless claim doesn't address
that one iota.
If you'd care to answer any of my questions, go nuts.
|5.10.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Funny, I thought the burden of proof belongs to the one who
brought it up.
You are absolutely correct.
clone12 | May 10, 2007, 12:24pm | #
You mean like Romania under Ceausescu?
Or how the French live longer than Americans while spending far less on healthcare?
Have fun with that burden.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 4:28PM|#
JW,
You mean like this?
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Per capita healthcare cost
US $5,711
France $3,048
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Life Expectancy
US 78
France 80.59
Now, care to prove that Pfizer's R&D cost is counted in the US
healthcare cost above?
Doc|5.10.07 @ 4:29PM|#
FYI, that's an almost standard threat OFAC sends to many people
who visit embargoed countries (Cuba and Iran, esp.).
It's a civil penalty, essentially a gigantic moving violation
ticket that used to cost around $7500 to pay off. You just request
an in-person hearing and they usually drop if off the radar.
Good publicity for Moore though! Must have made Druge's cornhole
pucker with excitement.
|5.10.07 @ 4:35PM|#
As for your claims about the pharma R&D costs, unless
they were counted in the US aggregate healthcare costs, which I
highly doubt, they are irrelevant to the issues at hand.
All evidence points to the vast majority of pharmaceutical R&D
costs in the world being charged to the US aggregate health care
cost.
The single-buyer drug distribution models of most developed
countries means that they can get drugs at prices well below those
required to cover costs of R&D and market initiation. The only
price that drug companies need to keep the price of the drug above
is the marginal running cost of production.
So US consumers pay much more for pharmaceuticals in order to cover
the R&D costs. Buying those drugs goes straight to the health
care aggregate, and the US looks far more expensive than other
countries on this count.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 4:43PM|#
I'm not trying to duck a challenge but I'm not clear as to
what this is about or what response you're looking for.
It's quite simple. You claim to be a liberal, yet you support the
War on Drugs in spite of how racist, classist and overall
repressive it is.
|5.10.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Let me throw this out there. My wife once told me that she believes 50% of ER procedures were order simply to cover one's ass, and likewise 20% of procedures outside the ER. Now, she may just be conservative, but she is a very good physician, so I believe her. She also told me that the patients who probably should sue never do. So there's that.
|5.10.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Per capita healthcare cost
US $5,711
France $3,048
Life Expectancy
US 78
France 80.59
Interesting numbers, but useless by themselves.
First you need to eliminate all costs associate with cosmetic
surgeries from the US numbers as well as any and all "elective"
procedures that would be paid for out of pocket (like laser eye
surgery) that would not be provided by the French system. That way
you might be close to an apples-to-apples comparison of "necessary"
health expenditures.
Then you need to eliminate the enormous costs the US spends on
terminal patients in the last weeks of life that are generally not
provided by socialized medical systems.
Now you need to go attack the life expectency numbers to eliminate
biases do to lifestyle (obesity, drugs/alcohol, crime, traffic
accidents, etc) so that you can compare the actual impact of health
care on life expectancy.
Come back when you can show a direct relationship between aggregate
health care expenditures and life expectancy.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Just to be fair, all those Scandinavian countries score in
the top 20 of the Index of Economic Freedom, and their scores are
only marginally different than the U.S.. Places like Sweden are
even more free market than the U.S. when it comes to things like
airline competition, investing Social Security/Insurance
withholdings, etc.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to hold up some of the most
capitalist countries in the world as being beacons of successful
socialism.
Good point.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 4:50PM|#
MikeP,
I think there is definitely something to this effect. Although I'm
not sure to what magnitude.
However, this does beg the question. Under this system, the country
with socialized medicine are better off than the country without it
(since the governmet as a monopsony has a far greater bargaining
power). If this is indeed the primary driver for the high price of
healthcare in the US, isn't it an argument for socialized
medicine in the US?
|5.10.07 @ 4:54PM|#
However, this does beg the question. Under this system, the
country with socialized medicine are better off than the country
without it (since the governmet as a monopsony has a far greater
bargaining power).
Given the choice of doctor employed by the state or a doctor
employed by Walmart, I'd go for walmart every time.
Health care costs in the US are skewed by the tax structures that
favore employer provided health care coverage, by professional
practices that limit competition, and by legal liability claims
that result in many, many CYA tests that are of no practial
purpose.
|5.10.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Life expectancy is a poor way to measure quality of health care,
that is among industrialized nations that for all purposes have
good care. If infants are included then we need to parse infant
mortality figures. Does the US have higher infant mortality because
of poor infant care, or maybe exceptional care (a french stillborn
is an american neonatal ICU patient). How many deaths in the US are
due to diseases of excess? That is, american healthcare can only do
so much for folks eating, smoking, and drinking themselves to
death. Should these folks count?
A better measure would be life expectancy for a given illness. What
are the rates of survival for breast cancer, lung cancer, COPD,
traumatic head injuries, organ transplants, and so forth. Anyway, a
difference in life expectancy of 2.5 years out of 80 doesn't say
shit; it's like 3 parts in 100.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Carrick,
You objection is already accounted for. OECD measure does not
include cosmetic stuff.
http://www.ecosante.org/OCDEENG/411000.html
And as for your skepticism with regards to the correlation between
money spend and actual results- well look at the US.
|5.10.07 @ 5:13PM|#
well look at the US
My wife developed osteoarthritis at a very early age and had both
knees replaced at 45. She is 3 or 4 sigmas outside the norm.
She would have been confined to a wheelchair before she would have
been treated in any socialized medical system.
An ex-pat that I knew in Moscow had both of his babies delivered in
the US, not in Europe (especially not in Russia).
I want no part of any form of single-payer system imported from
Canada, or France, or Scandinavia, or anywhere else.
|5.10.07 @ 5:16PM|#
Under this system, the country with socialized medicine are
better off than the country without it (since the governmet as a
monopsony has a far greater bargaining power).
The reason government monopsony buyers of drugs can get below
market rates is by reserving the right to say "no". Today, if the
US didn't pay the R&D costs of pharmaceuticals, no one would.
It is not clear to me that the US would be "better off" having no
drugs or having drugs so cheap that no new drugs would be
produced.
The fix is not to socialize drug provision in the US, but to free
it up. End import restrictions on drugs. That will allow US buyers
to shop around for lower prices, and it will make the drug
companies charge monopsony buyers the prices they should bear.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:18PM|#
pigwiggle,
Even when you account for stillborns, US still does worse.
http://www.who.int/making_pregnancy_safer/publications/neonatal.pdf
http://creativedestruction.wordpress.com/2006/05/22/regarding-the-uss-high-infant-mortality-rate/
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:21PM|#
Carrick,
The great part about anecdotes is that eveyone has them:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/09/america-this-is-your-health-care-system/
"A paraplegic man wearing a soiled hospital gown and a broken
colostomy bag was found crawling in a gutter in skid row in
Los
Angeles on Thursday after allegedly being dumped in the street by
a
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center van, police said. The
incident,
witnessed by more than two dozen people, was described by police as
a
particularly outrageous case of 'homeless dumping' that has
plagued
the downtown area."
|5.10.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Interestingly, Denmark, usually considered a typical
Scandinavian socialist country, was ranked the 5th most competitive
economy on Earth according to the The IMD World Competitiveness
Yearbook. Sweden and Iceland also made it in the top ten. The US
was first followed by Singapore and Hong Kong.
And for those wanting to see what happens if a Socialist country in
the Americas has the chance to succeed, Venezuela's economy was
ranked least competitive.
http://www.imd.ch/research/publications/wcy/upload/scoreboard.pdf
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Today, if the US didn't pay the R&D costs of
pharmaceuticals, no one would.
I doubt that. It might happen at a lower rate, but you can also
argue it is the externality-free rate.
|5.10.07 @ 5:40PM|#
I doubt that. It might happen at a lower rate, but you can
also argue it is the externality-free rate.
That's why I qualified it with "today": In time, the pharmaceutical
companies would figure out how to price their drugs for a world of
monopsony buyers.
But as I noted, the better solution is not to give government the
authority to dictate drug prices, drug policies, and drugs
themselves, but simply to allow free trade in drugs.
I don't quite understand your "externality-free" comment. I see no
externalities here.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:41PM|#
If the US is paying for the world's R&D cost without getting due benefits, isn't it an positive externality (wrt to rest of the world)?
clone12|5.10.07 @ 5:44PM|#
But as I noted, the better solution is not to give
government the authority to dictate drug prices, drug policies, and
drugs themselves, but simply to allow free trade in
drugs.
Perhaps. Now for the sake of argument, let's say in exchange for
low prices, PharmaX gets Canada to restrict reimportation of drugs
so it can make a killing selling Placeburex in the US. How would a
free-market solution in the US adjust to that?
|5.10.07 @ 6:02PM|#
If the US is paying for the world's R&D cost without
getting due benefits, isn't it an positive externality (wrt to rest
of the world)?
I suppose it is. I am so used to thinking of drugs as a
discriminatorily priced good that I wasn't quick to see the free
riding the developed world is doing here.
|5.10.07 @ 6:03PM|#
How would a free-market solution in the US adjust to
that?
It wouldn't. But at least the Canadian government would be paying
the cost of enforcing their own contract rather than relying on the
US government to do it.
|5.10.07 @ 6:05PM|#
You guys are proving my point for me. Sweden, Norway, etc., are
great places for freedom and commerce WHILE engaging in
redistributionist and welfare state activity that many on this site
would decry as "socialism."
http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=CSP2007
Check out what US v. Norway spends on social programs and what
their taxes are on the average worker.
Libertarian think tanks have always been a little confused as to
what to do with Scandanavian countries where big government works
well with freedom, productivity and commerce. When they come out
with "freedom rankings" to show that, well, these countries are
really free they do not mean they are not big government nations
(if they do then they are fools). They get high rankings because
they have a strong judiciary, well educated work forces, and a
strong rule of law. And THAT proves my point, right? You can have
all those goodies WITH big government.
As they say on the Bar Exam, discuss. This oughta be
interesting...
clone12|5.10.07 @ 6:13PM|#
MikeP,
I supposed in this scenario, whether US should adopt socialized
medine depends on the relative cost/benefits of the shifting
enforcemnt cost to Canada vs having a lower pirce/lower innovation
process.
Asharak|5.10.07 @ 6:18PM|#
To get back on the subject at hand, it always amuses me how some people who claim to dislike Fidel Castro continue to support economic sanctions against Cuba even though they have actually helped keep Castro in power for so long (and that's because he uses the sanctions as a crutch for his regime's failures).
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 6:23PM|#
Ken,
I don't know about Libertarian think tanks being "confused." Cato
hosted a policy forum on that very topic.
Should the
United States Be More Like Scandinavia?
Download
a Podcast of the Event (MP3)
It's enlightening.
|5.10.07 @ 6:28PM|#
Should the United States Be More Like
Scandinavia?
There is a ready-made experiment we can perform: just ask
Minnesconsin to secede.
highnumber|5.10.07 @ 6:33PM|#
As a Chicagoan, I object. That would leave me only Michigan for summer weekend getaways.
|5.10.07 @ 6:58PM|#
Canadian heathcare expense per capita is only marginally less
that the U.S., and we typically must wait months for many elective
procedures. Also remember that the world lives off the inniovation
and development fostered by the U.S. for-profit system.
To my knowledge only three countries in the world forbid thier
citizens the opportunity of using thier own money to purchase
health care services within thier borders: N. Korea, Cuba and
Canada.
The other factor that I have not seen addressed is the crazy civil
litigation that must add at least 10-20% to costs. (No
citation,just a guess)Tort reform might make the U.S.the undisputed
champion in healthcare.
clone12|5.10.07 @ 7:32PM|#
AlfromAlberta,
If by "only marginally less than" you mean 40% less, then you are
correct.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
US $5,711
Canada $2,998
And your guess about the impact of litigation on healthcare is over
by about 10-20%.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_02/008311.php
|5.10.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Back to the topic,
Anyone wanna bet that Castro is already dead or in a Sharon-like
vegetative state? The only person outside of Cuba who claims to
have spoken to him recently is Chavez, and the various newspaper
columns attributed to him could easily have been ghost
written.
His no-show at the Mayday rally was telling. Castro never willingly
gives up the opportunity for a four hour speech.
|5.10.07 @ 9:16PM|#
(Back from the drive home, a haircut, dinner and putting the
kids to bed...)
clone12, you aren't proving anything except that you can find stats
that back up your conclusions. These are aggregate numbers and we
have no way of knowing what country is measuring, reporting and/or
excluding what.
You objection is already accounted for. OECD measure does not
include cosmetic stuff.
http://www.ecosante.org/OCDEENG/411000.html
That link says nothing about cosmetic spending one way or
another.
If the US is paying for the world's R&D cost without
getting due benefits, isn't it an positive externality (wrt to rest
of the world)?
By george, I think he's getting it.
|5.10.07 @ 9:41PM|#
clone12--Looking at your link
and this
link shows non-correlative data.
Finland spends even less than France, they're actually the
cheapskate of the bunch, yet their lifespan is roughly that of the
US. Japan also spends less than France, but has *higher* life
expectancy than France, by about 1.5 years. Sweden, spends less,
lives slightly longer.
Basically, if you compare the 2 data sets, there is no connection
between life expectancy and per capita health care spending.
|5.10.07 @ 10:22PM|#
On the off chance the clone12 is still around . . .
Your anecdote is totally irrelevant as a counter point to mine. The
downside of socialized medicine is that individuals that do have
the resources to acquire private insurance are denied the right to
do so.
How a civilized society deals with the impoverished is a completely
separate topic. The socialist solution is to deny the middle and
upper classes the right to serve themselves in order to provide
services to the poor. I find that concept to be immoral. The
libertarian solution may be to just leave the poor to themselves,
but there is also a libertarian school of thought that recognizes
the need to provide a safety net.
I have no problem with giving a portion of my wealth, in both the
form of charity and taxes, to help those that need help. But no one
has the right to strip me of my personal rights for
self-determination under the banner of social justice.
|5.11.07 @ 12:16AM|#
"pigwiggle,
Even when you account for stillborns, US still does
worse."
Wow, really missed the point. Really.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:18AM|#
JW,
You are proving that you disregard facts and statistics
inconvenient to your ideology. Yes, Finland and Japan have much
better life expectancy than the US and they they spend less. Guess
what? Japan has socialized health care system, just like
France.
And you might look at the link again. Which of the OECED category
would a boob job exactly fall in?
highnumber|5.11.07 @ 12:18AM|#
The libertarian solution may be to just leave the poor to
themselves, but there is also a libertarian school of thought that
recognizes the need to provide a safety net.
carrick,
There is no libertarian "solution" to social ills. The major
difference between libertarianism and every other political
philosophy is that it doesn't purport to solve problems, it tries
to not cause them. I believe that it is immoral to use
any force to solve social ills. I also believe
that it is wrong to stand by idly while people are suffering. I
willingly make the effort, both through donations and volunteering
to try to improve my fellow human's lot.
I imagine you feel the same way, but your comment may tend to
mislead people that libertarianism is immoral. It is not. It is
amoral, but that does not mean that libertarians must be or are
themselves amoral.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:21AM|#
Carrick,
If there is a libertarian school of thought that says we should do
something to stop Tiny Tim from freezing to death, I would like to
hear about it.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:32AM|#
Pigwiggle,
Which other point would you like me to debunk, like how while
you're more likely to survive breast cancer and prostate cancer in
the US, you're more likely to survive stomach cancer in France or
that you're more likely to survive Skin cancer in Sweden:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_04/011115.php
Of course they do it with only about 60% of the US per capita
expenditure. That seems pretty efficient to me.
And as for the argument that a difference of 2-3 years is a piffle,
keep in mind that the difference in life expectancy is not just 78
year old man in the US living to 80, it's also a 55 year old man
being able to live to 57. In terms of foregone wages, that would be
about $200K for a typical person during that life stage. This is
not trivial lost of human capital.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:21AM|#
If the US is paying for the world's R&D cost without
getting due benefits, isn't it an positive externality (wrt to rest
of the world)?
By george, I think he's getting it.
Get what, that you would rather subsidize the health wellbeing of
the Chinese than to improve the health of all Americans, including
yourself?
|5.11.07 @ 3:07AM|#
Get what, that you would rather subsidize the health
wellbeing of the Chinese than to improve the health of all
Americans, including yourself?
China is a bad example. China is poor: As I hinted at above,
discriminatory pricing means that drugs will be sold there at
marginal cost whether or not the government is a monopsony buyer.
And drug companies will be happy to do it.
It would be better to use the example of a wealthier nation that
can negotiate a price barely above marginal cost solely because
they can legally refuse to acquire it for their minions.
|5.11.07 @ 7:48AM|#
You are proving that you disregard facts and statistics
inconvenient to your ideology.
Yeah, it's me who's ignoring data. You figured it all out.
Can I have some of the cherries that you're picking? They're much
fresher than mine.
Get what, that you would rather subsidize the health wellbeing
of the Chinese than to improve the health of all Americans,
including yourself?
C'mon, you're joshing, right? This is just fucking with me now.
|5.11.07 @ 8:24AM|#
JW: I get what you're saying, but just to make it more
complicated, if we count drug and medical research as healthcare
expenses, do we also offset the profits made from the fruit of that
research?
I thought it was generally known that we are overmedicated, and
that we get an MRI for a hangnail. I have only anectdotal ev to
support this, so take it as that. I know, for example, in Spain
certain antibiotics do not require a prescription or a visit to the
doctor's office.
|5.11.07 @ 9:31AM|#
I imagine you feel the same way, but your comment may tend
to mislead people that libertarianism is immoral. It is not. It is
amoral, but that does not mean that libertarians must be or are
themselves amoral.
Highnumber, your statements are better written than mine.
If there is a libertarian school of thought that says we should
do something to stop Tiny Tim from freezing to death, I would like
to hear about it.
clone12, the libertarian school of though says that no one has the
right to prevent you personally from attempting to help Tiny Tim.
It also says that no one has the right to force you to help Tiny
Tim.
In my mind, one of the biggest problems with state-provided
services is that so many people believe that they are fulfilling
their personal, moral obligation to help the needy by letting the
state take a chunk of their paycheck.
My preference is for Tiny Tim to be served by private charity. But
I am not opposed to state-provided safety nets so long as they are
well conceived, well executed, and do not encourage any
expectations of long-term support.
highnumber|5.11.07 @ 9:36AM|#
If there is a libertarian school of thought that says we
should do something to stop Tiny Tim from freezing to death, I
would like to hear about it.
carrick,
I should summon Urkobold for that comment.
Besides whining about our health care system, what do you do to
help people? Do you volunteer? Donate money? Raise money? I hope
that you do. Since you have so much extra energy for whining, why
not direct that extra energy toward more of your voluntary efforts,
instead of immorally having a figurative gun pointed at our heads
to do what you think is right?
|5.11.07 @ 9:39AM|#
JW: I get what you're saying, but just to make it more
complicated, if we count drug and medical research as healthcare
expenses, do we also offset the profits made from the fruit of that
research?
Lamar, don't misunderstand me as clone12 obviously is. I'm not
making the argument that spending more = better health care.
Frankly, I have no idea what is the "ideal" situation is, but it's
clear that there isn't a correlation between life expectancy and
per capita spending and that the answer to what (and how) is being
measured is far more complex than can be answered here. FWIW, I'm
with highnumber @ 12:18am.
I'm just challenging Neo-Fabianist chumps who like to throw around
meaningless stats to "prove" their already foregone
conclusions.
highnumber|5.11.07 @ 9:40AM|#
I am especially sorry because I knew I was not responding to carrick. I knew I was responding to that clone person, but the comment I was responding to was directed to carrick. My face is red. I am shamed.
|5.11.07 @ 11:26AM|#
JW, I took your argument as a negation of Clone12's post. I was able to link to stats breaking it down by public and private spending (hopefully somebody found that useful), but you were looking for something way more specific. I suspect that Moore's movie will suffer from the same flaws you mention, i.e., there's really no way to compare "healthcare" (as vague as it is) between very different systems that are themselves ill-defined.
|5.11.07 @ 11:32AM|#
Shocked, shocked I am that even though the only writer for
Reason with apparent experience with the French system declared it
manifestly superior, commenters and writers here still pretend
otherwise:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_04/006078.php
|5.11.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Oh! Well never mind then! Thanks for clearing that up for us. I mean, if Matt says so...
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:40PM|#
highnumber,
In response to your ad hominen attack, yes, I do donate and
volunteer.
But let's get back to your moral high horsing for a second. The
infant mortality disparity in the US is such that compared to
Finland, 2000-6000 parents needlessly lose their children every
year, and until your libertarian system can provide superior
results, all your high-faluting hagiographic idealization of
libertarianism is worthless.
We prefer capitalism to communism not because one is more "pure"
than the other but because one is capable to delivering an
emopirically superior return. Why should libertarianism be exempt
from this test?
|5.11.07 @ 12:41PM|#
"Which other point would you like me to debunk"
There was only one point, but feel free to go on "debunking" all
the straw men you want. The point, again, is that life expectancy
is a very poor measure of quality of care. I'm doubtful that it is
reasonable possible to deconvolve all the confounding bits.
Like I said, a better measure of quality of care would be survival
rates for particular disease. And you have shown even that is
problematic. Sweden apparently does quite well with skin cancer.
Perhaps it is because the incidence (according to the WHO) has
tripled in the last few decades whereas it has only doubled in the
US. Their physicians may have more experience, or maybe more
R&D funds are spent, or maybe better early detection and public
awareness, or maybe a superior medical system. Who knows. Hey, but
don't let that get in the way of grinding that axe.
|5.11.07 @ 12:45PM|#
"We prefer capitalism to communism not because one is more
"pure" than the other but because one is capable to delivering an
emopirically superior return."
Huh. I prefer capitalism because it is impossible to separate
personal freedom from economic freedom. If all you are into is
return and efficiency you are an ass.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:45PM|#
JW,
Where did I ever say that you are saying more spending equals
better life expectancy?
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:49PM|#
pigwiggle,
You are ass-sadly mistaken. Look at CATO and this blog. At least
half of the posts/articles are arguing FOR libertarianism on the
claim that it is MORE efficient. And that's as it should be.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Highnumber,
And as for my "whining", I figure you Libertarians would be used to
it seeing as how you guys would rather be terminally pure of
ideology than actually trying to run the world with its warts and
all.
|5.11.07 @ 12:59PM|#
"Look at CATO .."
OK ...
Cato's Mission
The Cato Institute seeks to broaden the parameters of public policy
debate to allow consideration of the traditional American
principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets
and peace. Toward that goal, the Institute strives to achieve
greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay public in
questions of policy and the proper role of government.
Pththt.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:07PM|#
Pigwiggle,
Welcome to the real world. Nobody ever gets that exactly perfect
data, We do with what we can. Of course we can alway improve on
data.
On the other hand, like a creationist, you are now moving the
goalpost. Oh, you have transition fossil A, but hark! you don't
have tarnsition fossil A.1a! Oh you mean we do have breakdowns by
diseases? I mean they're not good enough now!
My "axe" that I'm grinding? it's the one that says your pretention
that you don't have an axe to grind on your own while accusing
others of this axe is intellectually dishonest. I'll fully admit
that I have a preconceived prior, just like you, and furthermore
I'll also admit that the data is noty perfect, just like the per
caita GDP between US and Soviet Union in 1991 aren't exact perfect
comparisons. But for you to wave it off because it's not as perfect
as you want it is a massive cop-out.
|5.11.07 @ 1:15PM|#
On the other hand, like a creationist, you are now moving
the goalpost.
First the straw man, and now the association fallacy. Dude, you are
loosing it.
Really, come on. Read back; one point, just one point - life
expectancy is a poor measure of care. You are the one who brought
up how problematic my putative measure was. I agreed.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:15PM|#
No shit,
And to do that, CATO strives to show that libertarianism is more
efficient. Look at the economics section, it doesn't say that
libertarianism is "better" because it provides more "freedom", but
because it would be more efficient, for example in opposition to
legislate against the gender pay gap: "For men and women who never
marry and never have children, there is no earnings gap".
This is an argument of efficiency.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:19PM|#
Of course they are crude measures, but it doesn't mean that it is completely non-informative, and I think it's wrong for you to completely wave it off.
highnumber|5.11.07 @ 1:24PM|#
clone12,
I made no ad hominen (sic) attack. I made a suggestion that you
redirect your extra energy where it could be more helpful.
I am not a utilitarian. Your talk of consequentialism does not sway
me. Perhaps you should read up on the Non-aggression
principle.
As far as your suggestion that libertarians try to run the world
rather than be idealists, you have clearly missed the point.
Libertarians no more want to run the world themselves than we want
you to run it.
Regarding the efficiency of free markets, yes, libertarians do
argue, correctly, that a free market is more efficient than a
controlled market. This is a benefit of a free market, not the
compelling reason for them, for many, likely most,
libertarians.
|5.11.07 @ 1:30PM|#
clone12,
Cato believes in a free society of free people and limited
government. Some of the freedoms of free people are social freedoms
and some are economic freedoms. It is an accident of teleology that
the economic freedoms submit to analytical study better. That is,
one can prove economic gains due to economic freedoms much more
readily than one can prove social gains due to social freedoms.
Social costs and benefits simply do not translate easily to
analytic forms.
Lo and behold, most of the supportable arguments that
libertarianism is superior come from an economic angle.
To bring this back to your cherry picking of stats, the US can
improve its infant mortality numbers by forcing contraception on
all women under the age of 20 and denying reproductive assistance
to all women of any age. Is the social benefit worth the social
cost? How would you measure it? How would you argue it? How would
you judge?
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Highnumber,
You talk of how you do not care about results likewise does not
sway me, or in my opinion, Americans at large. They will vote for
libertarian solutions where it works, and against it where it
doesn't.
And as for your advice of "redirecting my energy", I would likewise
say to you that if you ever went to public school or used a public
service of any sort, you should take your vows of libertarianism
more seriously.
highnumber|5.11.07 @ 1:39PM|#
clone12,
That makes no sense, but I think you've cued us all to...
Drink!
and, I'm afraid, you have summoned Urkobold. He(?) should arrive
shortly.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:40PM|#
the US can improve its infant mortality numbers by forcing
contraception on all women under the age of 20 and denying
reproductive assistance to all women of any age. Is the social
benefit worth the social cost? How would you measure it? How would
you argue it? How would you judge?
...And that might be a great reductio ad absurdum counterpoint...
except that rest of the OCED countries got their results without
resorting to such measures.
And for you guys (not neccessarily you MikeP) who think results
don't matter, are you saying that you would still believe in
libertarianism even if it were proven to lead to massive
poverty?
clone12|5.11.07 @ 1:43PM|#
If you're pre-committed to a cause regardless of what result it
brings, then I guess it won't make any sense to you.
Drink it is!
Urkobold®|5.11.07 @ 2:01PM|#
clone12,
WHAT ARE YOU A CLONE OF - MY ANUS?
THE WORLD DID NOT NEED MORE THAN ONE OF THOSE.
YOU HAVE EARNED MY WRATH FOR NOT BOTHERING TO UNDERSTAND ANYONE
ELSE'S ARGUMENTS AND CONTINUING TO PROJECT YOUR OWN FAULTS UPON
OTHERS.
YOUR PUNISHMENT:
GO TO THE LIBRARY TO READ SOME BOOKS ON LIBERTARIANISM. DAVID
BOAZ'S BOOK IS A GOOD PLACE TO START. YOU WILL FIND IT IN THE
ADULTS' SECTION. ASK THE LIBRARIAN. HE/SHE WILL POINT YOU TOWARDS
IT.
Urkobold HAS WEARILY SPOKEN.
|5.11.07 @ 2:04PM|#
clone12, you have yet to address the issue of whether or not it is moral to prevent people with the resources to acquire medical services that the need or just want in order to ensure that poor people get medical services.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 2:21PM|#
Carrick,
I don't think it is.
Now let me ask you this question: If the French system truly means
you get to keep more of your money and the poor has better medical
services, how are you worse off as a result?
|5.11.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Total health expenditure is defined at
http://www.irdes.fr/ecosante/OCDE/411000.html. The PPP adjustments,
which are done by the OECD, take into account the purchasing power
of different currencies, and are calculated by looking at the cost
of an identical basket of goods in each currency.
Clone12, while the report that you reference may have significance,
but it cannot be used as a basis for the simplistic comparison of
GDP expenditures that you make way above in the thread. The true
aggregate costs are "adjusted" based upon local purchase power,
which is wildly different from country to country. I mean just
compare the actual price to purchase a Big Mac in the US, Britain,
and France using a single currency as a baseline. A Big Mac meal in
the US costs about 4 dollars in the US and about 4 pounds in
Britain, meaining the true price is about 80% higher in
Britain.
So the health care expenditure comparison is not in some absolute
reference frame (either USD or EURO) but in terms of the relative
ability of a citizen to buy a medical procedure in his or her own
currency. This dramatically changes the nature of the
comparison.
If you knew that, then you were being dishonest in posting the
aggregate numbers above without explanation. If you didn't know
that, then you are not qualified to make any useful
judgements.
Either way, you are no longer worth talking to.
|5.11.07 @ 2:37PM|#
If the French system truly means you get to keep more of
your money and the poor has better medical services, how are you
worse off as a result?
Last post on this subject.
As I said before, in France, my wife would have been confined to a
wheel chair before she would have been treated for her arthritis.
Who gives a shit if I have more money in my pocket (which I don't
believe to be true).
|5.11.07 @ 2:48PM|#
If the French system truly means you get to keep more of
your money and the poor has better medical services, how are you
worse off as a result?
If I don't get the care I want, then I
am worse off. Is that not obvious?
It may simply be that people in the free(-er) health market of the
US want to spend more for health care. If people value
their health as highly as one would expect, then the majority of
the population of the US that is wealthy enough to afford
overspending for health care will overspend for health care.
Providers and insurers who recognize that wealthier people will
spend a greater proportion of their wealth for greater health care
will serve these interests.
Your contention that this greater spending does not produce greater
benefits and therefore serves as an argument for socialized
medicine is an argument for coercion, plain and simple.
|5.11.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Just in case clone12 thinks I'm being hysterical.
These types of articles pop up routinely. Britain is not the only
country experiencing this problem as high-cost treatments emerge
for life-threatening illnesses.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=429982007
20 March 2007
PATIENTS are having to wait longer for routine operations such as
hip and knee replacements, despite claims that waiting lists are at
an all-time low.
Figures obtained by The Scotsman show that since 1998, median
waiting times have increased for 17 out of 25 common
procedures.
In some cases, patients are being forced to wait for more than two
years for surgery. And there are massive variations in the
performance of individual health boards, with patients in some
areas waiting twice as long, on average, as elsewhere in the
country.
Patients' groups said Scots waiting for routine surgery were paying
the price as the NHS concentrated on treating killer diseases like
cancer . . . . .
clone12|5.11.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Carrick,
I don't understand your objection.
Aside from the fact The OECD already taken PPP into account, or
that the BigMac-implied PPP is only about 15% to 20%[1]- far less
than the 40% cost differential in healthcare between France and US.
It is also going the other way. Things are MORE EXPENSIVE IN
FRANCE, which means that if you were to take your own objection
seriously, the health cost differential between France and US is
WORSE than you are capable of admitting, because that Franc
ostensibly buys "less" than what a dollar can buy- meaning that the
French live longer using less "real" money than Americans.
Oh, and as for your anecdotes, guess what? We also have stories
here of middle-class family in the US who's daughter DID become
paralyzed not becasue they can't afford it, but because they got
stuck in HMO bureaucratic hell, so I see your anecdote and raise
you another one [2].
[1]http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=em156&page=teacher
[2]http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/17/184527/759
clone12|5.11.07 @ 3:16PM|#
MikeP,
My contention is if libertarianism does not produce superior
results, than it sucks.
And if we should argue along the line of "I-matter-the-most", then
why shouldn't I vote for a system that costs me less and produces
same or better results?
|5.11.07 @ 3:17PM|#
"PATIENTS are having to wait longer for routine operations
such as hip and knee replacements, despite claims that waiting
lists are at an all-time low."
I read a bit about this, and saw it addressed in question for the
PM one night. The UK put a great deal of resources into trying to
increase the then bottleneck of service. There was a lack
of facilities to treat the number of patients. Now they have more
facilities but not enough money for procedures. So now patients in
the UK are waiting for money in place of space. Anyway, in the
questions for the PM Blair justified the closing of several
hospitals this way. They spent money on space that they needed for
procedures; the wonder of central planning.
|5.11.07 @ 3:26PM|#
"My contention is if libertarianism does not produce
superior results, than it sucks."
Yeah, I hear this kind of business from conservatives and liberals
alike. I guess it comes down to what you value. Say you are
conservative, then screw freedom for security. Liberal? Screw
freedom for some perceived benefits for the less fortunate. That's
why you don't distinguish between a private provider deferring
costs to the voluntary patron from the government's taking. You
place to little value on freedom. So little, that the threat of
force and voluntary patronage are peripheral (if not negligible),
rather than central concerns.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 3:34PM|#
You place to little value on freedom
And you place so little value to reality. Let me guess, Brian
Doherty is a sellout to you because he concedes that global warming
involves the type of externality that might require some sort of
government coordination, however lightly that should be. Why,
that's almost a slippery slope to slavery!
Ah, the purity of the anarcho-libertarians. So pure, so
unrealistic.
|5.11.07 @ 3:36PM|#
My contention is if libertarianism does not produce superior
results, than it sucks.
We'll get back to you when there is a health care system somewhere
in the world that is vaguely free market.
And if we should argue along the line of "I-matter-the-most",
then why shouldn't I vote for a system that costs me less and
produces same or better results?
If you vote with your dollars or euros, that's fine by me.
If you vote for measures that use government power to constrains
others' freedoms in ways they don't want, that is simply
coercion.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 3:45PM|#
MikeP,
Saying that the US is not "true freemarket" is like saying the
Soviet Union is not "true communism", While the statement is
trivially true for both, it is obvious that the US system is more
to libertatians perference than anything else in the world. This is
no true-scotsman terrority.
As for your outrage over this "coercion", unless you believe that
we live in a magical world of utopian anrachism where there is no
government and people pay zero taxes and live on magic libertarian
pixie dust, you already accepted this "coercion". The difference is
of degrees and not of kind, and frankly I'm not all that bothered
by your hyperboles.
|5.11.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"And you place so little value to reality. Let me guess,
Brian Doherty is a sellout to you because he concedes that global
warming involves the type of externality that might require some
sort of government coordination, however lightly that should be.
Why, that's almost a slippery slope to slavery!"
Damn, you're dumb. So, using the government to keep my neighbor
from crapping up my property is no different than my neighbor using
the government to extort funds on his behalf. Again - damn you are
dumb.
|5.11.07 @ 3:56PM|#
clone12,
The difference between the goodness of various potential powers of
government may be one of degrees, but there is a point where the
sign of the degree changes. And that point marks a difference of
kind.
The standard by which I judge a government power to be legitimate
is whether it addresses an actual market failure. And except for
contagion and sanitation, health care is a completely private good.
It is not in my eyes a legitimate responsibility of government no
matter how many statistics comparing various metrics from two very
different nations you come up with.
If you want to discuss universal health care as part of a safety
net that keeps riots out of the streets, you are in debatable
public goods land. If you want to socialize all persons' health
care under one government run umbrella, you most certainly are
not.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:10PM|#
MikeP,
To some extent I think the public good arguments have some merit-
Bismarck's social security plan might have staved off a
mass-communist takeover in Germany by placating the rioting masses
that most certainly made the Russian libertarians a most unhappy
bunch.
But then again, I can also make an argument that efficiency has a
certain long-run public good flavor. Humor me for a second and
accept the premise that the French system indeed is cheaper and
costs less-that's extra money left over for national defense etc.
that "extra money" would be a huge chunk of money over centuries,
now wouldn't you want that resources to be there when World War IX
rolls around, if for nothing else but your progeny's sake?
|5.11.07 @ 4:14PM|#
Humor me for a second and accept the premise that the French
system indeed is cheaper
If a frog had wings, he could fly and he wouldn't bump his ass.
|5.11.07 @ 4:22PM|#
clone12,
It's not as though the greater dollars going toward the greater
health care costs in the US are disappearing from the economy. They
are still in the economy and, to the degree that they represent
overspending, simply comprise a transfer of wealth from the health
care consumer to the health care producer.
I rather think that the more of these dollars that are retained in
the private sector, the wealthier society will be in the long run,
and the better able to handle World War IX.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:22PM|#
grump old man,
If libertarians runs the world, via magic anarchist pixie dusts,
and US has the best healthcare because people spend more here and
die sooner.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"It's not as though the greater dollars going toward the
greater health care costs in the US are disappearing from the
economy. They are still in the economy and, to the degree that they
represent overspending, simply comprise a transfer of wealth from
the health care consumer to the health care producer."
While both scenarios has the same amount of paper money, the one
with cheaper healthcare cost uses that freed up money to buy a
shovel. EconomyA has $100 GDP and bundle X of goods, economyB has
$100 GDP and bundle X of goods plus a shovel.
|5.11.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Calling libertarians anarchists is like calling socialist
totalitarians.
Anarchist take the most extreme interpretation of libertarian
philosophy and totalitarians take the most extreme interpretation
of socialist philosophy.
Your repeated references to pixie dust just confirms your feeble
understanding of libertarian thought.
I suggest you take an extended sabatical to France and leave the
rest of us alone.
|5.11.07 @ 4:35PM|#
It not like it's hard to find a job in France. And they are hugely supportive of immigrants coming to take advantage of the socialist paradise.
|5.11.07 @ 4:37PM|#
While both scenarios has the same amount of paper money, the
one with cheaper healthcare cost uses that freed up money to buy a
shovel. EconomyA has $100 GDP and bundle X of goods, economyB has
$100 GDP and bundle X of goods plus a shovel.
The amount less paid by the person in the cheaper system might have
gone toward a shovel. But the amount more paid by the person in the
more expensive system went to buy a shovel for the doctor. There is
no less wealth in the economy.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Grumpy Old Man,
Funny, the voters in America has say that if anyone should leave,
it would be you.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:40PM|#
MikeP,
I'm not sure that's always the case. Part of the higher cost comes
in hiring paper pusher who otherwise would be making shovels, so in
the end you're still a shovel short.
|5.11.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Funny, the voters in America has say that if anyone should
leave, it would be you.
Hmm, the post office must be slow in delivering the vacate notice
to me.
You know ageism is a serious matter. My AARP buddies will kick your
ass for that.
|5.11.07 @ 4:43PM|#
so in the end you're still a shovel short.
Don't need a shovel. The mexican that I pay under the table brings
his own shovel.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 4:44PM|#
GOM,
But you can afford two Mexicans if your healthcare cost goes down
by 40%!
|5.11.07 @ 4:51PM|#
Part of the higher cost comes in hiring paper pusher who
otherwise would be making shovels, so in the end you're still a
shovel short.
Shovels are made in China now. Without paper-pusing jobs, many,
many people would be unemployed.
|5.11.07 @ 5:06PM|#
How's that saying go, don't dish if you can't
take?
Telling you to take a sabbatical in France is not the same as
telling you to go to hell or anything.
I amazed by the number of people that propose we follow some other
system French/British/Candian/Whatever without having spent a
single day in the country they so fervently admire.
I've been to France several times. It a beautiful place with good
food and great wine. But I don't have any desire to live under
their economic system -- any part of it, not just their version of
socialized medicine.
clone12|5.11.07 @ 8:51PM|#
Telling you to take a sabbatical in France is not the same
as telling you to go to hell or anything.
Neither is telling you that you are free to leave this country. Why
do you have such a thin skin?
I'm also amazed at the you-don't-deserve-to-opine card you
Libertarians play. By your argument, since none of you are as rich
as Warren Buffet, you don't deserve to say anything about the
estate tax.
Again, all your sermons about the morality of the libertarian
ideology means no more to me than a communist telling me how moral
his ideology is. If you cannot deliver superior results, your
ideology and approach is worthless.
|5.11.07 @ 9:49PM|#
If you cannot deliver superior results, your ideology and
approach is worthless.
Do you think that France's inability to deliver a Big Mac at the
price you can get one in the US means France's ideology and
approach to food is worthless?
Worthless... Talk about a dearth of nuance.
|5.11.07 @ 10:25PM|#
If you cannot deliver superior results, your ideology and
approach is worthless.
thanks for clearing that up for me clown12
|5.12.07 @ 12:30AM|#
...if Communism is destined to fail, why do we need the
embargo?
Wha? Dude the embargo has helped Castro.
We really should have another one of those "what the fuck we know
and what the fuck we believe as libertarians" meetings soon, cuz
you guys are all over the fucking map.
|5.12.07 @ 12:44AM|#
Part of the higher cost comes in hiring paper pusher who
otherwise would be making shovels, so in the end you're still a
shovel short.
Well except those paper pushers allow for a highly mechanized
flexible economy that produces far more shovels per shovel maker
then a would be possible without them.
Pretty much the page one stuff on division of labor in "The Wealth
of Nations" ie something we have know for over 200 years.
|5.12.07 @ 12:53AM|#
Regarding the efficiency of free markets, yes, libertarians
do argue, correctly, that a free market is more efficient than a
controlled market. This is a benefit of a free market, not the
compelling reason for them, for many, likely most,
libertarians.
Fuck that. Liberty is moral because it produces better result. If
it did not then we would not be human and it would not matter. Ants
and bees do just fine being ants and bees
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245