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
Oops
During an Intelligence Squared debate on universal health care earlier this week, I think it's fair to say Paul Krugman stumbled a bit:
PAUL KRUGMAN
And private insurance? That’s the thing, I— Actually, can I just —I wanted to ask a question. And—JOHN DONVAN [MODERATOR]
Please—please do—PAUL KRUGMAN
—and I wanted to ask, actually two questions, to the audience. First, how many Canadians, would Canadians in the room please raise your hands. [ONE PERSON APPLAUDS, LAUGHTER]JOHN DONVAN
We have about seven hands going up—PAUL KRUGMAN
Okay, not as many as I thought. Okay, of those of you who are not on the panel who are Canadians,, how many of you think you have a terrible health care system. [PAUSE] One, two—JOHN DONVAN
We see—almost all of the same hands going up. [LAUGHTER]PAUL KRUGMAN
Bad move on my part. [APPLAUSE]
|9.18.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Maybe he could ask if there were any limeys in the audience and ask the same question. Idiot. Only a douchebag who doesn't ever listen or talk to the people who actually get ground up in the gears of their socialized health care system would pull this stunt. Glad to see him getting self-pwned.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 5:08PM|#
So his point is shown to be completely stupid but he just goes on with his stupid ramblings?
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Oh, also as Warren has already mentioned in a different form . .
.
BURN!!!!!!
Zeb|9.18.08 @ 5:14PM|#
He certainly failed to make the point he wanted to make, but is there any place in the world where most people won't say that they think they have a terrible health care system?
|9.18.08 @ 5:14PM|#
The real question would be "How many of you would prefer the US
system"
I'd like to see how many hands go up at the thought of these
Canucks having to pay their own health care out of pocket.
Most of my Canadian friends would not.
|9.18.08 @ 5:14PM|#
And this schmuck Krugman is a full tenured professor at one of
this country's most prestigious colleges and expensive
Colleges which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
By the fact that he didn't follow through shows what a piss poor
professor he is.
And the next election, doesn't matter who wins, will put assholes
like Krugman in charge of health care.
This really isn't funny at all. Our nation is going down the
fucking drain and all people can do is chuckle or write indignant
letters and posts.
What this country needs is another revolution.
If you think your going to stop the feds from grabbing more and
more power, and taking away more of your freedom everyday by voting
against incumbents, you got your head up your ass because the
incumbents have so stacked the election in their favor, it is
virtually impossible to vote enough of them out to make a
difference.
Invisible Finger|9.18.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Bad move on my part.
He actually LEARNS something and considers it a bad move.
|9.18.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Lesson:
Americans will probably unequivocally reject Universal
Healthcare/Health Insurance once they're stuck with it.
There has to be an easier, cheaper way to persuasively make this
argument, or is wanton destruction and suffering the only way most
people will ever learn?
Francis|9.18.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Well, you know, he actually may have had his guess right: what I
see in discussing the issue with fellow Canadians is that they find
their system awfully bad when they talk to other Canadians, but
they wouldn't say so when they talk to foreigners...
So, his bet was not that stupid, I believe. And the more I am happy
that people actually stood up, and moreover, to a celebrity they
may feel intimidated to contradict.
|9.18.08 @ 5:18PM|#
He actually LEARNS something and considers it a bad
move.
If your intelligence is less than 1 and you square it, you get an
even lower number.
Russ 2000|9.18.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Americans will get universal health care the usual way - a bailout of insurance companies.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 5:20PM|#
some fed,
I believe there is nothing as persuasive to stupid, gullible people
as "if we only had the right people in charge". They mean
themselves but they rarely expound ont the thought and realize that
they mean themselves.
|9.18.08 @ 5:21PM|#
He actually LEARNS feels something awkward
at that particular moment and considers it a bad
move.
We shall see if he actually learns anything.
The Extispicator|9.18.08 @ 5:21PM|#
As a lawyer, I can see he fell for the most classic questioning error: don't ask the question if you don't already know the answer.
|9.18.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Lesson:
Americans will probably unequivocally reject Universal
Healthcare/Health Insurance once they're stuck with it.
I doubt that. Americans will cry for more and more Universal
Healthcare/Insurance and it will never once cross their mind that
they'd be better spending their own money instead of picking their
neighbors pocket. And even less likely they'll notice their
neighbor's hand in their pocket. Thought they'll cry for lower
taxes too. The rich have plenty of money, they should make
everybody healthy, and buy every little girl a pony too.
GILMORE|9.18.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Naga - FWIW, just because people happened to disagree does de
facto make his point "stupid" - think of how most people would
raise their hands in support of the endless War on Drugs - wrongly?
- although, in this particular case his point is in fact pretty
stupid sans any audience survey. Im just saying that running
against popular sentiment is not the same as being 'proven
false/stupid'
your point, otherwise, is noted.
I think this is probably a case of 'the grass is always greener'
for people. I mean, first off, most people only care/think about
healthcare when sick or like, you know, need to deal with
female-maintenance things. The average moe is not a healthcare
system guru. When you've got family members who are ill, or
accidents happen, there is usually a rude awakening, and most
people's feelings are biased towards the negative because of the
suffering involved all around, some of which is certainly the fault
of the cost and bloated systemic complexities that our multi-payer
system has evolved into.
I of course think the gov should get out of the business. but thats
unlikely in my lifetime. unwinding medicare will take generations.
or maybe sooner... with a massive government financial default. :)
cant rule that out given recent moves.
|9.18.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Bad move on my part.
He actually LEARNS something and considers it a bad move.
He hasn't learned anything. He said he made a bad move. It's like a
game of chess...he's still advancing the same arguments. He just
acknowledged that that was not a well-thought-out tactic. Don't kid
yourself. Next time he'll probably know better to plant imposters
in the audience posing as Canadians who are happy with their health
care.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 5:42PM|#
Gilmore,
I'm terrible at debating as degrading my opponent is SOP for me.
Refer to Warrens last post. He usually states my opinions much more
eloquently than me. So to reiterate, he is stupid because he is an
economist who adheres to a philosophy that defies economics.
|9.18.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Ex-exstip-extispicic- Ex-MAN
don't ask the question if you don't already know the
answer.
What's telling though, is I'm pretty sure he really
believed he did know the answer.
|9.18.08 @ 5:49PM|#
I'd like to see how many hands go up at the thought of these
Canucks having to pay their own health care out of
pocket.
Uh, ChiTom, they already do. Unless you think there is a Canadian
health care fairy.
|9.18.08 @ 5:53PM|#
ChiTom,
All of my Canadian friends prefer the US health care system to the
Canadian. Then again, all of my Canadian friends moved from Canada
to the US, so it is not exactly a random sample.
|9.18.08 @ 5:59PM|#
PAUL KRUGMAN
Bad move on my part.
I would like to copyright the above as slogan of some sort. Heck,
it even fits on a t-shirt.
|9.18.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Until 2005 when the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a law in Quebec, it was ILLEGAL for Canadians to get private health care for services the public system provided. If the public system is so good, why would they have to prevent you from going outside of it?
Paul|9.18.08 @ 6:08PM|#
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court last week.
And how many arguments have we (I) had about this one? Next person
who inserts "but they have better access" into an argument drops
and does 20.
Paul|9.18.08 @ 6:11PM|#
He hasn't learned anything. He said he made a bad move. It's
like a game of chess...he's still advancing the same
arguments.
Word, Smacky. He's pissed he got caught, he hasn't learned
anything.
|9.18.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Glad to see him getting self-pwned.
It is spelled "pwn3d". I am 55 and even I can spell it.
|9.18.08 @ 6:24PM|#
It is spelled "pwn3d". I am 55 and even I can spell
it.
Don't tell me how to l33t-speak, old man. K thx.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 6:33PM|#
All the discussions regarding the Canadian health care system I
have had with Canadians start with them complaining about how piss
poor it is.
Then they hear stories from Americans about their experiences of
how our system fails...the Canadians always roll back their
criticism at that point with some version of
"Well shit like that never happens, but it isn't perfect."
economist|9.18.08 @ 6:37PM|#
If you think the Canadian Healthcare system is so fucking great,
then move to fucking Canada.
Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
40MM|9.18.08 @ 6:40PM|#
The difference, of course, is that if those seven people were a random sampling of Americans, one or two of them wouldn't even have health care to complain about.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 6:41PM|#
Oh, and small sample bias.
Krugman should have stopped when he realized there was only a
sample of 7 to choose from...what does it mean if all 7 think the
system is terrible? Particularly without the question being
something along the lines of "Given this information about the
American system, how many think the Canadian system is terrible, or
at least as bad as the US system?"
Then he should have talked about something like this...
http://allcountries.org/health/usa_health_care_2008_nyt.html
Paul|9.18.08 @ 6:41PM|#
In a way though, I don't fault Krugman. I'm quite sure be
believed that Canadians are overwhelmingly content with their
system. Krugman lives in the same echo chamber most of the American
media and democratic politicians live in. They've come to believe--
really believe-- that the Canadian system is superior. They believe
it through the marrow of their bones. They've been telling
themselves and eachother this for so long that they would risk such
a public maneuver without ever thinking it might not go in their
favor.
All the discussions regarding the Canadian health care system I
have had with Canadians start with them complaining about how piss
poor it is.
Interesting, I get very few complaints from Americans about the
healthcare system. I do get complaints about their particular
insurer. And I do hear a lot of complaints about how bad
healthcare is for someone else-- usually vague group in some other
socio-economic class.
I also know that Europeans have an interesting and wholly
wrongheaded view of American healthcare. I remember seeing an
independent film a few years ago about a Scottish immigrant who
needed an operation and he couldn't afford it. The portrayal of the
American "system" and how it worked was so laughably wrong,
inaccurate and hopelessly flawed, that I had trouble watching the
story through all the counterfactual portrayals.
Paul|9.18.08 @ 6:44PM|#
Oh, and small sample bias.
Krugman should have stopped when he realized there was only a
sample of 7 to choose
Neu,
We know this is an anecdotal case with a laughably small sample
size. But see my comment above. It's not about the sample size,
it's that Krugman so completely believes the hype that he couldn't
have ever conceived of such an outcome, small sample size be
damned.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Or he could have pointed to this which shows Canadians being
satisfied with their health system at 46% compared to the US at
40%
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/3/10.pdf
|9.18.08 @ 6:47PM|#
I also know that Europeans have an interesting and wholly
wrongheaded view of American healthcare
Hell yeah. The ex and I got in a few arguments over this, and I
ended up getting an earful of totally wrong shit and how Spain at
least didn't let her grandmother rot in the street (of course, it
let her rot in a hospital room with virtually no care but I didn't
bring that up), where here she'd have been fucked. Which is
completely false.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Paul,
I do get complaints about their particular insurer.
So they complain about their own care, but not the system writ
large? Is that what you mean?
I find that complaints are directly proportional to the amount of
time someone interfaces with the system as a patient or the
advocate for a patient. The more you deal with the US health care
system, the more critical you are of its inefficiencies.
But that's just my experience.
I also think things are very regionally variable...the difference
between care in NYC or Seattle compared to NM or Texas or the
difference between Albuquerque and Las Cruces within NM change the
picture greatly.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 6:57PM|#
I don't know Epi. Maybe she's right. Your ex sounds kinda . . . high strung(wink) . . . maybe the grandmother was of similiar character disposition and would have suffered accordingly.
|9.18.08 @ 7:00PM|#
I can tell you I am not happy with our healthcare system. Long wait lists, no significant choices, and a severe shortage of Doctors. I have had 5 different GPs in the last 6 years ( all Africans... not that thats a bad thing, they are fine Doctors).
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 7:01PM|#
I'm gonna go ahead and apologize for the above. That was brutal even by my standards. Sorry.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 7:06PM|#
"That's right. Big whoop! Wanna fight about it!"
Sorry. Was lost in a Family Guy episode in my head. Anyway . .
.
What? How did you get the muff diver part from my statement?
|9.18.08 @ 7:09PM|#
What? How did you get the muff diver part from my
statement?
I didn't; I was trying to confuse you. It worked.
And you needn't have apologized. The harder you can hit me, the
better.
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Oh, sorry again. My friend from Denver flew in today and I've already started drinking. Just got the joke.
|9.18.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Hello everybody! Are we forgetting that the american health care
system is dominated by the government already? Are we forgetting
that our health care system is can hardly be called a free market
system? Are we forgetting how objectively horrible our health care
system is-take iatrogenic deaths, for instance?
Look at the percentage of one's income spent on health care pre
1965 and today. Compare the difference. THus, the question begs:
has the difference been casued by government or is it just
corelative?
Naga Sadow|9.18.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Wow! That's weird. Your joke made sense until you stated it didn't. I lost whatever epiphany enabled me to make that statement.
Paul|9.18.08 @ 7:20PM|#
So they complain about their own care, but not the system
writ large? Is that what you mean?
No. They complain about their insurer or insurance, not about their
care.
Mostly these complaints revolve around cost-- cost of premiums etc.
Sometimes they revolve around coverage wich, yes, I know ties into
the concept of "access".
However, everyone I have ever known (family and friends) who had
serious healthcare issues were taken care of very quickly. Hip
replacements, quintuple bypass. Some cases they were taken care of
within hours of discovery. Not days or weeks.
I have had care in both countries. Overall, I am satisfied with the
care I got in both countries. However, in my anecdotal case, I did
run across some of the ironies that exist in nationalized care: The
more serious your ailment, the less care you get.
I broke a wrist in Whistler, BC. When I went to the clinic, I was
in the waiting room alongside people with the entire gamut of ski
injuries: Ligaments, knees, wrists, hands etc. Those with minor
hand and wrist injuries (my broken wrist included) were taken care
of quickly. When I was finished, people with serious knee injuries
were still waiting due to the lack of resources to fix the real
serious ailments.
The more you deal with the US health care system, the more
critical you are of its inefficiencies.
Probably. Maybe. Depends. The more you deal with anything, the more
you recognize its flaws.
Our system is flawed. But the suggestion that poor people, the
indigent, the underprivleged don't get care is a lie that defies
explanation. The only problem (if one were to even agree that there
is one) is that our system is a patchwork of overlapping systems
that have to be navigated. The single-payer systems are more
straightforward logistically.
This discussion can get deeper.
|9.18.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I think I made the same ephemeral connection you did which is what caused me to come up with it in the first place. Or, I just think about that a lot. Could be either.
Paul|9.18.08 @ 7:23PM|#
Las Cruces within NM change the picture greatly.
Dude.... dude
I could tell you stories about General Hospital in LCNM.
DFD|9.18.08 @ 7:34PM|#
It is spelled "pwn3d". I am 55 and even I can spell
it.
Both spellings are valid, though pwned is much more common. If you
weren't so fucking old, cranky and stuck in your ways you'd
appreciate that your way isn't necessarily the only way.
:)
Paul|9.18.08 @ 7:39PM|#
Uhm, when we start pedantically complaining about the "proper"
spelling of l337 speak, we know we have a problem.
And you didn't have to tell us you were 55, we know this by the
very fact you're displaying pedantic literalism in the realm of
l337 speak.
pwned rotflcopters!!1!!!!!!1!
Russ 2000|9.18.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Epi,
Regarding elderly health care in the US, my grandmother's biggest
complaint about her nursing home (aside from the fact that being
old and sick sucks anyway) is that nobody would just leave her the
fuck alone sometimes.
|9.18.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Are you drinking too?
I am now.
Russ, yeah, I know. The point is that there is Medicaid and
Medicare and her grandmother would probably have gotten
better care here even with no money because in Spain they
just didn't give a shit.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:06PM|#
take 2
I could tell you stories about General Hospital in
LCNM.
An Aggie then?
Scary place, ain't it.
Our system is flawed. But the suggestion that poor people, the
indigent, the underprivleged don't get care is a lie that defies
explanation.
Except in the cases where it is true.
Try sitting in the UNM Hospital emergency room sometime and tell me
that the poor, indigent, underprivileged get "care."
Or, perhaps, try and find someone a mental health provider in NM if
they aren't looking for addiction services, don't have insurance,
and don't pose an immediate danger to others.
Funny thing about that is that the state of NM will pay for the
service to be provided if you don't have money and even if you
do...well...there just ain't anyone available to provide the
service if you are outside of Albuquerque.
johnl|9.18.08 @ 8:12PM|#
Sad thing is that Prof. Krugman really is very smart. If he would just think like an economist instead of being so partisan. How can anyone seriously advocate a distribution system where price incentives are completely hidden from the consumers?
|9.18.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Canada's health system sucks. It's a creaky, old,
mid-20th-century National Health program, like England's.
France has a much better model.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:16PM|#
johnl,
price incentives are completely hidden from the
consumers
You mean taxes are invisible and consumers don't connect them with
the costs of government services?
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:28PM|#
I could tell you stories about General Hospital in
LCNM.
I remember when they remodeled Memorial General Hospital, complete
with new signage that read
"MGH Hospital"
Yep, Memorial General Hospital Hospital...it ain't brain
surgery.
They did have a wonderful ICU at MGH Hospital...unfortunately the
most minor emergency might land you there after the emergency room
docs were done with ya.
|9.18.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Well, NM, those ER doctors are required by law to treat the
indigent. As long as their medical situation has reached the
emergent level. And then, if they screw up, the ICU is required by
law to admit them.
BAM! No problem. Everyone has health care.
Nations of whiners. Get the hell off my lawn!
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:43PM|#
joe,
That's not fair cranky old man, only 60% of the nation are
whiners...
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Paul,
So what do you call a guy after he goes into Memorial General
Hospital for leg surgery?
Not even...
btw, I'm not mad doggin' ya bro.
|9.18.08 @ 8:49PM|#
"You mean taxes are invisible and consumers don't connect them
with the costs of government services?"
It's a proven fact that voters don't connect taxes with government
"services", and even if they did that still doesn't transmit price
information to the individual consumer.
Neu Mejican|9.18.08 @ 8:56PM|#
that still doesn't transmit price information to the
individual consumer
So you give the individual consumer an bill that says...your
service cost $XXX,XXX. Your taxes covered $XXX,XXX- $Y...Your
co-pay is $Y.
How tough is that?
I mean if all you are worried about is information.
|9.18.08 @ 9:08PM|#
I don't care. I am totally locked out of the US health care
system. I am self-employed with preexisting conditions. No
insurance company -- none at all -- will ensure me at any
cost.
What the fuck am I supposed to do, and why shouldn't I advocate for
single payer, national health insurance? It is, literally, my only
hope.
|9.18.08 @ 9:21PM|#
"And this schmuck Krugman is a full tenured professor at one of
this country's most prestigious colleges and expensive
Colleges which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
By the fact that he didn't follow through shows what a piss poor
professor he is.
And the next election, doesn't matter who wins, will put assholes
like Krugman in charge of health care."
Don't be so sure. What follows is a piece written by william Katz.
If you want to scroll past it, that's your prerogative, but it does
capture well the sentiments of fly-over country. Most
insightful.
From Mr. Katz...
I have no idea who'll win the presidential election. It is very
close, and a single incident or misstep can change the result.
Clearly, the convention bounces have faded. Obama seems to be
regaining a part of his pre-convention standing, thanks to some
folks on Wall Street who give the term "classless society" an
entirely new meaning. Oh, and thanks also to the worst, and most
embarrassing press bias I've seen in my lifetime.
But I do think I know what the election is about. Yes, of course,
there are issues, especially economic concerns, and they will cut.
But on November 4, this election may well be about culture, which
in politics doesn't mean which singer is invited to the White House
or whether the first lady's hair style is up to date. In politics,
culture means instinct, what happens in the gut, which is where a
lot of political decisions, and voting decisions, are really
sealed. One person has made this race about culture, and her name
is Sarah.
It is simply remarkable to watch grown men and women in the media
become hysterical about Sarah Palin - the intruder, the outsider,
the little woman from a place where none of them would ever live,
and where they certainly wouldn't raise their children. It was
equally remarkable to watch David Gergen, a knowledgeable
Washington insider, say on CNN that he couldn't understand the
Palin thing. Like the king in the musical, "Camelot," these highly
educated, low-carb-luncheon types seem to wonder, when they see
Sarah's crowds, "What do the simple folk do?"
I'll tell you a story, told to me by the late Kermit Eby, a
University of Chicago professor with a history in the labor
movement. It's about Jimmy Hoffa, when he was president of the
Teamsters. Hoffa would visit union halls to rally his members -
rough guys, truck drivers mostly. He'd get up in front of them, hop
on a chair, impeccably dressed, and start to speak. We're talking
1950s prices here:
"You see this suit?" Hoffa would ask. "Hickey-Freeman. Three
hundred bucks.
"You see these shoes? Florsheim. Twenty-seven-ninety-five.
"You see this watch? Longines. Two hundred bills."
And those truck drivers would get up and cheer.
Why? Because "one of our own made it." They liked seeing Jimmy, in
his Hickey-Freeman, sitting down with all those management big
shots. They liked it that this guy who came from the same streets
they did could glance at the same Longines watch that the
executives had wrapped around their chubby wrists. "One of our own
made it."
That's the secret of Sarah Palin. When large numbers of American
women, and men, look at her, they see themselves. And they see that
a mother, married to a guy who works with his hands, can make it.
And they deeply resent those who tear her down and push her out.
The journalists trying to destroy Sarah Palin are the same ones who
claim to root for "the little people." Yet, they would never think
of associating with them, and they'd be appalled if one of their
children married into the Palin family. How does one explain it at
the Princeton Club?
I recall a day in 1960 when I was driving through central Illinois
with U.S. Senator Paul H. Douglas, for whom I was interning. We
entered one of those typical Midwestern towns, and I made a
classically dumb, arrogant, University of Chicago undergraduate
comment about "the kind of people who live here." Mr. Douglas, an
honored senator, a war hero, a distinguished academic, interrupted
my ignorance and admonished me. "Bill," he said, "never
underestimate the wisdom of a small town." It's something I've
always remembered. The citizens of that Illinois town are the ones
who, today, are called by the coastal elites "the flyover people."
They are the Sarah Palins - the ones who don't measure the worth of
their lives by their SAT scores or the name of the school on their
diploma.
It was about the time I was interning for Mr. Douglas that a
British writer and scientist, C.P. Snow, gave his famous lecture
about "the two cultures," the scientific and the humanistic. He
complained, rightly or wrongly, that they never spoke to each
other. Today, Snow might have written about this country's two
cultures - the one that represents bedrock American values, taught
for generations, and the one that represents the "higher,"
university-trained culture of the last 45 years. The culture of
Sarah Palin versus the culture of Barack Obama.
I'll tell you another story: CBS used to be known as the Columbia
Broadcasting System. In the early days of radio its announcers
would step into a booth during station breaks and say to the radio
audience, "This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System." They
called it "saying system." And William S. Paley, who ran CBS,
insisted that they wear tuxedos. Now, no one saw them. It was
radio. And yet Paley insisted. He explained that it was a formal
occasion, that they were entering American homes, that respect had
to be shown, and that wearing a tuxedo would remind them how
special this was. Tell that story to the "sophisticates" of today's
journalism and they'd laugh at the excess. Tell it to the Sarah
Palin people and they'd understand immediately. They'd understand
the instinct behind it, the instinct for respect.
It's the same instinct that made Ronald Reagan put on a jacket
every time he entered the Oval Office, because of his respect for
what it represented. Compare that to the instinct that allowed Bill
Clinton to be photographed in that same office in a track
suit.
It is the instinct that made William F. Buckley Jr. say, to
considerable approval, that he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000
people in the Boston phone directory than by the 2,000 members of
the Harvard faculty.
It is the instinct that sent Sarah Palin's son to a recruiting
office in wartime, rather than the protest lawn outside an
anthropology department.
I share some of the doubts, expressed here at Power Line, about
Sarah Palin's preparedness for high office. What I don't doubt is
her gut instinct. Harry Truman, also rough around the edges, and
snickered at by the swells, had that instinct. So, of course, did
the much-ridiculed Lincoln, who was called a baboon by his first
commanding general. And so of course did FDR, looked down upon by
the likes of the columnist, Walter Lippmann.
The Washington and New York elites hate Sarah Palin. They, and
especially the feminist "leaders" among them, are like the old
factory owners in the pre-union days. They fear that the little
people are rising up against them, and they must stop this. They
are now the establishment, and like all establishments they protect
themselves.
Sarah Palin may or may not be our next vice president. But if she
is not, she will be remembered for one great thing - that for a
single moment the "flyover people," those often ignored and sneered
at, felt they had a champion, and they felt that one of their own
had made it.
They will be back, and if they're not shown proper respect in this
country, they might be a lot angrier next time.
johnl|9.18.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Neu consumers generally don't have price information or
incentives for making decisions about medical goods and
services.
For example, I am going to have an extra upper assembly made for my
leg. The upper assembly I have provides a lot of support and is
great for walking, but it doesn't let me bend my leg enough to ride
a bike. The cost for this, to me, is going to be $10 for gas and a
couple hours of my time, because my employee benefit package passes
on 0% of the cost for these things. Now If this was going to cost
me a few thousand dollars, and I don't really have all that much
opportunity to ride my bike anyway, I don't know if I would pay for
it.
Think about feet. My new foot is AMAZING. It's got two carbon rods
that bend independently. The independent bending simulates the
action of an ankle. Now this is going to last me for years so I
would pay a lot for that even if I was paying. But imagine a kid
who goes through a foot a year as he's growing. Does he really need
the most expensive foot? A foot that doesn't simulate an ankle is
no worse than waring hightops, and if it saves a couple of hundred
a year, might be sound. But if someone else is paying for the feet
(foots?), why conserve?
johnl|9.18.08 @ 9:30PM|#
David can you try not to be self-employed? At your run-of-the-mill mega-corp, the hiring manager will have incentives to keep salaries down but not healthcare costs. Take advantage of that.
|9.18.08 @ 9:48PM|#
"By this you mean it is your opinion?"
No, by this I mean there exists scientific, sociological evidence
of this in the form of polls and studies.
|9.18.08 @ 10:08PM|#
"What the fuck am I supposed to do, and why shouldn't I advocate
for single payer, national health insurance? It is, literally, my
only hope."
You should die man, and make room for the more productive. That's
the hard core libertarian answer (actually it has something to do
with charity taking care of you, blah, blah, blah but I'm saving
time).
You know, the Canadians and British get such poor service from
their health care sytems that they continue to vote for those who
support it and would laugh anyone claiming to abolish it and
replace it with a free market system off the stage...Oh wait,
snap!
perilisk|9.18.08 @ 10:15PM|#
"I don't care. I am totally locked out of the US health care
system. I am self-employed with preexisting conditions. No
insurance company -- none at all -- will ensure me at any
cost."
Hmmm... Yeah, it's hard to get homeowner's insurance while your
house is on fire. It's weird though, I thought doctors still took
actual money. It worked for me when I was self-employed and didn't
have insurance, you could always give it a shot.
Or did you mean "how can I get other people to pay for my health
care?" Well, two options: 1) Singer payer health care. 2) Home
invasions. Just pretend you're SWAT.
perilisk|9.18.08 @ 10:19PM|#
@johnl
I completely agree about pass-through. Unless we're talking about
the completely indigent or thoroughly unemployable (orphans,
whatnot), any single payer system should still pass through at
least some small amount as a copay. Even a few hundredths of the
cost would make people think twice about what treatment was cost
effective and double-check their hospital bills; given that our
existing socialized medical systems can't seem to stop fraud, maybe
recruiting patients would help.
|9.18.08 @ 10:25PM|#
"Or did you mean "how can I get other people to pay for my
health care?" "
Like I said, the hard core libertarian line is: you should die man,
we shouldn't be compelled to help you. Every man for himself unless
a voluntary mutual aid society blah, blah, blah...
perilisk|9.18.08 @ 10:28PM|#
"By this you mean it is your opinion?"
Well, it's at least common sense. It's not as though you're getting
an itemized bill for the entire US federal budget. Yes, they get an
idea of the cost of "government services" as singular block, but
not of any particular service. If you asked someone what they were
paying for federal highways or drug prohibition or alternative
energy subsidies or the war in Iraq or the TSA or the No Child Left
Behind Act, etc. etc. they couldn't answer you.
perilisk|9.18.08 @ 10:43PM|#
"Like I said, the hard core libertarian line is: you should die
man,"
Are you suggesting that if the guy has guaranteed health care costs
that eat up, say, 15% of his monthly income, his only options are
"socialized medicine" or "death"? He never said he couldn't afford
his care out of pocket, he said he couldn't get insurance. For all
you know, it isn't even a life-threatening condition.
Ideally, under a freer and more flexible health care market, he
could get insurance, but with the caveat that it would not cover
his known healthcare costs. Assuming his pre-existing condition
isn't a death sentence, he'd be poor, but covered in the event of
something more dangerous and unexpected.
Anyway, the hardcore libertarian line is "healthcare resources will
expand (eventually) to meet demand so long as people keep paying
what they're worth. But if it ruins you financially, sucks to be
you." The socialist line is "healthcare resources are part of a
finite state budget and should be allocated where they will be most
effective" which to low-priority patients, especially those with
time-sensitive issues (say, the elderly or people with chronic
incurable ailments) sounds an awful lot like "you should die
man".
alan|9.18.08 @ 10:52PM|#
Like I said, the hard core libertarian line is: you should die man,
we shouldn't be compelled to help you. Every man for himself unless
a voluntary mutual aid society blah, blah, blah...
Or you could advocate for a system so divorced from cost that there
is no market efficiency left in it to such a bizarre extent that
new technique and technology add to the cost instead of lowering
them. Where no medical professionals would find it profitable to
service your needs and the needs of others of similar means at a
cost you can afford. Sounds kind of like what we have now, doesn't
it?
|9.18.08 @ 11:06PM|#
"Ideally, under a freer and more flexible health care market, he
could get insurance, but with the caveat that it would not cover
his known healthcare costs."
Which is why, under "less freer" and "less flexible" health care
systems this guy would be covered regardless?
So, considering this guy could be any guy after any one check up,
why should anyone favor what you're advocating???
johnl|9.18.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Dave, if you want a lot of medical care paid for and you don't want to hold down a regular job, you should marry a girl with a regular job. There are other benefits to that, besides the healthcare.
CompassionTM|9.18.08 @ 11:32PM|#
Compassion(TM), we socialist own it! Only do we truly
understand. Line up for your health care, our bureaucrats will know
exactly what to do. With the right paper work done by the right
people with the right educational backgrounds, and with the right
exchange of monies through the taxation of the right class of
people, immortality is just a vote a way. Don't let those
Libertarians fool you, death is a market failure, and nothing else.
Sickness results from greedy capitalist who wont admit to the Mana
of the modern state. Look at those ruddy cheek milkmaids in England
and Canada, healthy as oxes! Don't you wish you had those benefits?
It is free! No worries, Just vote! Some of you may sense a loss of
pride and feel that you have become charity cases. With out mental
health benefits, you will come to realize that feeling only stems
from petit bourgeois false consciousness.
Campassion(TM), we own it! Everything else is just Social
Darwinism.
|9.18.08 @ 11:53PM|#
n. They've come to believe-- really believe-- that the
Canadian system is superior.
There was a similar echo chamber a while back that had most of the
academics convinced that the soviets knew what they were doing,
too. Some of those pinheads still think that Cuba is just fine and
dandy.
-jcr
|9.19.08 @ 12:00AM|#
a severe shortage of Doctors.
Let me guess. Bureaucrats decide how much they get paid?
-jcr
jonl|9.19.08 @ 1:14AM|#
Dave you could even score one for liberty if you married a girl with a regular job who had a problem with the INS, saving her from deportation and you from having to hold down a low paying corporate type job at the same time.
Lefiti|9.19.08 @ 1:26AM|#
In Health, Canada Tops US
Our neighbors to the north live longer and pay less for care. The
reasons why are being debated, but some cite the gap between rich
and poor in the US
by Judy Foreman
Want a health tip? Move to Canada.
An impressive array of data shows that Canadians live longer,
healthier lives than we do. What's more, they pay roughly half as
much per capita as we do ($2,163 versus $4,887 in 2001) for the
privilege.
The summary of the evidence has to be that national health
insurance has improved the health of Canadians and is responsible
for some of the longer life expectancy.
Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor at Harvard Medical
School
Exactly why Canadians fare better is the subject of considerable
academic debate. Some policy experts say it's Canada's
single-payer, universal health coverage system. Some think it's
because our neighbors to the north use fewer illegal drugs and
shoot each other less often with guns (though they smoke and drink
with gusto, albeit somewhat less than Americans).
Still others think Canadians are healthier because their medical
system is tilted more toward primary care doctors and less toward
specialists. And some believe it's something more fundamental: a
smaller gap between rich and poor.
Perhaps it's all of the above. But there's no arguing the
basics.
"By all measures, Canadians' health is better," says Dr. Barbara
Starfield, a university distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins
Medical Institutions. Canadians "do better on a whole variety of
health outcomes," she says, including life expectancy at various
ages.
According to a World Health Organization report published in 2003,
life expectancy at birth in Canada is 79.8 years, versus 77.3 in
the U.S. (Japan's is 81.9.)
"There isn't a single measure in which the U.S. excels in the
health arena," says Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the
School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle.
"We spend half of the world's healthcare bill and we are less
healthy than all the other rich countries."
"Fifty-five years ago, we were one of the healthiest countries in
the world," Bezruchka continues. "What changed? We have increased
the gap between rich and poor. Nothing determines the health of a
population [more] than the gap between rich and poor."
Gerald Kominski, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health
Policy Research, puts the Canadian comparison this way: "Are they
richer? No. Are they doing a better job at the lower end of the
income distribution? For lower-income individuals, they are doing a
better job."
At a meeting last fall of the American Public Health Assn., Dr.
Clyde Hertzman, associate director of the Centre for Health
Services and Policy Research at the University of British Columbia
in Vancouver, analyzed data showing that Canadian women outlive
American women by two years and men, by 2 1/2 years.
During the last quarter-century, he says, all income groups in
Canada also showed gains in life expectancy. During much the same
period in the U.S., death rates widened between America's rich and
poor, according to a 2002 study in the International Journal of
Epidemiology by American and Australian researchers.
Infant mortality rates also show striking differences between the
U.S. and Canada.
To counter the argument that racial differences play a major role,
Hertzman compared infant mortality for all Canadians with that for
white Americans between 1970 and 1998. The white U.S. infant
mortality rate was roughly six deaths per 1,000 babies, compared
with slightly more than five for Canadians.
Maternal mortality shows a substantial gap as well. According to
the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), a 30-nation think tank, there were 3.4 maternal
deaths for every 100,000 births among Canadians, compared with 9.8
deaths per 100,000 Americans.
And more than half of Canadians with severe mental disorders
received treatment, compared with little more than a third of
Americans, according to the May-June 2003 issue of Health
Affairs.
"The summary of the evidence has to be that national health
insurance has improved the health of Canadians and is responsible
for some of the longer life expectancy," says Dr. Steffie
Woolhandler, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and
staunch advocate of a single-payer system.
Of course, some causes of death, such as homicide, wouldn't be much
affected by having a single payer system. And the U.S. has "the
highest homicide rate of all the rich countries," says
Bezruchka.
"Other things might be differences in seat belt usage," adds Robert
Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at the
Harvard School of Public Health. "We are also disproportionate
consumers of illegal drugs, much more than Canada, so it's
cultural."
The health of Americans would be better with universal healthcare,
he says.
"But there are some things that a single-payer system wouldn't fix
- but which would leave one country looking healthier in the
statistics."
In some respects, the healthcare system is "the tail on the dog,"
says Dr. Arnie Epstein, chairman of the department of health policy
and medicine at the Harvard School of Public Health.
"It's other aspects of the social fabric of different countries
that seem to have a major impact on how long people live," he
says.
In the U.S., African Americans and Latinos "face problems of
housing, stress and low income, which have nothing to do with a
single-payer system." Canada has a large number of Asian
immigrants, he says, but they, like Asian immigrants in the U.S.,
tend to do well on healthcare measures.
The bottom line is that Canada is doing something right, even if
"the reasons are not totally understood," says Kominski of
UCLA.
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
Neu Mejican|9.19.08 @ 2:14AM|#
Andy Craig,
No, by this I mean there exists scientific, sociological
evidence of this in the form of polls and studies.
Really.
Fascinating.
I am swayed by your assertion.
You have supported it so well by claiming that there is proof of
some type somewhere gathered by someone in some way all science-ee
and stuff...
Mike Laursen|9.19.08 @ 2:24AM|#
If the Democrats succeed in implementing universal health care, over the long run the system will be run by a Republican administration about half the time. And they're going to have very definite ideas about what kind of medical services should and should not be provided for women. I've never met a single Democrat who has ever given a thought to what Republican universal health care would be like.
Mike Laursen|9.19.08 @ 2:28AM|#
Lefiti, why does health care need to be universal? Why not simply help the poor purchase health insurance, and leave the middle class, who can buy their own insurance, out of it?
Dave W.|9.19.08 @ 5:48AM|#
If you think the Canadian Healthcare system is so fucking
great, then move to fucking Canada.
Fuck fuckity fuck fuck fuck.
I did and I can report that it was fine. It was also paid for by a
regressive tax which made it fairer than the boondoggle
gerontogopoly we have in the US.
VM|9.19.08 @ 7:24AM|#
"The bottom line is that Canada is doing something right, even
if "the reasons are not totally understood," "
that's a goodie.
well played ghost of DanT. Or is it the ghost of Edweirdooo?
Mr. Goodbar|9.19.08 @ 7:43AM|#
"Like I said, the hard core libertarian line is: you should die
man, we shouldn't be compelled to help you. Every man for himself
unless a voluntary mutual aid society blah, blah, blah..."
I know what let's do. Let's spend our free time hangin' out on a
blog whose political view is different from our own and make
hyperbolic snarky slurs about our imagined perspective of the
people who regularly post. And if we can only get our other 12 year
friends to sign on!
robc|9.19.08 @ 10:03AM|#
NM,
I agree asking the question was stupid - the proper test is not to
ask people but to look at usage patterns:
What percent of Canadians go to the US for health care
services?
What percent of Americans go to Canada for ditto?
The lower number has the better health care.
Abdul|9.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#
France has a much better model.
Actually, she's Italian, and the Prime Minister took her off the
market.
Jordan|9.19.08 @ 10:45AM|#
You know, the Canadians and British get such poor service from their health care sytems that they continue to vote for those who support it and would laugh anyone claiming to abolish it and replace it with a free market system off the stage...Oh wait, snap!
Yeah man! And how about that Drug War? That's popular as hell with
the voters. And remember slavery? Segregation? Prohibition?
As for Lefiti's article: life expectancy is heavily influenced by
factors other than health care. Compare the incidence of obesity,
crime rates, etc. Furthermore, if Canada is like most other
countries, it counts many births as stillborn that would be counted
as live in the U.S.
Neu Mejican|9.19.08 @ 10:46AM|#
robc,
The lower number has the better health care.
I am not sure that is a good metric.
The "why" is important...if Canadians, for instance, are coming to
the US for elective procedures it may not be a sign that we have a
better system overall, for instance.
Lefiti|9.19.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Libertarianism is a strange combination of free-market fundamentalism and garden-variety nationalism, isn't it? We're the greatest nation on earth, and all that shit.
robc|9.19.08 @ 11:22AM|#
NM,
All health care is elective. :)
Yeah, there are adjustments that could be made to the measure (like
a distance adjustment due to Canadians being closer to the US than
Americans are to Canada) and things like why?, but as a first order
measure, it works well.
|9.19.08 @ 11:35AM|#
I like the way nailing down the market fetishists on the "David,
you're screwed" position brings out a rant about compassion.
Yes, chief, if your response to someone who can't get the health
care he needs to stay alive is, "Not my problem," you're lacking
compassion. Tell you what: if it makes you feel bad to hear that,
I'm frown thoughtfully for a few seconds.
What a horrible accusation, to say that people who are more worried
about their taxes rising a little than about other people's lives
lack compassion! Where to TEH SOCIALISTS come up with this
stuff?
Mike Laursen|9.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Libertarianism is a strange combination of free-market
fundamentalism and garden-variety nationalism, isn't it?
You really aren't that familiar with the viewpoints of the folks
who hang out here, are you? Maybe you should troll at
lewrockwell.com.
|9.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Or he could have pointed to this which shows Canadians being
satisfied with their health system at 46% compared to the US at
40%
Sure, but satisfaction is as much a reflection of expectations as
it is of performance. This may just mean that Canadians have low
standards for their health care system.
|9.19.08 @ 12:15PM|#
"Yeah man! And how about that Drug War? That's popular as hell
with the voters. And remember slavery? Segregation?
Prohibition?"
I'm hoping that you see the difference between responding to the
charge that the Canadian and English Health Care systems serve the
citizenry poorly with the rebuttal: then why is it so popular with
the very people it is serving so well and the popularity of
slavery, the drug war, etc., at various times.
It's hard to believe the system serves the citenzry so very poorly
when that same citizenry treats it as a third rail when it votes.
This says nothing about whether its popularity makes it "just"
which is what you are confused about.
|9.19.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Sure, but satisfaction is as much a reflection of
expectations as it is of performance. This may just mean that
Canadians have low standards for their health care
system.
OK, so we can no longer judge the efficacy of a health care system
by patient outcomes, and we can no longer judge the efficacy of a
health care system by patient satisfaction.
What does that leave us with?
"Yeah man! And how about that Drug War? That's popular as hell
with the voters. And remember slavery? Segregation?
Prohibition?" Slavey was universally unpopular among slaves.
Segregation was universally unpopular among black people.
Prohibition was universally unpopular among drinkers.
The Canadian health care system is MORE POPULAR among patients than
ours.
Jordan|9.19.08 @ 1:34PM|#
OK, so we can no longer judge the efficacy of a health care system by patient outcomes, and we can no longer judge the efficacy of a health care system by patient satisfaction.
What does that leave us with?
They're the best we have. Unfortunately, neither is as cut and dry
as we might like. That's just how it is.
I'm hoping that you see the difference between responding to the charge that the Canadian and English Health Care systems serve the citizenry poorly with the rebuttal: then why is it so popular with the very people it is serving so well and the popularity of slavery, the drug war, etc., at various times.
Fine, it was a stupid rebuttal. Still, voters make stupid choices
all the time. Britain's NHS is the worst healthcare system in
Europe. The Swiss healthcare system is much more market-oriented
than the NHS (and arguably more so than our system too), but since
the British won't vote for it, then the NHS must be better,
right?
Gilbert Martin|9.19.08 @ 1:46PM|#
"An impressive array of data shows that Canadians live longer,
healthier lives than we do."
Even if it could be definitively proven that that difference is
entirely due to the different health care systems (which it can't)
that STILL would not prove that the Canadian system is
superior.
Whose says those factors are the proper metrics to measure
"superiority" by?
The metrics one chooses to measure anyting by are a function ones
personal opinions and beliefs.
Who can prove that saving the life or improving the health of X
number of people is a higer value outcome than letting them fend
for themselves and refraining from interfering with the freedom of
everyone else to force them to subsidize those people?
No one on earth - that's who.
CompassionTM|9.19.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Mr. Joe,
Our records show insufficient support from you of our efforts in
Canada and England. You will not get the fellow traveler free pass
on your usage of the word, 'compassion'. Please forward the 17.5
cent charge (to comply with the per word pay policy of our proudly
unionized publication The Guardian).
|9.19.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Here's my experience with the "free" Canadian Health care
system:
Waited 8 months to get arthroscopic surgery to clean out my knee.
During that time, my knee degenerated and required a way more
complicated operation, leaving me with a semi-working knee that now
tells me when the weathers a changing. But hey, didn't cost me
anything, if I don't consider all that tax I pay to our government
to fund this useless system.
|9.19.08 @ 7:51PM|#
All the Canadians I know - and I live in Canada - are very worried that our health care system is being destroyed and will be replaced by something like the American system. I have heard plenty of complaints about our system but I have never in my life heard a Canadian say s/he would prefer the American system. I am sure a few such people exist but they are a tiny minority.
Mr. Goodbar|9.19.08 @ 10:36PM|#
"What a horrible accusation, to say that people who are more
worried about their taxes rising a little than about other people's
lives lack compassion!"
Look mom, I found another 12 year old!
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