Luchabee, the question raised by Micheal Moore is whether US citizens should be getting the “free ride”. He clearly thinks they aren’t. It’s also not clear that French, Cuban or other countries’ health care owe much to contributions made by the US economy. The extent to which this may be true, it could be argued that they may be better able to take advantage of advances in technology due to their health care systems.
———————————–
Yes, American citizens are not getting a free ride. We have an expectation that they pay for medical services they use, like in any other industry. I suppose adding billions of dollars in government layers and regulation to administer the program through taxes from other sources could make it seem like a “free ride” to those paying little to no taxes, especially primarily for the young, lazy (who don’t want to apply for medicare) and illegal aliens. Also, to those that would pay for this new government agency, they’ll do less investment for efficient businesses that hire those people seeking free medical care.
——————————–
Health care and medical advances are two different things. Whilst the US R&D is higher per capita, its “health care” ranks one of the lowest. It is the system that lags behind in relation to expenditure.
——————————-
Are you English? You said “whilst.” Just wondering.
Anyway, these statement are not very specific. Would you expound on them? Are you saying that the higher charges for prescription drugs in the US (which funds state-of-the-art R&D) are not a complaint by the left?
—————————————
With the exception of Cuba, these countries have market economies. A national health care system does not imply the country is not market driven. The other major market economies in the world all have a universal system, which includes, Japan, Germany, UK and France. They are all considered to be better than the US model, and have their own R&D budgets and have made significant advances themselves. Many advances are cross national, with foreign
researchers contributing to a pooled effort.
——————————
Another very general comment concerning “cross national research.” We would have to compare actual numbers, which I think would show the overwhelming US innovation in this area. Additionally, I never implied that they weren’t market driven with a national health care system for every other industry. However, obviously, they are not market driven in healthcare. Making close to 1/7 of the American economy not market driven would be a horrific idea, adding billions in taxes, rationing, inefficiencies and casuing the need to import even more illegal aliens to prop up another welfare program. This idea might have worked (albeit poorly) 20 years ago, but with millions of Baby Boomers retiring, it will further bankrupt the US.
——————————
It was as a result of defending themselves in wars that Europe decided to devote large chunks of tax money on health. I don’t think there is an assumption in Europe that the US will defend it. US military policy is largely dictated by self preservation, not altruism. It took a bit more than colonial ties to entice the US into WWII. But it is correct that less spent on military means more to spend on health.
—————————
Yes, there is an assumption that the US will defend them: It is ratified in law by SEATO and NATO. Concerning the US military spending, your response is a nice general response about “US militarty self preservation.” Let’s be realistic about it, however, Europe spends next to nothing on their military forces relative to the US. Japan, too. Canada’s spending as a portion of their GDP is a total joke. All of them have received free rides with their military spending, allowing them to subsidize their health care programs.
For the US, we divert spending to the military because the moral benefits of defending the West and protecting capital markets outweigh the costs. Europe, et. al., are happy to let the US do it.
——————————–
Not necessarily. The US spends significantly more on health than other leading economies, but Americans remain amongst the least healthy, with higher child mortality, shorter life expectancy, and higher rates of fatal ailments. I don’t think the US is giving their research away at the expense of their own citizens. If less was spent on R&D and more on health care, it could conceivably save more lives.
———————————
Does this include the 12-20 million illegal aliens that have been drawn into the US? What about the millions in inner cities that have been mismanged by liberal politicians for nearly a century, who throw more money at the poverty problem and don’t address root causes–like the erosion of the church and values, single mothers, government run schools, and a culture of dependency on welfare.
——————————-
It is unlikely that a universal system would fundamentally transform the US economy. Michael Moore’s film didn’t focus on the uninsured. He went to great lengths to show that many victims are the insured.
A lot of people have confused his message with some sort of unpatriotic European left wing social reform mumbo jumbo. To see it that way is bit like reading the bible upside down.
—————————-
Nearly 1/7th of the American economy would be converted adding billions of dollars in government agencies and regulations? That’s not a fundamental change? For me, well, I’ll pass.
Also, many “victims” were already insured? Isn’t that what tort law is for a la John Edwards, Esq.? How many millions of “victims” will there be with a government system? Will the government have immunity from negligence law suits?
Besides, much of this is a moot discussion. We can no longer afford to add to government programs anyway. We are facing a tidal wave of government obligations with Medicare, SS, and the prescription drug program in the next 20 years. Adding this entitlement will kill us, making the dollar worth less than it already us, causing untold misery. I suppose if we “import” another 60 million young illegal aliens we might be able to pay for it, though?
