Krugman taken to task over Canadian healthcare

[southsider2k5]

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/...rt/krugman.html

[WCSox]

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/commentary/...rt/krugman.html

 

A number of people from Canada have come to the U.S. for surgery that isn't available to them at home (and, IIRC, they have to pay out-of-pocket).

 

Socialized healthcare will never work in this country. When the obese baby-boomers hit their '70s, even our current system will struggle to deal with it.

[Balta1701]

The piece you linked to is wrong on several accounts, most notably the rant about people needing life-saving surgeries having to either wait months or flee to the U.S. That is simply a myth. In fact, the reverse happens even more often, with Americans heading to Canada for things like Eye surgery, which is cheaper up there. Canada can have fairly long waits for elective surgeries, but for things which are actually medically necessary, the waits in Canada may even be less.

 

Secondly, the writer concludes with this

Apart from the patent dishonesty of the implication that only the rich get life-saving treatment in the U.S. - Krugman is finally getting to the point. By establishing the notion that everyone has an unlimited "right" to health care, the left has the perfect trojan horse to effect confiscation of private wealth in this country on a large scale.

Which leaves me to wonder whether the author has ever had to experience spending time without insurance in this country while actually needing medical treatment, and discovering that virtually no one anywhere will admit you, and the only places which will admit you will both cost an absolute fortune and probably screw things up badly, which is something my family has experienced recently, and is as close to Hell on Earth as you can get. A right to health care? You compare that to seeing a person hunched over on your couch unable to move because of extreme pain and there not being any doctor willing or able to treat that person, and you'll wish to God that America considered it a right.

 

Third, the author rightfully takes Mr. Krugman to task for selectively choosing which health data he cites, but then he does exactly the same thing. He attacks Krugman's choice of life expectancy and infant mortality as methods by which the health care systems can be judged, but then decides to cite different metrics (rates of die-off with certain diseases) without either judging any other diseases or examining whether there's an additional factor, such as an environmental or lifestyle issue, which could also impact those numbers.

 

I can do the same thing. Watch.

 

On the years of life lost metric, American women lose 3,836 years per 100,000 women and the men give up 6,648. The comparable Canadian figures are 2,768 and 4,698 respectively.

Of course, this statistic also is probably incomplete, because it also fails to take into account lifestyle factors which could impact those numbers.

 

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. If you want to find one statistic that sums everything up, you're not going to do so.

[Rex Kickass]

During the Clinton administration the left called Paul Krugman a conservative.

 

During the Bush administration the right calls Paul Krugman a liberal.

 

That either makes him a contrarian, or correct most of the time.

[WCSox]

That is simply a myth.  In fact, the reverse happens even more often, with Americans heading to Canada for things like Eye surgery, which is cheaper up there.  Canada can have fairly long waits for elective surgeries, but for things which are actually medically necessary, the waits in Canada may even be less.

 

Assuming that most American-based health insurance companies don't contribute financially towards surgeries conducted in Canada, I imagine that most major and critical surgical procedures cost more up there (even with the differing values in currency).

 

Secondly, the writer concludes with this

Which leaves me to wonder whether the author has ever had to experience spending time without insurance in this country while actually needing medical treatment, and discovering that virtually no one anywhere will admit you, and the only places which will admit you will both cost an absolute fortune and probably screw things up badly, which is something my family has experienced recently, and is as close to Hell on Earth as you can get.  A right to health care?  You compare that to seeing a person hunched over on your couch unable to move because of extreme pain and there not being any doctor willing or able to treat that person, and you'll wish to God that America considered it a right.

 

I'm sorry to hear about what your family has experienced. It's a very difficult situation. Medical insurance certainly is costly and, unfortunately, not everybody has access to it. But I disagree that socialized healthcare is the solution. JMO.

[EvilMonkey]

While you can quote statistics all day long about hom many people cannot afford insurance, how many of them 'can't afford it' because they are only in their mid 20's, and they would rather have that $600 a month going to a new BMW instead of insurance? 'Can't afford it' is often simply a choice of what do you want more. Yeah, if the choice is food or insurance, I think you take the mac n cheese. But if your choice is a fancier apratment downtown, or vacations, etc, well then, you don't belong in that catagory. As for a 'right to healt care', when the taxpayers start paying for med school, maybe they can get free med care. As bad as the current system is, it is still better than socialized medicine.

[Rex Kickass]

And just curious, your experience is what with socialized medicine?

 

In 1994, I had infections on my feet in France. I was able to get a doctor to take good care of me and get medicine - and because of my semi-nationality, I was able to take care of things quickly and easily.

 

I'm in my mid-20's. I don't have health insurance. I don't have the 200 to spare every month in my budget. As it is, I'm barely hanging on right now.

[juddling]

And just curious, your experience is what with socialized medicine?

I don't have to experience anal rape to know that I would not like it, just like I don't have to experience socialized medicine to know that it isn't the best. How would you like to go to med school, work your ass off in residency, and then have the government tell you that you have to do X,Y & Z for what we give you, YOUR costs and bills be damned?

[Balta1701]

While you can quote statistics all day long about hom many people cannot afford insurance, how many of them 'can't afford it' because they are only in their mid 20's, and they would rather have that $600 a month going to a new BMW instead of insurance?  'Can't afford it' is often simply a choice of what do you want more.  Yeah, if the choice is food or insurance, I think you take the mac n cheese.  But if your choice is a fancier apratment downtown, or vacations, etc, well then, you don't belong in that catagory.  As for a 'right to healt care', when the taxpayers start paying for med school, maybe they can get free med care.  As bad as the current system is, it is still better than socialized medicine.

But you see, for an insurance system to actually work and be affordable for everyone, those are precisely the people that need to be in the insurance pool, because without them, insurance really falls apart. You need the 20 year old healthy person in the insurance pool for it to work properly.

 

Without that, you're left with an inexorable climb in insurance costs, as higher insurance costs push more of those who are at limited risk out of the insurance pool, which pushes the insurance cost higher because the pool is smaller, which pushes even more people out of the insurance pool, and eventually you wind up with the system we're starting to approach...where only the sick have insurance. Unions and health care through work have delayed the approach to that state, but now that those systems are breaking down rapidly, that's what we're really closing in on.

[YASNY]

But you see, for an insurance system to actually work and be affordable for everyone, those are precisely the people that need to be in the insurance pool, because without them, insurance really falls apart.  You need the 20 year old healthy person in the insurance pool for it to work properly.

 

Without that, you're left with an inexorable climb in insurance costs, as higher insurance costs push more of those who are at limited risk out of the insurance pool, which pushes the insurance cost higher because the pool is smaller, which pushes even more people out of the insurance pool, and eventually you wind up with the system we're starting to approach...where only the sick have insurance.  Unions and health care through work have delayed the approach to that state, but now that those systems are breaking down rapidly, that's what we're really closing in on.

 

You've got some valid points here, but government can't seem to to manage anything correctly. Putting our health care system in the hands of the government scares my even more than mess we currrently have.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't have to experience anal rape to know that I would not like it, just like I don't have to experience socialized medicine to know that it isn't the best.  How would you like to go to med school, work your ass off in residency, and then have the government tell you that you have to do X,Y & Z for what we give you, YOUR costs and bills be damned?

 

In systems that work, that's not how it works. Universal health care has a lot of different forms and modes and you're describing one of them. And not the best.