Argument: Healthcare is NOT a Right

[Psych_hopeful]

See below.



Now the thing is, I lean to the left politically, but I was watching this and I was impressed at how well he really understood the issues surrounding healthcare. Even if he is to the right.

My argument for universalized healthcare is that it's already provided anyway through the ED when doctors have to see the patient and charge the government. Therefore, you might as well make that not free, and instead have people go to Primary Care Clinics for non-urgent complaints. That way, the taxpayer doesnt have to pay an arm and leg for someone coming through the ED.

However, I liked this guy's thoughts even if I do lean to the left. I'd considered changing my position if his incentivization scheme worked

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Nothing that requires either the labor or property of another can ever be a right. With health care you either have to make health care providers, namely doctors and nurses slaves coerced to provide care at whatever price you force them to take or you have to steal the property of others to pay the market value. Either is inherently immoral and unjust.

In the US our rights are not given by the gov't they are inherent/inalienable to ourselves. We have a right to life such that no one can take it away (not such that someone else has to provide it). We have a right to liberty such that no one can take it away. These are negative rights. Under any system that has property rights, you cannot have positive rights.

 

[Mad Jack]

See below.



Now the thing is, I lean to the left politically, but I was watching this and I was impressed at how well he really understood the issues surrounding healthcare. Even if he is to the right.

My argument for universalized healthcare is that it's already provided anyway through the ED when doctors have to see the patient and charge the government. Therefore, you might as well make that not free, and instead have people go to Primary Care Clinics for non-urgent complaints. That way, the taxpayer doesnt have to pay an arm and leg for someone coming through the ED.

However, I liked this guy's thoughts even if I do lean to the left. I'd considered changing my position if his incentivization scheme worked

Um, I don't think you get it. You're required to see patients in the ED, but the government doesn't reimburse you. You either get paid by their insurance or they get billed for your services. The taxpayer is only on the hook for people that already have government-based insurance, in which case the taxpayer would have been on the hook anyway.

 

[Mad Jack]

Nothing that requires either the labor or property of another can ever be a right. With health care you either have to make health care providers, namely doctors and nurses slaves coerced to provide care at whatever price you force them to take or you have to steal the property of others to pay the market value. Either is inherently immoral and unjust.

In the US our rights are not given by the gov't they are inherent/inalienable to ourselves. We have a right to life such that no one can take it away (not such that someone else has to provide it). We have a right to liberty such that no one can take it away. These are negative rights. Under any system that has property rights, you cannot have positive rights.

I'm all for people having the right to government insurance that is basic, a la many of the hybrid European systems (Germany is probably my favorite model). The government should not be able to force providers to accept insurance, however, so one could still refuse government insurance and only take private.

 

[Psych_hopeful]

So my question is what do you think of what he's proposing? That we deregulate the coverage and introduce competition. He says that this will drive down the costs.

 

[Panthersfan25]

Nothing that requires either the labor or property of another can ever be a right. With health care you either have to make health care providers, namely doctors and nurses slaves coerced to provide care at whatever price you force them to take or you have to steal the property of others to pay the market value. Either is inherently immoral and unjust.

In the US our rights are not given by the gov't they are inherent/inalienable to ourselves. We have a right to life such that no one can take it away (not such that someone else has to provide it). We have a right to liberty such that no one can take it away. These are negative rights. Under any system that has property rights, you cannot have positive rights.

Artiulated Perfectly and Beautiful!!! Nothing more needs to be added.

 

[goatmed]

So my question is what do you think of what he's proposing? That we deregulate the coverage and introduce competition. He says that this will drive down the costs.

Essentially, nobody wants to insure some people (or if they do, they will not cushion the cost with the risk pool, they will make sure the premium reflects odds on their favor). Also, healthcare as a commodity is different than almost everything else–people use it when they pass out and end up in an ER, when they're in critical condition, etc. so it's very difficult to turn it down.
Additionally, the market value for a good doesn't necessarily reflect the most inclusive price: At a high price for a smaller consumer base, a lot of goods and services can make a larger profit margin (which is rewarded by the market). You can abolish every type of patent and lower prices a bit with even more competition, but then God knows how many other issues you'd trigger.
This is why healthcare is such a pain to reform, surely what we have right now is pretty bad in terms of investment and outcome, but I wouldn't bet my money on a deregulated market achieving the basic amenities we want to give people in need. Beyond that, the claim that healthcare is not a right but a commodity is purely an ethical one, and if you don't think it's unethical to let people suffer from lack of care that's your stance and it's not something you can be talked out of.

Nothing that requires either the labor or property of another can ever be a right. With health care you either have to make health care providers, namely doctors and nurses slaves coerced to provide care at whatever price you force them to take or you have to steal the property of others to pay the market value. Either is inherently immoral and unjust.

In the US our rights are not given by the gov't they are inherent/inalienable to ourselves. We have a right to life such that no one can take it away (not such that someone else has to provide it). We have a right to liberty such that no one can take it away. These are negative rights. Under any system that has property rights, you cannot have positive rights.

´
I think you're arguing rights in a different way than most people argue "rights" like healthcare. When people say you have a "right" to healthcare, they say it like they say you have a "right" to education and a "right" to drive on public roads. Both of those require the labor of another person, but just as no nationalized healthcare system coerces its doctors to work (OK, no nationalized healthcare system in the West) nobody coerces teachers into becoming teachers or the DMV people into doing their job. This use of "right," then, must mean something that people think governing bodies should make sure nobody is lacking in. You can argue the merits or lack thereof here, but it's a different idea from enslaving people.

 

[Panthersfan25]

I'm all for people having the right to government insurance that is basic, a la many of the hybrid European systems (Germany is probably my favorite model). The government should not be able to force providers to accept insurance, however, so one could still refuse government insurance and only take private.

So people are entitled to "basic" insurance? What is the definition of basic? Why only basic? Certainly, if you believe people have the "right" to healthcare, they should get the best most complete comprehensive care?

 

[Panthersfan25]

Essentially, nobody wants to insure some people (or if they do, they will not cushion the cost with the risk pool, they will make sure the premium reflects odds on their favor). Also, healthcare as a commodity is different than almost everything else–people use it when they pass out and end up in an ER, when they're in critical condition, etc. so it's very difficult to turn it down.
Additionally, the market value for a good doesn't necessarily reflect the most inclusive price: At a high price for a smaller consumer base, a lot of goods and services can make a larger profit margin (which is rewarded by the market). You can abolish every type of patent and lower prices a bit with even more competition, but then God knows how many other issues you'd trigger.
This is why healthcare is such a pain to reform, surely what we have right now is pretty bad in terms of investment and outcome, but I wouldn't bet my money on a deregulated market achieving the basic amenities we want to give people in need. Beyond that, the claim that healthcare is not a right but a commodity is purely an ethical one, and if you don't think it's unethical to let people suffer from lack of care that's your stance and it's not something you can be talked out of.

´
I think you're arguing rights in a different way than most people argue "rights" like healthcare. When people say you have a "right" to healthcare, they say it like they say you have a "right" to education and a "right" to drive on public roads. Both of those require the labor of another person, but just as no nationalized healthcare system coerces its doctors to work (OK, no nationalized healthcare system in the West) nobody coerces teachers into becoming teachers or the DMV people into doing their job. This use of "right," then, must mean something that people think governing bodies should make sure nobody is lacking in. You can argue the merits or lack thereof here, but it's a different idea from enslaving people.

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. A driver license can be suspended for violating the rules that come along with that privilege. Your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[goatmed]

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. A driver license can be suspended for violating the rules that come along with that privilege. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Sure, and you can be removed from school if you're a safety concern as well. But we'd be outraged if the government decided it was gonna let some kids go without school because he was poor. For people who consider healthcare a right, it is also outrageous that our government allows people to not receive healthcare because they cannot afford to. Again, I'm not arguing for the merits or lack thereof right now, just clarifying that the position is generally not one along the lines of "enslave public servants." That doesn't impact my argument, we're not wondering whether somebody who's violated the law should receive care

 

[Panthersfan25]

The real shame in all of this is that the healthcare laws as currently written, where authored by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and those industries are doing very well. Reforming healthcare should focus on costs, not government funding the outrageous costs. Healthcare doesn't have to be near as expensive as it currently is (and climbing). Ever price the cost of insulin and other medications? Reform should start with addressing the elephant in the room, COST!! But that will never happen from democrat or republican because all these healthcare bills are written by special interests.

 

[goatmed]

The real shame in all of this is that the healthcare laws as currently written, where authored by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and those industries are doing very well. Reforming healthcare should focus on costs, not government funding the outrageous costs. Healthcare doesn't have to be near as expensive as it currently is (and climbing). Ever price the cost of insulin and other medications? Reform should start with addressing the elephant in the room, COST!! But that will never happen from democrat or republican because all these healthcare bills are written by special interests.

I absolutely agree with you here, it's no wonder we're paying more per capita than everyone else. And that goes into our own taxes and hospital bills.

 

[Panthersfan25]

Sure, and you can be removed from school if you're a safety concern as well. That doesn't impact my argument, we're not wondering whether somebody who's violated the law should receive care

One is not entitled to healthcare simply because they have a pulse. Work and be a productive member of society, then you can buy healthcare. If you can't meet the previous, you better have a legitimate reason. Meaning, actual disability that prevents you from working or another acceptable reason.

 

[Panthersfan25]

I absolutely agree with you here, it's no wonder we're paying more per capita than everyone else. And that goes into our own taxes and hospital bills.

Imagine if we had a healthcare system that was completely independent of government funding, but was regulated so that it was set up in the best interest of the citizens. Set up in such a way that price gouging and exploitation could not occur. Anytime governments funds anything, whether it is the VA, colleges, medical schools, or healthcare, costs go up. Government never causes anything to be cheaper

 

[goatmed]

One is not entitled to healthcare simply because they have a pulse. Work and be a productive member of society, then you can buy healthcare. If you can't meet the previous, you better have a legitimate reason. Meaning, actual disability that prevents you from working or another acceptable reason.

What constitutes a "legitimate" reason for needing healthcare is your personal position. I cannot tell you what makes morally legitimate healthcare needs because that has to do with your beliefs. But I can tell you a lot of voters disagree with you, don't know if it's a majority but it sure seems like so by the sorts of political hoops they're jumping in Congress to get reform passed.

Imagine if we had a healthcare system that was completely independent of government funding, but was regulated so that it was set up in the best interest of the citizens. Set up in such a way that price gouging and exploitation could not occur. Anytime governments funds anything, whether it is the VA, colleges, medical schools, or healthcare, costs go up. Government never causes anything to be cheaper

It seems unlikely a premise. Prices cannot be truly fixed because then they have no correspondence to the societal demand for them (see: U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela.) But a large national insurance with a common risk pool can bargain for reasonable healthcare costs: It's worth noting that, as a better analogy to government healthcare (or rather homology) stand countries like the United Kingdom, which achieves a much wider coverage than us (i.e. 11 percent of their population isn't unemployed) and, by the last data I saw pays about 43% of what we do per head. And sure, it carries some endemic issues of its own, administering health for 300+ million people takes a huge initial investment and very very careful planning before anything looking like the NHS happens, and even afterwards health resources have real scarcity. But if our old world neighbors with universal coverage are any indication, it's worth the jump.

 

[Mad Jack]

So people are entitled to "basic" insurance? What is the definition of basic? Why only basic? Certainly, if you believe people have the "right" to healthcare, they should get the best most complete comprehensive care?

I said people have a right to basic government insurance, not health care. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote, my god. Basic is the government paying what it wants for whatever it wants, but no physician is forced to accept it, which forces it to remain competitive with the private market.

 

[Panthersfan25]

What constitutes a "legitimate" reason for needing healthcare is your personal position. I cannot tell you what makes morally legitimate healthcare needs because that has to do with your beliefs. But I can tell you a lot of voters disagree with you, don't know if it's a majority but it sure seems like so by the sorts of political hoops they're jumping in Congress to get reform passed.


It seems unlikely a premise. Prices cannot be truly fixed because then they have no correspondence to the societal demand for them (see: U.S.S.R, Cuba, Venezuela.) But a large national insurance with a common risk pool can bargain for reasonable healthcare costs: It's worth noting that, as a better analogy to government healthcare (or rather homology) stand countries like the United Kingdom, which achieves a much wider coverage than us (i.e. 11 percent of their population isn't unemployed) and, by the last data I saw pays about 43% of what we do per head. And sure, it carries some endemic issues of its own, administering health for 300+ million people takes a huge initial investment and very very careful planning before anything looking like the NHS happens, and even afterwards health resources have real scarcity. But if our old world neighbors with universal coverage are any indication, it's worth the jump.

How about this? I will provide healthcare to every American. Yep, every single American. Now all of America is "covered." The wait may be thousands of years for your CABG or stent, but rest assure, you are covered. My point, coverage doesn't equal healthcare.

I'm not disputing people need healthcare, I'm simply stating that citizens need to take ownership of their own needs.

 

[Mad Jack]

Imagine if we had a healthcare system that was completely independent of government funding, but was regulated so that it was set up in the best interest of the citizens. Set up in such a way that price gouging and exploitation could not occur. Anytime governments funds anything, whether it is the VA, colleges, medical schools, or healthcare, costs go up. Government never causes anything to be cheaper

I'd say that is incorrect. My municipal water supply is about four times as cheap as the private one I previously used, and public school costs far less than any local private schools. Government only makes costs go up when they're inefficient, but there are many times government-run institutions can work just fine.

 

[Panthersfan25]

I said people have a right to basic government insurance, not health care. It's like you didn't even read what I wrote, my god. Basic is the government paying what it wants for whatever it wants, but no physician is forced to accept it, which forces it to remain competitive with the private market.

Hey Einstein, what good is health insurance if it doesn't equate healthcare?

Its like handing out Obama cards to everyone, if no doctor will accept them, what good does it do? Or if only mid-levels will accept it because of all the hoops to be compensated and low reimbursement, that definitely doesn't provide quality care. I love your specifics, "government paying what it wants for whatever it wants." What decides these whatevers or what it wants? Makes no sense.

 

[Panthersfan25]

I'd say that is incorrect. My municipal water supply is about four times as cheap as the private one I previously used, and public school costs far less than any local private schools. Government only makes costs go up when they're inefficient, but there are many times government-run institutions can work just fine.

Public school costs less than private, wrong. Maybe you didn't know this, but public schools are funded by taxpayers. Look up the rate paid for each student and compare it to the tuition of a local school. It actually costs less to send students to private schools. And lets not forget about quality, public schools suck, plain and simple. There is a reason why much of the upper class does not send their children to public schools. The public school system serves one group of individuals, the teacher unions (NOT the students).

 

[Mad Jack]

Hey Einstein, what go is health insurance if it doesn't equate healthcare?

Its like handing out Obama cards to everyone, if no doctor will accept them, what good does it do? Or if only mid-levels will accept it because of all the hoops to be compensated and low reimbursement, that definitely doesn't provide quality care. I love your specifics, "government paying what it wants for whatever it wants." What decides these whatevers or what it wants? Makes no sense.

Says a guy who clearly hasn't researched the many models of care out there.

In some countries, the government guarantees so little that private insurance is a must. In others, it provides so much that private insurance is a rarity. I'm simply stating it is the right of a people to demand it of their social contract, should they reach the point where such a thing can be demanded. What it ultimately looks like is determined by the representatives elected by those people. How well it works is also determined by those representatives in a republic.

 

[goatmed]

How about this? I will provide healthcare to every American. Yep, every single American. Now all of America is "covered." The wait may be thousands of years for your CABG or stent, but rest assure, you are covered. My point, coverage doesn't equal healthcare.

I'm not disputing people need healthcare, I'm simply stating that citizens need to take ownership of their own needs.

I don't think the scarcity is as bad as your hyperbolic example puts it, but even if there's scarcity and you have to wait it isn't because doctors in countries with universally paid insurance are terrible, but because they're dealing with patients. It's a sad inconvenience that it happens in many countries, but the collateral damage of 11 percent of your people having no health insurance (or, if current regulations are removed, likely many more) exceeds that inconvenience. The fact you're not doing a line may reflect structural efficiency, but those people not being able to receive appointments have a role in that as well. Coverage usually does equal healthcare to the millions of people whose counterparts in America don't get care.

 

[Mad Jack]

Public school costs less than private, wrong. Maybe you didn't know this, but public schools are funded by taxpayers. Look up the rate paid for each student and compare it to the tuition of a local school. It actually costs less to send students to private schools. And lets not forget about quality, public schools suck, plain and simple. There is a reason why much of the upper class does not send their children to public schools. The public school system serves one group of individuals, the teacher unions (NOT the students).

The average cost per student at public high schools in my state is $16,249, while the average private school cost per student is $31,629.

You're literally just pulling words out of your angus and not even using facts.

 

[Panthersfan25]

Says a guy who clearly hasn't researched the many models of care out there.

In some countries, the government guarantees so little that private insurance is a must. In others, it provides so much that private insurance is a rarity. I'm simply stating it is the right of a people to demand it of their social contract, should they reach the point where such a thing can be demanded. What it ultimately looks like is determined by the representatives elected by those people. How well it works is also determined by those representatives in a republic.

Typical talking point, because I disagree with you I must be an uneducated idiot who just doesn't understand and isn't capable of understanding.

It is also the right of people to demand we stay away from Bernie's universal care. The citizens of this country made that rather clear November 8, 2016.

 

[Panthersfan25]

The average cost per student at public high schools in my state is $16,249, while the average private school cost per student is $31,629.

You're literally just pulling words out of your angus and not even using facts.

You're simply dumb if you believe those are the average numbers for the whole country. Locally (my region), public school for K-8 is 8900 per student and private comes in at 2400-3800. You will notice the academic performance isn't even comparable, private school students do significantly better.

 

[Panthersfan25]

I don't think the scarcity is as bad as your hyperbolic example puts it, but even if there's scarcity and you have to wait it isn't because doctors in countries with universally paid insurance are terrible, but because they're dealing with patients. It's a sad inconvenience that it happens in many countries, but the collateral damage of 11 percent of your people having no health insurance (or, if current regulations are removed, likely many more) exceeds that inconvenience. The fact you're not doing a line may reflect structural efficiency, but those people not being able to receive appointments have a role in that as well. Coverage usually does equal healthcare to the millions of people whose counterparts in America don't get care.

My example may be a bit on the extreme side and intentionally so to illustrate a point, but the point is that healthcare resources are wasted when people utilize them unnecessarily. The emergency department is the perfect example. A disproportionate number of medicaid recipients come in because it doesn't cost them more than scheduling an appointment with their PCP. The difference is they often get an extensive and unnecessary work up for belly pain.

 

[Mad Jack]

Typical talking point, because I disagree with you I must be an uneducated idiot who just doesn't understand and isn't capable of understanding.

It is also the right of people to demand we stay away from Bernie's universal care. The citizens of this country made that rather clear November 8, 2016.

They can demand what they want either way. I've made my feelings perfectly clear- people can have Medicaid for all so long as I'm not compelled to accept it.

 

[goatmed]

My example may be a bit on the extreme side and intentionally so to illustrate a point, but the point is that healthcare resources are wasted when people utilize them unnecessarily. The emergency department is the perfect example. A disproportionate number of medicaid recipients come in because it doesn't cost them more than scheduling an appointment with their PCP. The difference is they often get an extensive and unnecessary work up for belly pain.

If it costs them more to get into PCP than ER then perhaps the problem is that the price incentives are wrong, these are different obstacles and not inherent of care. It's also worth mentioning that ridiculous ER visits are a much more odd phenomenon in most of those countries with universal care, because they generally have a PCP. And even if resources aren't allocated as efficiently as they could be, -not that the U.S. is anything close in efficiency to its European counterparts- I reiterate, the structural burden of covering everyone still accounts for a lot less suffering than the structural burden of not guaranteeing anything for populations in need.

 

[Mad Jack]

You're simply dumb if you believe those are the average numbers for the whole country. Locally (my region), public school for K-8 is 8900 per student and private comes in at 2400-3800. You will notice the academic performance isn't even comparable, private school students do significantly better.

Actually my state has some of the best school districts in the country, with public systems that put most private systems to shame. My draw literally dropped at some of the public school facilities and curricula when I first moved here. The majority of the private schools are second rate-we've got hundreds, and only about three dozen are worth skipping public for if you live in a good district, but those three dozen have tuitions that rival the Ivy League.

 

[Panthersfan25]

They can demand what they want either way. I've made my feelings perfectly clear- people can have Medicaid for all so long as I'm not compelled to accept it.

Why not, you have to accept it? If every healthcare provider decides not to accept it, then these medicaid recipients won't receive healthcare, which is undoubtedly their right according to you. And back to one of my main points, what good is coverage if it doesn't provide access to care?

 

[Panthersfan25]

If it costs them more to get into PCP than ER then perhaps the problem is that the price incentives are wrong, these are different obstacles and not inherent of care. It's also worth mentioning that ridiculous ER visits are a much more odd phenomenon in most of those countries with universal care, because they generally have a PCP. And even if resources aren't allocated as efficiently as they could be, -not that the U.S. is anything close in efficiency to its European counterparts- I reiterate, the structural burden of covering everyone still accounts for a lot less suffering than the structural burden of not guaranteeing anything for populations in need.

I reiterate these "structural burdens" you speak of are purely fantasy and not based in reality. Government doesn't do things efficiently.

 

[Mad Jack]

Why not, you have to accept it? If every healthcare provider decides not to accept it, then these medicaid recipients won't receive healthcare, which is undoubtedly their right according to you. And back to one of my main points, what good is coverage if it doesn't provide access to care?

If no one is willing to accept it, rates have to increase until people are willing to offer services in exchange for reasonable rates. There's several European systems that basically operate on that principle.

 

[Panthersfan25]

Actually my state has some of the best school districts in the country, with public systems that put most private systems to shame. My draw literally dropped at some of the public school facilities and curricula when I first moved here. The majority of the private schools are second rate-we've got hundreds, and only about three dozen are worth skipping public for if you live in a good district, but those three dozen have tuitions that rival the Ivy League.

You're a fool if you think that is believable. First, most states will say they have "some of the best school districts in the country" as that statement is entirely subjective and worthless. Furthermore, "put most private systems to shame" is a further example of the type of garbage you are spewing. maybe if you pick up your jaw and actually think instead of being told how to think you would see that private schools are better. Neither point adds real value to your argument. Are people where you live idiots? Are you telling me they are paying $31,629 (your earlier post) to send their children to schools that are inferior, and according to you, vastly inferior? Seriously, are you in Colorado? Is the weed affecting your judgement and those around you?

The beauty of private schools is they have to be better because no one with functioning neurons will PAY MONEY to send their child to an inferior school (second rate as you stated) when the public school is free.

Your statements are about as believable as @LizzyM when she states that Cuba has wonderful primary care. People like you take this type of ignorant rhetoric as gospel. Think for yourself, man (or woman), think!!

 

[goatmed]

I reiterate these "structural burdens" you speak of are purely fantasy and not based in reality. Government doesn't do things efficiently.

You seem to either be contradicting yourself (unlikely) or not familiar with what I meant with "structural burdens." By this I meant the sources of inefficiency that are built into the system. If the system has inefficiency, it has those structural burdens.
As to whether it is or isn't more efficient, the data speaks for itself. I wanted to give you two links in regard to this, but I guess if you want the source you'll have to search "healthcare outcomes index" by yourself because I haven't been a user for 10 days

A handful of countries across the Atlantic (and Pacific!) have much better spendingutcome ratios than us (in fact, a lot do)




EDIT: Another piece of a link I cannot share! Not that a comparison between public and private schools is more adequate than comparing healthcare systems outright for this discussion (we're talking about healthcare here!)

 

[Mad Jack]

You're a fool if you think that is believable. First, most states will say they have "some of the best school districts in the country" as that statement is entirely subjective and worthless. Furthermore, "put most private systems to shame" is a further example of the type of garbage you are spewing. maybe if you pick up your jaw and actually think instead of being told how to think you would see that private schools are better. Neither point adds real value to your argument. Are people where you live idiots? Are you telling me they are paying $31,629 (your earlier post) to send their children to schools that are inferior, and according to you, vastly inferior? Seriously, are you in Colorado? Is the weed affecting your judgement and those around you?

The beauty of private schools is they have to be better because no one with functioning neurons will PAY MONEY to send their child to an inferior school (second rate as you stated) when the public school is free.

Your statements are about as believable as @LizzyM when she states that Cuba has wonderful primary care. People like you take this type of ignorant rhetoric as gospel. Think for yourself, man (or woman), think!!

Look up New Canaan and Westport. Out of tens of thousands of schools in the country, they're consistently ranked in the top 20 or so public institutions. Many, many more schools in this tiny state crack the top 100. Per capita, you couldn't ask for better public school opportunities. The reason people send their kids to private school is, quite simply, to put them with what they believe to be a less troublesome, more affluent group of peers, or because they can't afford to live in a good district to begin with.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

You're simply dumb if you believe those are the average numbers for the whole country. Locally (my region), public school for K-8 is 8900 per student and private comes in at 2400-3800. You will notice the academic performance isn't even comparable, private school students do significantly better.

My state's per-student spending hovers between 8-10k/year. Most private schools are between 15-20k.

That state just north averages 12k per student but private schools are between 20-30k.

State just south lines up more with my state.

You're wrong on this score. Per student, private schools cost more.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So my question is what do you think of what he's proposing? That we deregulate the coverage and introduce competition. He says that this will drive down the costs.

It absolutely will and there are scores of real world examples to prove it.

 

[deleted480308]

My state's per-student spending hovers between 8-10k/year. Most private schools are between 15-20k.

That state just north averages 12k per student but private schools are between 20-30k.

State just south lines up more with my state.

You're wrong on this score. Per student, private schools cost more.

Are we talking private high school or college? Lots of private high schools in the 5-8k range

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Are we talking private high school or college? Lots of private high schools in the 5-8k range

High school. The only ones I see for less than 15k are affiliated with a church that subsidizes the cost.

 

[deleted480308]

High school. The only ones I see for less than 15k are affiliated with a church that subsidizes the cost.

It's only fair to admit the $20k schools are likely better but I've been on staff to see the books of 2 church schools <$7k and they both broke even despite being billed portions of utilities/maintenance/mortgage/vehicles etc

 

[deleted480308]

It's only fair to admit the $20k schools are likely better but I've been on staff to see the books of 2 church schools <$7k and they both broke even despite being billed portions of utilities/maintenance/mortgage/vehicles etc

But no extensive athletics, basically bball soccer and cheerleading

 

[Panthersfan25]

Look up New Canaan and Westport. Out of tens of thousands of schools in the country, they're consistently ranked in the top 20 or so public institutions. Many, many more schools in this tiny state crack the top 100. Per capita, you couldn't ask for better public school opportunities. The reason people send their kids to private school is, quite simply, to put them with what they believe to be a less troublesome, more affluent group of peers, or because they can't afford to live in a good district to begin with.

Yes, there are exceptions. By definition, exceptions are not the normal. People send their children to private schools because they want a good education for their child. The majority of public school environments are not good for education, they more closely resemble a child care setting. Your reasoning for why people send their children to private schools is wrong, not surprisingly. Again, the quality received at private schools often can't come close to public schools as it greatly exceeds it. The best part of private schools, teachers can be fired. Yes, that is right, unlike public schools which have teacher welfare to ensure even the most ineffective and lazy teachers can't be fired once they reach tenure.

 

[Panthersfan25]

You seem to either be contradicting yourself (unlikely) or not familiar with what I meant with "structural burdens." By this I meant the sources of inefficiency that are built into the system. If the system has inefficiency, it has those structural burdens.
As to whether it is or isn't more efficient, the data speaks for itself. I wanted to give you two links in regard to this, but I guess if you want the source you'll have to search "healthcare outcomes index" by yourself because I haven't been a user for 10 days

A handful of countries across the Atlantic (and Pacific!) have much better spendingutcome ratios than us (in fact, a lot do)




EDIT: Another piece of a link I cannot share! Not that a comparison between public and private schools is more adequate than comparing healthcare systems outright for this discussion (we're talking about healthcare here!)

Healthcare outcomes isn't necessarily the best way to measure healthcare in terms of spending or quality. There is tremendous variability between populations that these garbage assessments don't take into account. Also, further research would likely verify that these outcomes are not measured consistently for each country. For example, the overall healthiness of a country. The substantial obesity level in the US, too much food in our country which is a first world problem not seen in many other countries. Efficiency doesn't directly translate to outcomes. Measuring outcomes is mostly stupid. We should measure the services needed for our country, ya know, the US patient population, and meet those needs. We are the greatest country on earth and we can improve our healthcare system without modeling after other countries (we already have the best healthcare in the world). No level of free healthcare is going to change the behavior of a population. Given the incredible obesity problem and all the comorbidities associated with it, our country does a pretty damn good job at allowing people to live a long time. Again, we have the best healthcare in the world and DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TO A MODEL FROM ANOTHER LESSER COUNTRY (like Cuba, as @LizzyM would suggest). America first. America is the greatest country on earth.

 

[LizzyM]

DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TO A MODEL FROM ANOTHER LESSER COUNTRY (like Cuba, as @LizzyM would suggest). America first. America is the greatest country on earth.

I never suggested that we change to a Cuban model of health care delivery. Cuba does have an efficient system for primary care but one that would never fly here because it is too intrusive and, dare I say, dictatorial.

The substantial obesity level in the US, too much food in our country which is a first world problem not seen in many other countries.

It is a problem in many parts of the world, and for a variety of reasons.
29 Most Obese Countries In The World

 

[Mad Jack]

Yes, there are exceptions. By definition, exceptions are not the normal. People send their children to private schools because they want a good education for their child. The majority of public school environments are not good for education, they more closely resemble a child care setting. Your reasoning for why people send their children to private schools is wrong, not surprisingly. Again, the quality received at private schools often can't come close to public schools as it greatly exceeds it. The best part of private schools, teachers can be fired. Yes, that is right, unlike public schools which have teacher welfare to ensure even the most ineffective and lazy teachers can't be fired once they reach tenure.

Except the most recent analysis I found noted that when you control for socioeconomic status, private schools provide zero benefit to educational outcome measures.

 

[deleted480308]

Except the most recent analysis I found noted that when you control for socioeconomic status, private schools provide zero benefit to educational outcome measures.

I'd be interested in reading that....

I also think a portion of private school choice is getting some religious influence and getting your kid in a place you might think is safer or a place where the avg vibe is more college/success oriented.....I wouldn't say it's all higher SAT scores

 

[Panthersfan25]

Except the most recent analysis I found noted that when you control for socioeconomic status, private schools provide zero benefit to educational outcome measures.

You and your "outcomes" BS statistics. Outcomes are selected based on preference and are often totally biased, regardless of what is being studied. Don't tell me outcomes are the same, more of you spewing illogical crap. Private schools have higher standardized test scores and a higher rate of students going to college, so yes, there is a difference. And there is a higher rate of actually graduating from college.

http://www.capenet.org/pdf/Outlook392.pdf

 

[Panthersfan25]

I never suggested that we change to a Cuban model of health care delivery. Cuba does have an efficient system for primary care but one that would never fly here because it is too intrusive and, dare I say, dictatorial.


It is a problem in many parts of the world, and for a variety of reasons.
29 Most Obese Countries In The World

It is just insulting that you make these false statements about Cuban Healthcare, especially considering you claim to be an admission faculty from an American medical school. Cuban's system may be efficient, but that is because of the horrible treatment and neglect of their citizens. Why do you "dare" to say dictatorial? That is the reality of that country which is ran by horrible dictators who don't care even the slightest about the healthcare of the citizens. The Cuban government is horrible. There is nothing good about Cuban healthcare. I personally know two American doctors who came to the US as children from Cuba, they share none of your fantasy thoughts about Cuba. They lived it, they know how horrible it is. It is awful and I think we should threaten military action if they don't change their tune, horrible horrible life for Cubans. That is the reality and it is insulting to American physicians and especially Cuban citizens that you spew this type of nonsense.

 

[Mad Jack]

You and your "outcomes" BS statistics. Outcomes are selected based on preference and are often totally biased, regardless of what is being studied. Don't tell me outcomes are the same, more of you spewing illogical crap. Private schools have higher standardized test scores and a higher rate of students going to college, so yes, there is a difference. And there is a higher rate of actually graduating from college.

http://www.capenet.org/pdf/Outlook392.pdf

That's because you're comparing all private schools against all public schools. This does not mean that all private schools are better than all public schools, it merely means that, on average, private schools are better. For example, Greenwich has an average SAT score of 1250, which would put it in the middle of the pack when compared with private schools in the state. The top private schools are far above and beyond Greenwich, however, but they have a hefty price tag associated with them. Hopkins, for example, costs $41,000 per year, almost two times as much as Greenwich's $21,667 per student per year (and far less than that is paid by each parent due to the tax burden being spread to all property owners in the town).

 

[goatmed]

Healthcare outcomes isn't necessarily the best way to measure healthcare in terms of spending or quality. There is tremendous variability between populations that these garbage assessments don't take into account. Also, further research would likely verify that these outcomes are not measured consistently for each country. For example, the overall healthiness of a country. The substantial obesity level in the US, too much food in our country which is a first world problem not seen in many other countries. Efficiency doesn't directly translate to outcomes. Measuring outcomes is mostly stupid. We should measure the services needed for our country, ya know, the US patient population, and meet those needs. We are the greatest country on earth and we can improve our healthcare system without modeling after other countries (we already have the best healthcare in the world). No level of free healthcare is going to change the behavior of a population. Given the incredible obesity problem and all the comorbidities associated with it, our country does a pretty damn good job at allowing people to live a long time. Again, we have the best healthcare in the world and DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TO A MODEL FROM ANOTHER LESSER COUNTRY (like Cuba, as @LizzyM would suggest). America first. America is the greatest country on earth.

I'd like to respond by parts. Sorry if it lengthens my post a bit

Healthcare outcomes isn't necessarily the best way to measure healthcare in terms of spending or quality. There is tremendous variability between populations that these garbage assessments don't take into account. Also, further research would likely verify that these outcomes are not measured consistently for each country.

First, we were just talking about efficiency when you said

Government doesn't do things efficiently.

I was pointing that you're factually wrong in this assumption since most government-run universal coverage systems in developed countries have more efficient outcomes for their spending thn us.

Second, the outcomes are based on DALYs and a few other fairly standard and consistent measurements.

For example, the overall healthiness of a country. The substantial obesity level in the US, too much food in our country which is a first world problem not seen in many other countries. Efficiency doesn't directly translate to outcomes. Measuring outcomes is mostly stupid

Efficiency doesn't translate to outcomes, outcomes translate to efficiency. And, many of the countries which have a larger mortality toll from non-communicable diseases (like hypertension, obesity, diabetes, you name it) still rank significantly more efficient in outcomes vs spending

Not to imply that Ecuador and Peru have good healthcare frameworks, but Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, which have the ability to fund such good healthcare, use a public system and STILL spend less than us in both absolute and per capita terms. That is, they're spending less than us per person, and despite having a larger proportion of people dying from non-communicable diseases they have better outcomes. The point I'm trying to drive here is that there's a strong element to our problem that isn't just the fact a large fraction of our population eats too many calories for their own good. Our healthcare is known for its inefficiency.

We should measure the services needed for our country, ya know, the US patient population, and meet those needs.

Totally, but 11% of our population has none such needs met. And this is after regulations lowered that number since 2010 (it has risen after a trough about halfway since, at about 8.6%.) This is a problem that countries which spend less per person don't struggle with, even after having a lot of fat people (the U.K. for instance, doesn't appear in these non-cummulative charts because it's placed a whole rung above the healthcare system of the U.S. and the other charted countries in terms of outcomes, AND it has 29.8% obesity rate which is only 5.20% under the U.S. according to Worldatlas (another link I cannot share until Friday). I struggle to believe a 5.20% larger obesity burden makes us spend over twice as much as them per head.

No level of free healthcare is going to change the behavior of a population. Given the incredible obesity problem and all the comorbidities associated with it, our country does a pretty damn good job at allowing people to live a long time.

See the last two sentences above. Also, it's quite relative. We're doing a nice job compared to most of Latin America, Africa and a lot of the ME and SA (not all, obviously) depending on what measure you use, but Western European countries seem to produce a much better service to society by most measures.

No level of free healthcare is going to change the behavior of a population.

But the population's behavior isn't what we want to fix with healthcare, though it would be nice to do so. There is much more than population behavior making Americans suffer, and for a population above 33 million there are many other health concerns than obesity which could be addressed with health coverage. I also think it's disingenuous to just blame fat people for national issues that affect people regardless of weight

Again, we have the best healthcare in the world and DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TO A MODEL FROM ANOTHER LESSER COUNTRY (like Cuba, as @LizzyM would suggest). America first. America is the greatest country on earth.

I don't care about what you consider lesser or how you rank countries or how patriotic you are, but I'll tell you that typing DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE TO A MODEL FROM A LESSER COUNTRY makes you sound like someone appealing to emotions and not facts to make his case. If you won't resort to that, I'm sure we can have a much less polemic conversation of better quality. Thanks in advance.