Health Care

Willaim Thurber - PhD Student thurber at FMGMT.MGMT.UTORONTO.CA
Thu Sep 7 18:27:20 MDT 1995


Paul--
 
>         Please don't say that I result to ad hominem or implying ad hominem.
>         I do not, and did not.  In re-reading my statement above, I cannot
>         detect the implication you say I make.
 
Check your electronic memory, in a previous post you implied that Cdn
docs can't make a living up here.
>
>         When you only look at income without looking at expenses, then those
>         large salaries do seem high.  Education costs and other expenses
>         deferred until earning power reaches the $100-200K level take an
>         unearthly bite out of income.  A global look at a doctor's economic
>         picture is in order.
 
You are off base here, education costs less here, and doctors do not need
excess staff or outside agents to collect fees.  For example, my GP
operates with one part-time staffer to make appointments, process the
payments etc.  This is a major reason for the cost difference lack of
administrative overhead.
 
>         Then there are the premiums for malpractice insurance.  If we can
>         agree that the argument to focus on is one of "cost control" and
>         not "identification of administrator," then we should attack the
>         litigious society we live in (in the USA) and the sharks that
>         insure the environment remains in place--lawyers!
 
Good point!  Perhaps a socialized system will not work because you need a
society where litigation is not as great a threat.  But you are not
suggesting placing limits on the freedom to sue are you?  I am not sure
that I could support that, but I don't have a solution to that problem.
 
> |>         The payroll tax for medicaid that I pay does not pay for my health
> |>         care.  My health care is provided by a system of my own choosing.
> |>         That is a choice I am free to make and you are not.
> |
> |As previously noted we pay the same health tax, you get nothing and have
> |a reason to be proud of that (because it is a sign of success in the US)
> |I on the other hand get cradle to grave coverage.  What's not to compare?
>
>         GAO computations show that adopting a government-run health care
>         system similar to Canada's is not sustainable on revenues raised
>         from present payroll taxes.  Your premise of paying the same
>         health tax, therefore, is flawed.
 
Given current costs I concur, but we agreed that this involves cost
control.  It is difficult to isolate the portion of the tax bill from all
the other government services, but we can still compare the systems from
a standpoint of the marginal difference.  ie If you/I did not have
medicaid/OHIP we would see our tax burden fall by about the same amount.
 
>         The contemptuous statement of pride and sign of success in the US
>         is beneath any responsible comment.
>
Cindy flamed me here too.  I really did not intend to offend nor did I
mean this in a snide contemptuous way, but I am at a loss to understand why
being in a position not to ever have to use medicaid is not a sign of
success.
 
>         Your cradle-to-grave care is born on the backs of those who are
>         healthy enough to never use the system.  Seems like incentive to
>         smoke, drink, and grow fat!  "Not to worry, the government will
>         take care of me."
>
>         Require hospitalization after driving into a tree after a six-pack?
>         No problem!  Government to the rescue.
 
If smoking and or drinking and getting fat and or driving into a tree
were comfortable or fashionable alternative then we would have a
problem.
 
> |>         "Why would we want to" is another strawman--the argument is freedom
> |>         that we have that you don't!  I've made the point.
> |>
> |
> |Guilty as charged.  A by-product of my enthusiasm for this system, if it
> |were perfect "why would I want to" is valid.  I apologize for a) precluding
> |a better system and b) incorrectly assuming our system was perfect.
>
>         Validity's still not the question.  Admitting to one strawman by
>         offering another one!  I'd rather see mention of straying from
>         the argument of "freedom that we have that you don't" than the
>         two-headed strawman apology!
 
Settle down!  Go sing Hakuta Matata with your kids 5 times.  If you don't
have any you can borrow mine.  :)  You are just about the first guy I've
met who gets angry when during the course of a reasoned argument his
opponent acknowledges a fallacy and apologizes.
 
--Will



More information about the Rushtalk mailing list