[macabre]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

Hmm, I haven't heard of that. Was there some study that followed the implementation of single-payer healthcare in a country?

Sorry, I was using regression speak. I meant if you compare multi-payer to single-payer systems, then...

[David87]

I think Canada is more heavily weighted towards the government side of things though, is it not? At least compared to Australia...I think. Though I think the Australian government subsidises the premiums for private health insurance, or at elast part of them.

They also levy an extra 1% tax if you are deemed well off enough to purchase private health insurance, but do not do so. They have that line set at an income of $100,000 now.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by macabre

Sorry, I was using regression speak.

I know, but a comparison across countries would surely not account for thousands of possible confounding factors (some of which were noted in those charts above). That's why unless it was done over a range of time periods from the same country, I would challenge its credibility.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by David87

I think Canada is more heavily weighted towards the government side of things though, is it not? At least compared to Australia...I think. Though I think the Australian government subsidises the premiums for private health insurance, or at elast part of them.

They also levy an extra 1% tax if you are deemed well off enough to purchase private health insurance, but do not do so. They have that line set at an income of $100,000 now.

Yes, but the Canadian government does not cover vision or dental, for example. So people get supplemental insurance from their employer if they have a job that provides it.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

I know, but a comparison across countries would surely not account for thousands of possible confounding factors. That's why unless it was done over a range of time periods from the same country, I would challenge its credibility.

But it is an empirical regularity that single-payer systems, across cultures and continents, tend to be on the cheaper side when compared to multi-payer systems. I will check whether any time-series studies exist on the topic but it is worth noting that economies of scale, better risk pooling, and less money being spent on administrative costs should, in theory, reduce premiums.

[David87]

Hmm....I see. I any event, I support a mixed approach to the health care problem. I think it promotes competition and allows for costs to come down, which benefits everybody.

[Scrandon]

Originally Posted by macabre

But it is an empirical regularity that single-payer systems, across cultures and continents, tend to be on the cheaper side when compared to multi-payer systems. I will check whether any time-series studies exist on the topic but it is worth noting that economies of scale, better risk pooling, and less money being spent on administrative costs should, in theory, reduce premiums.

I mean, it's possible that a health system that covers an entire country could enter diseconomies of scale. But yes, the administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies could probably be put to better use. Keep in mind, the study I cited claims that the U.S. and Canada have roughly similar health outcomes even though we spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, compared to Canada's 11%.

[macabre]

Originally Posted by Scrandon

I mean, it's possible that a health system that covers an entire country could enter diseconomies of scale. But yes, the administrative costs and profits of private insurance companies could probably be put to better use. Keep in mind, the study I cited claims that the U.S. and Canada have roughly similar health outcomes even though we spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, compared to Canada's 11%.

Yeah, that's interesting. Although the Canadian system might not necessarily lead to better outcomes, it is definitely cheaper.

You might be interested in this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...68851003000502

[Alou]

Originally Posted by tdunks523

i like romney, we need obama out of office cause it has shown that he is an AWFUL LEADER! all he knows how to do is campaign and give speeches. Pres Bush raised the debt ceiling no problem when he needed to because he was a good leader. we need a moderate republican, like romney. not some extreme liberal or for that matter extreme conservative, like bachman. for god sakes, obama wasn't even siding with his senate about the debt ceiling. he's an idiot who has gotten nothing done and this country while has made little progress, his policies have had nothing to do with it. his stupid stimulus package was a bust and he claims that he's creating so many jobs but he's not. everyone with a brain knows that presidents have nothing to do with the economy so i don't know why he's trying to take any credit for it rebounding somewhat. especially when the unemployment rate is still so high. i am a firm believer that we need to vote all the incumbents, republican or democrat outta office too. vote romney in for pres then have all new people in the house and senate that are up for re-election. we need to show our leaders that they can't get away with this anymore. i know this rant was pretty random but overall, i am a romney supporter

...what the fuck?

[tdunks523]

Originally Posted by Alou

...what the fuck?

pres obama can't lead which is why the senate and house don't respect him so when he wanted to raise the debt ceiling it took till the last possible day for it to happen

[tdunks523]

Originally Posted by J.C.

Go blow a goat.

huh

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Originally Posted by tdunks523

pres obama can't lead which is why the senate and house don't respect him so when he wanted to raise the debt ceiling it took till the last possible day for it to happen

Congress was made up of mostly Republicans for most of Bush's two terms. Thanks to the Republican takeover of the House at the beginning of the year, they've become more stubborn regarding compromising the Obama administration.

[The Personist]

Originally Posted by tdunks523

pres obama can't lead which is why the senate and house don't respect him so when he wanted to raise the debt ceiling it took till the last possible day for it to happen

I just want to make it clear that this is bullshit and has nothing to do with Obama's leadership. There is plenty that has gotten done during his term, notwithstanding the ridiculous demands of the Republican party, whose various forced compromises have actually pulled us further to the right than we were before in some areas. I saw, though, on Maddow, that Obama has accomplished 85% of his agenda within 2 years. That's pretty damn good. I am very, very far to the left, and he has disappointed me in many regards. However, setting aside my partisanship, I still think he's a good president and I want him to stay around for a second term.

As for the debt ceiling, when the most recent Congress was sworn in, many conservatives conceived of it as a mandate in favor of the Tea Party's bullshit conservatism. As such, spineless whelp John Boehner ran to where the money was in the far right. He swore, back in January, that there would be hell to pay when it came time to raise the debt ceiling. This has nothing to do with Obama. It is a Republican promise that there would be a knock-down, drag-out fight. So don't go blaming Obama for that which was out of his control. There is plenty of reason to be frustrated with him, but I'd rather be frustrated than dismal and depressed.

[tdunks523]

Originally Posted by Jake Gyllenhaal

Congress was made up of mostly Republicans for most of Bush's two terms. Thanks to the Republican takeover of the House at the beginning of the year, they've become more stubborn regarding compromising the Obama administration.

during the last part of pres bush's term it was basically all democrat. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500803_1...28-500803.html
that arrticle is published in 08 when democrats con trolled congress

[tdunks523]

Originally Posted by The Personist

I just want to make it clear that this is bullshit and has nothing to do with Obama's leadership. There is plenty that has gotten done during his term, notwithstanding the ridiculous demands of the Republican party, whose various forced compromises have actually pulled us further to the right than we were before in some areas. I saw, though, on Maddow, that Obama has accomplished 85% of his agenda within 2 years. That's pretty damn good. I am very, very far to the left, and he has disappointed me in many regards. However, setting aside my partisanship, I still think he's a good president and I want him to stay around for a second term.

As for the debt ceiling, when the most recent Congress was sworn in, many conservatives conceived of it as a mandate in favor of the Tea Party's bullshit conservatism. As such, spineless whelp John Boehner ran to where the money was in the far right. He swore, back in January, that there would be hell to pay when it came time to raise the debt ceiling. This has nothing to do with Obama. It is a Republican promise that there would be a knock-down, drag-out fight. So don't go blaming Obama for that which was out of his control. There is plenty of reason to be frustrated with him, but I'd rather be frustrated than dismal and depressed.

he's gotten all this done with a huge majority in the house and senate so stop saying he's such a great leader when he had all the help in the world. Bush got alot done to when rapublicans controlled congress so that's a fail. So republicans have ridicoulous demands but democrats don't? Do you watch anything besaide cnbc? This whole health care thing came at such an awful time. don't push your own agenda whhen the economy is in a recession and americans keep losing their job. When Clintion tried reforming health care, which failed obviously, It was when the economy was great and that's why people weren't so mad about it like they are now. Also, our government is based on compromise, both parties compromising with eachother. which is why, as a republican, i can admit that was one of pres bush's failures. he's too conservative. it's also one of obama'a failures too, being too left. The tea party also is way too conservative. but, Boehner had to compormise with his party in order to get the votes needed to pass his plan for raising the debt ceiling. which is more than any democrat could say because they just sat and watched republicans come up with ideas while they sat and did nothing. And to your last point, If Obama was really such a good leader, he could have compromised and got a deal done way before the deadline. but he's not so it turned into a "knock-down, drag-out fight". But he didn't because he's so leftist and doesn't care about anything except his own political agenda.