Will: The Case for Conservatism

[Patronus Potter]

The Washington Post has a wide range of views on its op-ed page, and fortunately they still have one conservative who is not a neocon hack spinmeister (Gerson) or a total pompous, self-righteous douchebag (Novak). Today Will tries to show the superiority of conservative philosophy in a very general sense.

Conservatism's recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals -- freedom and equality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053002026.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

While elevating conservatism to the noblest and most logical stance (without providing real-world evidence) he reduces "liberalism" to a straw man and sticks labels to it, again without backing up his assertions.

Liberals tend, however, to infer unequal opportunities from the fact of unequal outcomes... Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility.

To write in such vague language, to paint with such a broad brush without consulting any actual examples and results of real-world governments in action, convinces me that his conservative philosophy is actually so much hot gas. To rail against "entitlement", "nanny-state", universal health care and the boogeyman of big government without reference to actual countries is pathetic. He even goes so far as to say that "conservatism is realism".

How can he make such a statement while ignoring the obvious fact that in America, the richest of the rich and their powerful corporations make the policies of the land and have disparaged the welfare of the general population throughout the country's history? - AND the fact that the social democracies of modern Europe have the highest quality of life in the world?

This absurd column reminds me of a quote from one of my other favorite philosophers:

I asked you to show me what you know - and you did - Not a damn thing! Your so-called kung fu - is really - quite pathetic!


ETA: The comments on the WP site responding to this column are really good.

[Aeron]

It is an interesting article, to be sure. Will isn't a bad guy, and I generally find his argument at least thought-provoking, even if I disagree with him. That being said, these are the types or argument I like to see (except for his broad generalization about "liberalism," which really does seem to be a strawman in this case). On to the article itself


Conservatism's recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals -- freedom and equality.

Lots to chew on here. First, which party, exactly, is the conservative one? Secondly, I think freedom and equality are smallish red-herrings here, as the crux of his argument would indicate that the issues are somewhat different. I would argue what he addresses are capitalism and society, not freedom and equality. In fact, what he seems to address most in the article is fiscal conservatism, which I think many professed "liberals" would agree with.


This reasoning is congruent with conservatism's argument that excessively benevolent government is not a benefactor, and that capitalism does not merely make people better off, it makes them better. Liberalism once argued that large corporate entities of industrial capitalism degraded individuals by breeding dependence, passivity and servility. Conservatism challenges liberalism's blindness about the comparable dangers from the biggest social entity, government.

Again, I am not sure to what he is referring. This whole article seems somewhat surreal. Does capitalism make some people better, yes. Does it make some people worse, yep. It also makes some people better and worse off. I think it would be much more difficult for Will to extol the virtues of capitalism were he working in McDonalds for $7.00 an hour, though.

I would also argue that I have never, EVER, heard anyone (liberal or otherwise) talk about how wonderful the government is and that it can take care of everything perfectly. The argument, as I have always heard it, is that there are certain things that capitalism does not deal with very well, and the government has an obligation to care for it's people.



All in all, interesting article and worthy of discussion. But I expect better than these generalization and strawmen from Will

[Gamera]

Modern conservatism is morally and politically bankrupt. The article is virtually delusional. If you look at the POLICIES of modern conservatism, they are all directed at fomenting financial insecurity for working Americans, thus reducing their negotiating power for wages, thus reducing wages (or limited increases), thus producing larger profits for corporations and the wealthy top 1%.

That's why conservatives want to destroy social security. That's why conservaitves are against universal medical insurance. That's why conservatives are for outsourcing. That's why conservative only pretend to be against illegal immigration, but promote by allowing CEOs of large corporation to hire illegal workers on a massive scale with impunity. That's why conservatives are against tariffs.

In every case, conservative policy is designed to produce cheap labor and a third-world type econonmy.

Modern conservatism is cheap labor conservatism, and nothing else.

[boneyard bill]

The Washington Post has a wide range of views on its op-ed page, and fortunately they still have one conservative who is not a neocon hack spinmeister (Gerson) or a total pompous, self-righteous douchebag (Novak). Today Will tries to show the superiority of conservative philosophy in a very general sense.

Conservatism's recovery of its intellectual equilibrium requires a confident explanation of why America has two parties and why the conservative one is preferable. Today's political argument involves perennial themes that give it more seriousness than many participants understand. The argument, like Western political philosophy generally, is about the meaning of, and the proper adjustment of the tension between, two important political goals -- freedom and equality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/30/AR2007053002026.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

While elevating conservatism to the noblest and most logical stance (without providing real-world evidence) he reduces "liberalism" to a straw man and sticks labels to it, again without backing up his assertions.



To write in such vague language, to paint with such a broad brush without consulting any actual examples and results of real-world governments in action, convinces me that his conservative philosophy is actually so much hot gas. To rail against "entitlement", "nanny-state", universal health care and the boogeyman of big government without reference to actual countries is pathetic. He even goes so far as to say that "conservatism is realism".

How can he make such a statement while ignoring the obvious fact that in America, the richest of the rich and their powerful corporations make the policies of the land and have disparaged the welfare of the general population throughout the country's history? - AND the fact that the social democracies of modern Europe have the highest quality of life in the world?

This absurd column reminds me of a quote from one of my other favorite philosophers:

I asked you to show me what you know - and you did - Not a damn thing! Your so-called kung fu - is really - quite pathetic!


ETA: The comments on the WP site responding to this column are really good.

One problem is that the conservatism Will is talking about is the pre-George Bush conservatism of the year 2000. The things he talks about were part of the conservative agenda then, but Bush has abandoned virtually all of them. It is by no means clear that the Republican Party or the conservative movement will pick them up again. Future battles in the Republican Party seem headed toward a foreign policy struggle between neo-cons and realists and a battle over immigration and border security.

But, as Will pointed out, the difference between liberals and conservatives on the welfare state does center on the existence of such programs but on the modalities of their deliverance. Conservatives want more individual choice and less bureaucracy. Liberals want comprehensive government programs. Will does not endorse having no programs at all as you imply.

How can you insist that the rich are calling all the shots when the richest men in the world are liberals? Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, George Soros, are liberal if not downright left-wing in the case of Soros. Have you checked out the pattern of corporate campaign contributions? It usually runs pretty close between the two parties. If there is a significant disparity, it is usually in a very lopsided race where one or the other of the parties is expected to win big. But it doesn't matter which one. Corporate money is "smart money." It goes both ways. So I don't see where the "obvious" situation that George Will has overlooked is so terribly obvious. In fact, it appears to be mostly typican DNC propaganda.

You complain about Will not backing up his claims, but you haven't backed yours up very well. On what basis do you claim that the quality of life is better in Europe? That's a pretty subjective standard, but in any case you need some kind of standard to show that the welfare had anything to do with it.

Having said that, I think George Will's "Case for Conservatism" is really pretty superficial. He doesn't really touch on the themes that actually make conservatism conservative.

[boneyard bill]

Modern conservatism is morally and politically bankrupt. The article is virtually delusional. If you look at the POLICIES of modern conservatism, they are all directed at fomenting financial insecurity for working Americans, thus reducing their negotiating power for wages, thus reducing wages (or limited increases), thus producing larger profits for corporations and the wealthy top 1%.

That's why conservatives want to destroy social security. That's why conservaitves are against universal medical insurance. That's why conservatives are for outsourcing. That's why conservative only pretend to be against illegal immigration, but promote by allowing CEOs of large corporation to hire illegal workers on a massive scale with impunity. That's why conservatives are against tariffs.

In every case, conservative policy is designed to produce cheap labor and a third-world type econonmy.

Modern conservatism is cheap labor conservatism, and nothing else.

All of the "cheap labor" policies that you mention about were advocated by the Clinton Administration and are still advocated by most Democrats today.

Republicans are not against social security. They want to reform it to produce a greater return in preparation for the day when the Trust Fund money runs out.

Nor do Republicans oppose national health care. They opposed the Hillary Clinton plan. (thank God!). Senator Robert Dole had 40 Republican Senators lined up behind an alternative plan that the Clinton's rejected. Admittedly, the Republican plan was less ambitious, but one of the really big problems with the Hillary plan was that it was too ambitious. It was defeated, in case you missed it, by a unanimous vote of the Ways and Means subcommittee to which it had been referred. Even all the Democrats voted against it. But Hillary was the George Bush of her day. She refused to compromise even with many of the Dems who had alternative plans.

[Gamera]

The same old tired rhetoric from Will and the conservative bloviators.

Conservatism is morally bankrupt. It stands for one thing and one thing only: policies that promote cheap labor.

Basically, conservatives want to make the US economy into a third world economy, with a small class of the very wealthy people making all decisions for a large group of minimum wage workers, with little opportunities for education or advancement.

Conservatism is cheap labor conservatism. Nothing else. The rest is just discourse to obsfucate this goal.

[Gamera]

Modern conservatism is morally and politically bankrupt. The article is virtually delusional. If you look at the POLICIES of modern conservatism, they are all directed at fomenting financial insecurity for working Americans, thus reducing their negotiating power for wages, thus reducing wages (or limited increases), thus producing larger profits for corporations and the wealthy top 1%.

That's why conservatives want to destroy social security. That's why conservaitves are against universal medical insurance. That's why conservatives are for outsourcing. That's why conservative only pretend to be against illegal immigration, but promote by allowing CEOs of large corporation to hire illegal workers on a massive scale with impunity. That's why conservatives are against tariffs.

In every case, conservative policy is designed to produce cheap labor and a third-world type econonmy.

Modern conservatism is cheap labor conservatism, and nothing else.

All of the "cheap labor" policies that you mention about were advocated by the Clinton Administration and are still advocated by most Democrats today.

Republicans are not against social security. They want to reform it to produce a greater return in preparation for the day when the Trust Fund money runs out.

Nor do Republicans oppose national health care. They opposed the Hillary Clinton plan. (thank God!). Senator Robert Dole had 40 Republican Senators lined up behind an alternative plan that the Clinton's rejected. Admittedly, the Republican plan was less ambitious, but one of the really big problems with the Hillary plan was that it was too ambitious. It was defeated, in case you missed it, by a unanimous vote of the Ways and Means subcommittee to which it had been referred. Even all the Democrats voted against it. But Hillary was the George Bush of her day. She refused to compromise even with many of the Dems who had alternative plans.

First it's untrue that ALL the cheap labor policies of the right were advocated by the Clinton administration. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, resulting in a the biggest economic expansion in US history.

But regardless, conservatism does indeed stand for cheap labor policies, whether or not Clinton was progressive or not.

Finally, anybody who believes the GOP wants universal health care coverage is fact challenged. They had total power for 6 years, and of course did nothing, except make it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to charge exorbitant prices to medicare patients.

Conservatives hate social security and always have. They want financial instability. That's what drives all their policy goals.

[boneyard bill]

All of the "cheap labor" policies that you mention about were advocated by the Clinton Administration and are still advocated by most Democrats today.

Republicans are not against social security. They want to reform it to produce a greater return in preparation for the day when the Trust Fund money runs out.

Nor do Republicans oppose national health care. They opposed the Hillary Clinton plan. (thank God!). Senator Robert Dole had 40 Republican Senators lined up behind an alternative plan that the Clinton's rejected. Admittedly, the Republican plan was less ambitious, but one of the really big problems with the Hillary plan was that it was too ambitious. It was defeated, in case you missed it, by a unanimous vote of the Ways and Means subcommittee to which it had been referred. Even all the Democrats voted against it. But Hillary was the George Bush of her day. She refused to compromise even with many of the Dems who had alternative plans.

First it's untrue that ALL the cheap labor policies of the right were advocated by the Clinton administration. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, resulting in a the biggest economic expansion in US history.

But regardless, conservatism does indeed stand for cheap labor policies, whether or not Clinton was progressive or not.

Finally, anybody who believes the GOP wants universal health care coverage is fact challenged. They had total power for 6 years, and of course did nothing, except make it easier for the pharmaceutical industry to charge exorbitant prices to medicare patients.

Conservatives hate social security and always have. They want financial instability. That's what drives all their policy goals.

As Mark Twain said, "First get your facts straight. Then you can distort them all you want." What I said was, "all the cheap labor policies you mention" were advocated by the Democrats and still are. This statement is true. Frankly, I don't know all the policies advocated by Republicans or all the policies advocated by Democrats and I doubt that you do either.

Early in his term, Clinton raised taxes on everybody, not just the rich. Democrats have always used taxing the rich as an excuse to raise taxes on everyone. You're not supposed to care that your pocket is being picked because someone else's pocket is being picked more. In his second term, Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains but didn't bother to lower everybody's taxes at that time and that is just about the time the economy experienced its greatest growth.

The latest effort to produce cheap labor, the expansion of immigration, is avidly supported by both the Bush Administration and the Democratic party leadership while organized labor stands passively on the side-lines. The opposition, and it is quite intense, is coming from conservatives Republicans who are in open rebellion against the White House.

First of all, there is a difference between "universal" health care coverage and a national health care plan. You use the terms interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. Secondly, no one was going to touch the issue after the Democrat's debacle in 1994. It's as close as you're going to get to a referendum on the issue, and it lost badly. Third, given the budgetary restraints agreed to by the first Pres. Bush and Congress and accepted by the Clinton Administration, it wasn't possible to put together a health care plan that didn't involve a very substantial tax increase, and the prospective tax increases of the Democrat's proposal probably had a lot to do with their defeat in 1994. And finally, Republicans did expand health care through the prescription drug program under Bush Two who, unfortunately, did not accept the budgetary restraints regime that his father had worked out with Congress. Republicans have always advocated a piece-meal approach to expanding health care coverage which is the position being taken today by John Edwards on the Democrat side and Mitt Romney for the Republicans. I haven't heard about anyone else's plans in that area.

The claim that conservatives want financial instability is too ridiculous even to attempt a coherent response. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Moreover, I can't think of anything that would disqualify for conservatism of just about any stripe than financial instability.

[exile]

Conservatives may not want fiscal instability but are willing to risk it to force governments to cut their budgets.

As for health - I can't say our British system is perfect. However I do wonder if the number of uninsured workers in the USA, and the rising cost of insurance for those that have it, will force a change eventually (though inertia is a powerful force in US politics). Interesting point - USA (without a national health service) spends more tax dollars as a %age of GDP on health than Britain (that has a national health service). And outcomes, measured in terms of longevity and infant mortality, are more or less the same in both countries.

[Gamera]

Conservatives may not want fiscal instability but are willing to risk it to force governments to cut their budgets.

As for health - I can't say our British system is perfect. However I do wonder if the number of uninsured workers in the USA, and the rising cost of insurance for those that have it, will force a change eventually (though inertia is a powerful force in US politics). Interesting point - USA (without a national health service) spends more tax dollars as a %age of GDP on health than Britain (that has a national health service). And outcomes, measured in terms of longevity and infant mortality, are more or less the same in both countries.

Not really. The US has the worse infant mortality rate in the developed world. Further, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, since it is profit driven, with the most perverse incentive -- insurance companies want to PREVENT access to health care since it costs them money. So they have an incentive to develop complex and indecipherable policies, and to reject claims, even when they are valid.

If you wanted to create the most byzantine and least cost effective health care system in the world, you could do no better than what we have in the US.

[Nitrousoxide]

Not really. The US has the worse infant mortality rate in the developed world.


Please, please don't bring this up yet again. We've gone over this at length in the thread on universal health care that's on the first page. Suffice to say, the numbers aren't comparable because of differing definitions.


Further, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, since it is profit driven, with the most perverse incentive -- insurance companies want to PREVENT access to health care since it costs them money. So they have an incentive to develop complex and indecipherable policies, and to reject claims, even when they are valid.


Ya know, our system would be substancially cheaper if we didn't have all of those regulations which prevented other insurence companies from opening up easily. There are so many artificial barriers to entry put in place by the government in that sector of the economy that existing companies can act however they choose without any real affects on their bottom line. They don't need to worry about companies which are new, smaller and more in line with customer desires springing up to compete with them.

[Gamera]

[As Mark Twain said, "First get your facts straight. Then you can distort them all you want." What I said was, "all the cheap labor policies you mention" were advocated by the Democrats and still are. This statement is true. Frankly, I don't know all the policies advocated by Republicans or all the policies advocated by Democrats and I doubt that you do either.

A maxim you need to follow.

Early in his term, Clinton raised taxes on everybody, not just the rich.

Yep, Reagan and Bush left the biggest deficit in histroy and Clinton went about paying for it. That's typical: conservative break the bank by giving tax cuts to the wealthy, and Democrats have to solve the problem. It's happening right now. Again.

Democrats have always used taxing the rich as an excuse to raise taxes on everyone. You're not supposed to care that your pocket is being picked because someone else's pocket is being picked more. In his second term, Clinton lowered taxes on capital gains but didn't bother to lower everybody's taxes at that time and that is just about the time the economy experienced its greatest growth.

Revisionist history on your part.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

In 1993 Clinton attempted to make SS more solvent after years of GOP raiding the till. He created new, higher brackets for individuals and corporations.

In 1997 Clinton reduced capital gains to raise revenue to pay for the Reagan deficit (cap gain reductions result in sell offs as the rich adjust their portfolio, resulting in a one-time revenue boost), provided tax incentives for education and a tax credit for children of $500.

The latest effort to produce cheap labor, the expansion of immigration, is avidly supported by both the Bush Administration and the Democratic party leadership while organized labor stands passively on the side-lines. The opposition, and it is quite intense, is coming from conservatives Republicans who are in open rebellion against the White House.

Unions generally oppose illegal immigration. But the point is the Democrats who support it, do so honestly. The GOP pretends to be against it, but actually support it. The former are wrong. The later are both wrong and hypocritical. See the difference?

First of all, there is a difference between "universal" health care coverage and a national health care plan. You use the terms interchangeably. They are not interchangeable. Secondly, no one was going to touch the issue after the Democrat's debacle in 1994. It's as close as you're going to get to a referendum on the issue, and it lost badly. Third, given the budgetary restraints agreed to by the first Pres. Bush and Congress and accepted by the Clinton Administration, it wasn't possible to put together a health care plan that didn't involve a very substantial tax increase, and the prospective tax increases of the Democrat's proposal probably had a lot to do with their defeat in 1994. And finally, Republicans did expand health care through the prescription drug program under Bush Two who, unfortunately, did not accept the budgetary restraints regime that his father had worked out with Congress. Republicans have always advocated a piece-meal approach to expanding health care coverage which is the position being taken today by John Edwards on the Democrat side and Mitt Romney for the Republicans. I haven't heard about anyone else's plans in that area.

Factually false: the major democratic candidates have proposed universal coverage. The GOP candidates avoid the issue and discuss creationism.

The claim that conservatives want financial instability is too ridiculous even to attempt a coherent response. There is no evidence for it whatsoever. Moreover, I can't think of anything that would disqualify for conservatism of just about any stripe than financial instability.

Privatizing social security, blocking health care reform, promoting outsourcing, promoting illegal immigration, making unionizing harder, huge deficits: all these are conservative policies that result in financial insecurity.

Just a coincidence?

[Gamera]

[
Please, please don't bring this up yet again. We've gone over this at length in the thread on universal health care that's on the first page. Suffice to say, the numbers aren't comparable because of differing definitions.

Yeah, it's really hard to define infant mortality.


Ya know, our system would be substancially cheaper if we didn't have all of those regulations which prevented other insurence companies from opening up easily. There are so many artificial barriers to entry put in place by the government in that sector of the economy that existing companies can act however they choose without any real affects on their bottom line. They don't need to worry about companies which are new, smaller and more in line with customer desires springing up to compete with them.

Yeah, and traffic lights cause traffic.

We tried it your way -- unregulated insurance companies. Guess what: they take people's money and then go bankrupt after enriching the owner. Market fundimentalism is a vast failure. Just like not having traffic lights.

[Nitrousoxide]

Yeah, it's really hard to define infant mortality.

Look at the other thread. The differing definitions allow European and other developed nations to put more babies that died near birth time down as still births, which lowers the rate of infant mortality and also raises their expected life span. It's a trick of defnition. There's no evidence that there is an actual difference between our infant mortality rate and theirs using a single definition.


Yeah, and traffic lights cause traffic.


What are you babbling about? I said that barriers to entry prevent new companies from springing up to compete with companies which do not do a good job of meeting customer demand.

Is there some reasoning mistake there? Could you explain it without making vague arguments by analogy?

[Gamera]

[Look at the other thread. The differing definitions allow European and other developed nations to put more babies that died near birth time down as still births, which lowers the rate of infant mortality and also raises their expected life span. It's a trick of defnition. There's no evidence that there is an actual difference between our infant mortality rate and theirs using a single definition.

First infant mortality rates are increasing in the US, but not in other advanced countries. Second, even taking into consideration the minutiae of weight and length in defining a "life birth," such descepancies in definitions cannot have much impact on the total, given the numbers of death. Japan for instance has half the rate we have. The difference cannot be explained by definitions of life birth based on a few centimeters and grams.


What are you babbling about? I said that barriers to entry prevent new companies from springing up to compete with companies which do not do a good job of meeting customer demand.

It's your babble not mine. You railed against entrance barriers. I assume you mean capitalization requirements. Before the requirements, companies took people money, and in a crunch didn't have enough reserve to pay claims. Hence they'd go bankrupt (and the US taxpayer picked up the bill). Hence the capitalization requirement, which you ridiculously call an "entrance barrier."

Is there some reasoning mistake there? Could you explain it without making vague arguments by analogy?

You're the one who was vague about "entrance barriers." The only entrance barrier of any substance is the capitaliztion requirements, which I hope you really aren't against, but then, market fundis say the darndest things.

[coloradoatheist]

Conservatives may not want fiscal instability but are willing to risk it to force governments to cut their budgets.

As for health - I can't say our British system is perfect. However I do wonder if the number of uninsured workers in the USA, and the rising cost of insurance for those that have it, will force a change eventually (though inertia is a powerful force in US politics). Interesting point - USA (without a national health service) spends more tax dollars as a %age of GDP on health than Britain (that has a national health service). And outcomes, measured in terms of longevity and infant mortality, are more or less the same in both countries.

Not really. The US has the worse infant mortality rate in the developed world. Further, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, since it is profit driven, with the most perverse incentive -- insurance companies want to PREVENT access to health care since it costs them money. So they have an incentive to develop complex and indecipherable policies, and to reject claims, even when they are valid.

If you wanted to create the most byzantine and least cost effective health care system in the world, you could do no better than what we have in the US.


True because health care is 30-50% govt controlled so it's not a govt solution and it's not a free market solution either. However ot know what it's done let's look at infant mortality and life expectancy over the last 40 years. Infant mortality has been drastically reduced and life expenctancy has gone way up so yes it has been an effective solution and many other countries get free rides of US payers.

Mike

[Metaphor]

Not really. The US has the worse infant mortality rate in the developed world. Further, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, since it is profit driven, with the most perverse incentive -- insurance companies want to PREVENT access to health care since it costs them money. So they have an incentive to develop complex and indecipherable policies, and to reject claims, even when they are valid.

If you wanted to create the most byzantine and least cost effective health care system in the world, you could do no better than what we have in the US.


True because health care is 30-50% govt controlled so it's not a govt solution and it's not a free market solution either. However ot know what it's done let's look at infant mortality and life expectancy over the last 40 years. Infant mortality has been drastically reduced and life expenctancy has gone way up so yes it has been an effective solution and many other countries get free rides of US payers.

Mike

The free rider argument crops up again.

If you are such willing slaves to big pharma and corporate health, I wouldn't justify such subservience by claiming largesse on your part!

[coloradoatheist]

The free rider argument crops up again.

If you are such willing slaves to big pharma and corporate health, I wouldn't justify such subservience by claiming largesse on your part!

So if the US hadn't been spending money on health care the last 50 years everybody else's health results would have gone up at the same rate it did? It's the problem of rating one system when a whole bunch of other systems interact with it.


Mike

[Metaphor]

The free rider argument crops up again.

If you are such willing slaves to big pharma and corporate health, I wouldn't justify such subservience by claiming largesse on your part!

So if the US hadn't been spending money on health care the last 50 years everybody else's health results would have gone up at the same rate it did? It's the problem of rating one system when a whole bunch of other systems interact with it.


Mike

I've no wish to dredge up the endless debate from the old board, but the claim that the US subsidises the rest of the world merely because you pay more is a non-argument.

[coloradoatheist]

I've no wish to dredge up the endless debate from the old board, but the claim that the US subsidises the rest of the world merely because you pay more is a non-argument.

However when comparing systems it does matter when seepage (sp?) from one system affects another.


Mike

[Gamera]

Not really. The US has the worse infant mortality rate in the developed world. Further, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, since it is profit driven, with the most perverse incentive -- insurance companies want to PREVENT access to health care since it costs them money. So they have an incentive to develop complex and indecipherable policies, and to reject claims, even when they are valid.

If you wanted to create the most byzantine and least cost effective health care system in the world, you could do no better than what we have in the US.


True because health care is 30-50% govt controlled so it's not a govt solution and it's not a free market solution either. However ot know what it's done let's look at infant mortality and life expectancy over the last 40 years. Infant mortality has been drastically reduced and life expenctancy has gone way up so yes it has been an effective solution and many other countries get free rides of US payers.

Mike


I suspect your definition of "government controlled" is pretty loose. The industry as a whole is dominated by insurance companies and HMOs, and basically caters to the wealthy.

Ironically, the NIH, funded by taxpayers, in fact produces discovery after discovery, which is then exploited by the pharmaceutical industry without paying the full cost of the values. Cut out the middle man and pharmaceuticals (developed in large part by taxpayer funding) would be cheaper.

[coloradoatheist]

True because health care is 30-50% govt controlled so it's not a govt solution and it's not a free market solution either. However ot know what it's done let's look at infant mortality and life expectancy over the last 40 years. Infant mortality has been drastically reduced and life expenctancy has gone way up so yes it has been an effective solution and many other countries get free rides of US payers.

Mike


I suspect your definition of "government controlled" is pretty loose. The industry as a whole is dominated by insurance companies and HMOs, and basically caters to the wealthy.

Ironically, the NIH, funded by taxpayers, in fact produces discovery after discovery, which is then exploited by the pharmaceutical industry without paying the full cost of the values. Cut out the middle man and pharmaceuticals (developed in large part by taxpayer funding) would be cheaper.

I'll try and find it but about 40% of health care expenditure is govt spending. That also doesn't include the tax nature of health insurance for employers instead of it being on the open market. It also doesn't include all the regulations that regulate doctors, medicine, what insurance covers etc. The govt is heavily involved in health care.

Mike

[Nitrousoxide]

I'll try and find it but about 40% of health care expenditure is govt spending. That also doesn't include the tax nature of health insurance for employers instead of it being on the open market. It also doesn't include all the regulations that regulate doctors, medicine, what insurance covers etc. The govt is heavily involved in health care.

Mike


That the government is heavily involved with the health care industry is very true. There are whole departments in drug companies dedicated to compliance with federal regulations. Forms must be filled out. Only approved computer programs, filing systems, ect can be used. All of these things cost them a huge amount of money, and any small start ups are expected to maintain the same levels of compliance. But they simply cannot afford the huge bureaucracy needed to supply the government with all of the information. The approved computer programs, and other processes are also often rather dated and inefficient. This leads to much higher fixed costs than would otherwise exist in a freer market.

Don't get me wrong, some regulation can be very useful in many companies, especially in the drug and insurance companies, but the amount the is currently required is ridiculous. I stifles any new competition and raises the costs of just doing business, which they need to pass onto their consumer.

The companies love it for the most part though, as it means they don't need to worry about competition and they can charge whatever they want without affecting demand much, so the additional costs of doing business don't really fall much on them.

[Gamera]

I suspect your definition of "government controlled" is pretty loose. The industry as a whole is dominated by insurance companies and HMOs, and basically caters to the wealthy.

Ironically, the NIH, funded by taxpayers, in fact produces discovery after discovery, which is then exploited by the pharmaceutical industry without paying the full cost of the values. Cut out the middle man and pharmaceuticals (developed in large part by taxpayer funding) would be cheaper.

I'll try and find it but about 40% of health care expenditure is govt spending. That also doesn't include the tax nature of health insurance for employers instead of it being on the open market. It also doesn't include all the regulations that regulate doctors, medicine, what insurance covers etc. The govt is heavily involved in health care.

Mike
I'm questioning the nature and quality of that involvement. Because medicare pays for the health care of people who can't afford it (and paid into the system), qualitatively, that doesn't change the structure of health care in this country. It's just another form of payment, with the very poor getting care they wouldn't otherwise get (and many don't anyway). Taking medicare out of the picture wouldn't change our system of health care in the slightest. It would just mean the more poor people would get less health care, and probably be dying on the streets in greater numbers.

But that wouldn't affect the HMO/insurance industry and their for-profit perverse motivations in the slightest.