I have been enjoying the television documentary of the American war of Independence shown over on the BBC (yes, that pinko channel!), presented by military historian Richard Holmes.
Bestriding around the countryside, Holmes is excellent. He even looks the part with his bearing and military moustache – you could imagine him in an army officer’s uniform circa 1940.
During his trip Holmes asked some locals on a bus travelling near Charleston about what the war meant to them. One elderly lady gave an articulate take, arguing about the issues of taxation, representation and liberty. And then he spoke to a young guy, probably in his early 20s, who came out with this gem. I paraphrase slightly:
Well, it was all about rich folks, who just did not want to pay their taxes. If it hadn’t been for them, we’d be British, and enjoy (!) socialised medicine.
So there you have it. Some of the younger American generation wish that George Washington had lost so that all Americans could use the National Health Service.
Don’t know whether to laugh or cry, really.
Sounds to me like it was a libertarian who tried to be funny. I haven’t yet heard of an American who regrets the Revolution.
JAcob, I have no doubt that theyoung punk was completely serious. WIth any luck, he’ll move to Canada soon.
Isn’t public education grand? I’ll bet you any amount that Benedict Arnold there went to public school.
The sooner he moves to Canada as T. Hartin says, the better.
I’m probably about the same age is this fellow. It sounds like something I would have said around age 16. Perhaps he’ll get over himself one day, as I did.
But if not, the logical choice for him would probably be to settle in Canada. Seriously, it’s not a bad place at all, and he’ll be happier there, and Canada is trying to find people to emigrate.
I saw the same documentary and was gobsmacked by his ‘it would have been better if we’d lost the war’ argument. He was definitely serious. Perhaps he doesn’t realise that he’d have to _pay_ for that socialised medecine. On the other hand maybe he just reckons other people would pay for it for him…
He also yearned for the UK’s low crime and gun control…
Rob says:
“He also yearned for the UK’s low crime and gun control ..”
Never forget, this was the BBC. They probably interviewed 2,794 people before finding one who’d give them the quote the producer wanted.
I’m glad we won the war. Who’d want to live as part of a world-spanning empire, constantly meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, stirring up hatred and anger and painting big targets on each of our backs? Who would want to live under a government large enough to maintain that empire?
He mentoned that the US would now have a decriminalised society where the police didn’t carry guns.
Just a fool on a bus heading to nowhere.
Well, I guess I’ve come appreciate Scott Cattanach always being there to throw the firecracker into the stands.
And yes, the young dipshit on the bus will be featured in a CNN article in a couple of years talking of the new generation of American ex-pats happily living off the public teet in Canada.
He doesn’t sound like much of a South Carolinian to me. I suspect the producers of that show looked long and hard to find someone in South Carolina who opposes guns and supports socialized medicine. Here in Charleston, the only people who DON’T hunt are Yankees! And socialized medicine: puleese! Public support for those positions is such that the governor, most representatives, and one US Senator are Republicans. (The other senator is a ‘reconstructed’ southern democrat.) The kid was probably a college student from up north!
I’m with G Cooper. The BBC probably asked a couple of hundred people this question and 199 of them said how glad they were that the Revolution succeeded. (Nothing personal to our Brit friends, but George III and Lord North were a couple of real f*&% ups.)
The one idiot that who was quoted was used to:
a.) Validate the idiocy of lefties at the Beeb; and,
b.) Make sure that the reporting was “fair and balanced” and all opinions were represented.
What a joke!
As for sending this guy to Canada, surely the Maple-leaf nation has enough dimwits already?
Scott, you are coming dangerously close to the old hoary argument that by intervening abroad as in Iraq, the U.S. is inviting itself to be attacked. The old defeatist line we have heard from you ad nauseam these past few months. It is crap. Only by draining the swamp that is the Middle East will the West face a decent chance of ridding itself of the terror menace.
The trouble is Scott, is that you think that the victims of terror can somehow stop such things happening by just being quiet and avoiding trouble. There’s a problem with your argument. It is called reality, which you have been largely evading in your comments since day one.
Jonathan,
I have been following the series and, thus far, it has been excellent. I suspect G Cooper is right about the youth on the bus who was simply parroting the Michael Moore line.
What I find interesting is in the military analysis which reveals how close the Crown came to successfully quashing the rebellion.
Hey if you want to let the govt lead you into war after war, so you have no choice but to support them (for only the time being, of course) that’s your business.
Back to the topic, I’m just glad we won in 1776, so we wouldn’t have to be led by an inbred idiot who wound up in charge just because he is the son of one of our earlier rulers.
“because he is the son of one of our earlier rulers”
Well, I presume you could mean FDR (related to Teddy); Kennedy (son of Joe); Al Gore (son of pol), er, someone else.
Actually, making cheap cracks about in-breds and all sounds almost a bit racist, eh Scott?
Few Americans have ever experienced the joys of socialized medicine. Most think – if they think about it at all – it will relieve them of choosing medical plans and paying insurance premiums and filling out endless forms. They hear the fantasy of how the Canadians just can waltz into clinics and hospitals, flash their little national health card and recieve endless amounts of high quality health care and free drugs.
My arguement against these fantasies is to compare their experiences with the Department of Moter Vehicles (DMV) and Kinkos copies. At the DMV, you just need a freakin card and you have to stand in line for hours and be treated like shit by overpaid clerks (civil servants) – and there is no alternative. Or you can go to Kinkos and a pimple-faced kid earning $7 per hour will help you choose between the many colors and textures in stock.
The difference is of course that with socialized medicine – it is the LIFE and LIMB of you and your loved ones.
Yeah, what is it with you Americans, always eager to foist your own whack jobs on us up North 🙂 Cripes, we’ve got too many of them here already! It’s already stifling!
-Vic
All of the above (including “someone else”) – I’m not a Democrat.
Nope. Liberals like you just like to call people racist. Considering none of the examples you listed were ethnic minorities, you obviously had no reason to throw around the term “racist” other than as a cheap insult.
Back to the topic. Has anyone else read this?
A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution
by Robert Harvey
Scott, you use words like “in-bred” presumably refering to George W. Bush. That’s a cheap-shot, and you know it. If you cannot take a punch, don’t throw em.
And using “in-bred” does sound a bit racist. If you don’t like it, tough.
Me a liberal?! That’s fightin’ talk
Why is “in-bred” racist, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with race?
I guess Scott because you are making a remark about someone’s genetic makeup, ie, that they were “in-bred” or whatever. In other words, you are having a crack at someone on grounds other than things over which they have some kind of choice.
Like I say, when I hear someone being attacked for being an in-bred, it strikes me as out of order and unpleasant. It is clearly designed to imply that X or Y are somehow defective in some physical way.
Scott, regardless of what you or I think about issues, you should at least try to avoid such terms.
And don’t call me a Liberal again, or I’ll come over and take the Colonies back
“In bred” applied more to the European kings I was comparing our elected officials to – sorry if you took me literally enough to be that offended (but by your standards, its racist to call someone ugly because of the genetic influence on that).
Now, back to the Revolution….
Few Americans have ever experienced the joys of socialized medicine.
I have, resulting from a very bad car accident in Wales. This is what the socialized medicine specialist (not a GP) there told me about a badly shattered part of my body (and this is verbatim, lest anyone accuse me of exaggerating–you don’t forget lines like this when your future mobility is at stake):
“I don’t know what your American doctor will do, but I wouldn’t operate on it.” He said “American” with a sneer, of course.
Now, his not operating would have resulted in the shattered bones fusing into a mass, causing me to be unable to walk, or at least normally.
Guess what? My American doctor, upon my return to NYC, completely reconstructed the whole thing, to almost complete freedom of use. I walk normally today.
Fuck. You. Socialized. Medicine.
However, the nurses and Sisters, who were totally overworked, were highly professional. Also, I later found out that I could have been taken to the nearby totally private hospital because I (of course) have private mediacal insurance, and since my insurance was paying either way because I’m not a limey, it could have been paying the private hospital rather than the NHS. Oh well.
“the new generation of American ex-pats happily living off the public teet in Canada.”
Better their “teets” than ours, I say.
And yes, it is utterly astonishing that the Americans were not squashed militarily during the revolution. I think it comes down to the utter pigheadedness of a handful of men, most notably GW.
Inbred? By what standard, Scott? Being someone’s son doesn’t make you inbred. Is there a history of intermarriage in the Bush clan, like there is in the Roosevelt clan? As for being an idiot, well, just keep on believing that, Scott, just keep on. It doesn’t do you and your fellow travellers any good to believe it, but it does help GW Bush and the Republicans for you to underestimate him. The term “useful idiot” comes to mind here . . . .
I took you literally because, in the light of your various comments before, it was far from obvious that you were referring to Mad King George!!!, but to another George.
ugh, forget it.
I’m from the U.S. and I love this country, but I’ve been thinking of going and living in Canada for a little while, not because of any disdain for the U.S. but just because I’ve got a passel of friends in Toronto who I’d like to see more often. (And also, Canada is a pretty nice place if you can get past the wacky government and the existence of Concordia University.) But Vic’s comment above has me thinking I ought to go there and stay long enough to apply for dual citizenship so I’d be one Samizdata reader to balance out at least one American moonbat who moves north for ideological reasons. You think Ontario could use my vote in their elections?
Toronto, yeah the home of Naked News! Sounds good to me.
I think an early post blaming our public education system for the moron’s remark was right on target. I have a masters degree, but have never had a class in american history. All that gets taught to most students is a watered down version in grade school. Our universities now seem to emphasise liberal orthodoxy over critical thinking. What kind of opinions do you expect to hear?
The beer would be on me, and if you were coming up through Detroit/Windsor, I could point you to a great B&B run by my family out near Point Pelee National Park 🙂
-Vic
[i]”. Who’d want to live as part of a world-spanning empire, constantly meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, stirring up hatred and anger and painting big targets on each of our backs? Who would want to live under a government large enough to maintain that empire?”[/i]
God, I hope thats intended as humourous irony.
Well, bah. I’m on too many forums, with too many HTMLesque codes. 😉
Scott
You have obviously never met any Welsh people.
Eamon
You mean the whole thing wasn’t about tea?
Damn.
Fred
If George Washington had lost the war then America could have had Tony Blair for president. As it is we get Mr Bush. A sobering thought….
As an American who could never afford medical insurance in the states (and I lived there until I was 30 with a decent job as well), I’m *extremely* pleased with the NHS.
So there.
Lisa,
There are many Americans who cannot afford medical insurance, though few have ‘decent’ jobs. I paid for full coverage (Blue Cross) 1989-1991 for 130.00$ monthly. Later, my group coverage (which I also paid out of pocket, on a teacher’s salary, no less) was 200.00 per month. Many Americans, especially young ones, chose to spend their cash on other things.
And, of course, Lisa, the fact that you chose not to buy medical insurance (there are many flavors available, and catastrophic insurance can be quite cheap) does not mean that you had no access to health care at all, as teh proponents of socialized medicine like to claim
First, of course, you can always pay out of pocket for your health care.
Second, any emergency care you might need must be provided by law by any hospital, which may not even inquire into your financial situation until you are stabilized.
Finally, for the truly destitute, the US is blanketed with charitable hospitals and health systems that must provide care for free under their charitable missions (and associated tax exemptions).
Make no mistake, anyone who doesn’t get health care in the USA isn’t being turned away from the system because they can’t pay, they are simply not trying to use the system, either out of ignorance or laziness.
I used to love to hear all the bitching about “the man” and how they couldn’t afford health coverage from my customers when I worked at a convenience store a few years ago.
$2.53 per pack (after tax) of cigs, two a day; $5.38 per six-pack of longneck Bud, about five times a week; $5 on lottery tickets each day, five times per week (less about $2 in payoff on average. Add it all up: about $333 per month or $4000 a year. And some bought *more* beer and *more* lottery tickets.
You’ve got to have your priorities, though, right? But of course it’s perfect Vulcan logic for folks who pay little to no income tax to demand “free” (and it really would be free for them) health care from the government.
I know all about the medical system in the states (I lived there for 30 years, remember?). My mother was on medicaid (she raised me and my brother working as a cocktail waitress, so needless to say…) and whilst it wasn’t brilliant, it wasn’t bad. And, of course, you are free to buy medical insurance here in the UK if you can afford it as well. My point is that the NHS is also not as bad as you lot make out either. I’ve yet to fill out a form (except when I registered at my surgery – same type of forms I filled out at the doctors’ in the states). I’m yet to wait forever in casualty (and I’ve been twice), yet to have any problems whatsoever with the care I receive here.
What I don’t understand is that libertarians/liberals/whatever you like to call yourselves believe in freedom, but what about the freedom to live in a country with socialised medicine? I’m liberal in a lot of ways, libertarian in others and quite socialist when it comes to medical care and education. I wonder where I can go where people don’t whine about things all the time? (no offense, obviously :-))
“And yes, it is utterly astonishing that the Americans were not squashed militarily during the revolution. I think it comes down to the utter pigheadedness of a handful of men, most notably GW.”
It’s hard to squash people who refuse to be squashed. Washington lost almost all his battles–his accomplishment was in keeping his army going anyway. The Revolution wasn’t all conventional battles, either–guerillas like Francis Marion were quite important. We also got significant help from the French, without which the British might have eventually ground us down.
what about the freedom to live in a country with socialised medicine?
Is anyone here trying to infringe on your right to live where you choose? On the contrary, it’s good to have choices, and the ability to freely relocate.
I’d rather keep fully-government-run healthcare out of the US. But I’ll admit I’m also biased, having a physician-father who owns his own clinic (and only deals with private pays–no insurance, no medicaid, no medicare).
>Is anyone here trying to infringe on your right to live where you choose?
No, no-one here of course, but I kinda like the UK the way it is and would be very disappointed if it lost some of the things I like about it. It was just a weird dicotomy that I’ve noticed (possibly because my beliefs are a bit of a mishmash) and wondered what the answer was.
In a democracy (well, any society, I guess), there are always going to be some people who aren’t happy with the ways things are and I wonder if that makes their wants/needs/desires, therefore less valid? How do you reconcile complete freedom with the fact that not everyone thinks in the same way?
If there was truly the freedom to live where-ever you wanted, then that might go some way towards resolving it, but with the outcry against asylum-seekers and other immigrants, that seems unlikely.
What is the Libertarian outlook regarding freedom of movement and asylum seekers, btw?
“Washington lost almost all his battles”, except the last one. A lesson he learned from the masters who had scorned him. Probably the most expensive commission ungranted.
“Fuck. You. Socialized. Medicine.”
– Alfred E. Neuman
That’s the spirit! Americans should be grateful they haven’t experienced socialized healthcare. It may sound nice and noble, but it’s a system deestined to go boom and before that, destroy human lives and minds.
I think I’ll post that comment, Mr Neuman, on my website or something…if you don’t mind.
“I’m […] quite socialist when it comes to […] education.”
– Lisa
Raise the kids in a good glorious socialist manner! Destroy the young minds before they learn to think by themselves, to understand that they are each and everyone unique, that they have parents besides Father&Mother State, that the socialist utopia is the biggest terrorist and masskiller since the dawn of the ages etc. etc.
Johan, go right ahead and quote me. If I didn’t have access to the non-socialized, US healthcare system, I would be a cripple today.
Try smashing into a speeding lorry on the way to Aberystwyth sometime, Lisa, and see if you still dig the socialized medicine after you’re told by the doctor he won’t perform a mobility-saving operation on you–but an American doctor would.
sigh, I was hoping for a mature conversation, but I guess it’s not going to happen.
Lisa,
the libertarian outlook regarding freedom of movement is to let peaceful people cross borders peacefully.
Lisa, tell them that you consider a life threatening medical condition to be a “crisis”, which justifies government intervention that would not otherwise be allowable. Your own illness is to an epidemic what someone attacking you is to a war.
“I’m glad we won the war. Who’d want to live as part of a world-spanning empire, constantly meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, stirring up hatred and anger and painting big targets on each of our backs?”
ROFL
I think Lisa’s comments are rather interesting. But I’d like to know more. Lisa, if you don’t mind me asking, what has your experience of the NHS been like, especially in terms of actually getting treated?
My experiences and those of my friends have been appalling:
4 week wait to see a GP
7hr wait in casualty with a 1-year old child with a broken leg
5hr wait with sever whiplash
And the general rundown and uncaring atmosphere of the place.
But I would also like to know more about America’s system because I think it is a lot less free (in terms of state interference) than we tend to think. Anyone know anything about this?
I couldn’t actually find a Doctor to take me on when I lived as a foreign worker in the US as none of the local doctors took my companies medical insurance. I was travelling to the UK a lot and saw a Doctor back here.
I generally get a same day appointment, or at least did a few months ago when I needed some anti-biotics. My wife has had bad hayfever and asthma this year which has resulted in a lot of same day trips plus referals to a specialist at the local hospital. Even though she’s below the normal age threshold she’s had a routine mamogram and been put on a cancer watch program due to a history of Breast cancer which is all pretty good if slower than the US.
I’ve had long waits in A&E, but I know US friends who have had that too and ended up paying for it. I’m not sure that Accident and Emergency is a good comparison for health services.
Where, I understand, the US can fall down is on expensive preventive medical treatments which by the time they become blindingly obvious are either expensive and/or fatal.
Bad doctors and dentists abound unfortunately.
Its often missed off but force projection across the Atlantic is hardly “trivial” even now.
Lisa,
I don’t know what you mean by a ‘mature conversation’ but I suspect you are expressing a disappointment that few people seem to share your ‘socialist’ view on healthcare and education.
Or perhaps you mean that you seek a more complex discussion? If so, I must disappoint you because my views are really quite straightforward. Your ‘socialist’ views on healthcare and education are no more sensible that socialist views on food, clothing, housing or computers for that matter. Put simply, healthcare and education are commodities and we would all be a lot healthier and better educated if they were treated as such.
1776 was just a mean rehearsal for 1789.
“But I would also like to know more about America’s system because I think it is a lot less free (in terms of state interference) than we tend to think. Anyone know anything about this?”
My general impression is that the quality of health care in US- at least where I am – is still quite high, but doctors are struggling with mountains of mostly federally mandated paperwork, HIPPA etc. So yes, there is significant state involvement for most doctors. I myself have catastrophic B/C B/S which seems to be accepted everywhere I go. I end up paying for most stuff in cash which seems to result in less waiting around and more cheerful service. Could just be my imagination.
Prescription drugs can be very costly here. Read article while back in WSJ (I think) that said one of the reasons drugs are so costly in US is that companies cannot charge market prices in Europe b/c of socialized medicine, thus have to overcharge US to cover R&D costs. Therefore the US is at least in part paying for the European states’ “generosity” to their citizens.
Read article while back in WSJ (I think) that said one of the reasons drugs are so costly in US is that companies cannot charge market prices in Europe b/c of socialized medicine, thus have to overcharge US to cover R&D costs. Therefore the US is at least in part paying for the European states’ “generosity” to their citizens.
The “free rider” problem.
I myself have catastrophic B/C B/S which seems to be accepted everywhere I go. I end up paying for most stuff in cash which seems to result in less waiting around and more cheerful service.
That’s the way I do it as well. Or would, if I didn’t get free (yes, free) health care. Plenty of folks feel the same way, thus my father’s medical practice which leaves him totally free to make his OWN medical decisions (as opposed to having to argue over the phone about testing/treatment/diagnoses with some insurance company dork).
But there is a huge amount of interference anyway, and it’s becoming harder and harder to be autonomous and to make the right choices for the practice and for patients. Coupled with outrageous hikes in malpractice insurance rates (in part due to absurd tort awards), it’s making the medical profession a lot less satisfying and efficient.
By the way, Johnathan at Catallarchy can probably shed a lot more light on these issues than I can. He’s a physician himself.
Lisa said: “….but what about the freedom to live in a country with socialised medicine?”
That’s one heck of a definition of freedom. The “freedom” to live in a place where they forcefully tax for a service that you may not even use and even if you go to a private doctor, you still pay the taxes for this “service.” Sure, you have the freedom to live where you want, but understand you are choosing to live in a place that forces others to pay for YOUR services. And I bet the fees for that service are not something you can opt out of. It’s probably like public education. Most people feel they are paying for it anyway, might as well take advantage of it. That’s a sorry ass definition of freedom.
And your accusation that you’d be a cripple in the U.S. is just wrong. Look at T. Harten’s post if you still don’t get it.
And yes, libertarians believe in free movement of people across borders when and where they choose. Unhindered immigration is one of the more idealistic libertarian principles.
1776 was just a mean rehearsal for 1789.
Without the proto-socialist claptrap and the mass murders of priests, royalists, and dissidents.
Actually, I think of 1789 as the warmup for October 1917.
To talk of the “freedom” to enjoy socialised medicine, as Lisa does, is to confuse, as collectivists do, freedom as understand as the absence of coercion – the classical liberal/libertarian definition – and the power to do something – the collectivist definition. The two things are not compatible if, for example, creating a NHS requires grabbing wealth and resources from X to give it to Y.
Or put it like this: in theory, the “right” to health care requires forcing men and women to become doctors, nurses, hospital porters, etc. Without this, such a right is meaningless. Also such “rights”, unlike classical liberal ones, are not timeless and universal.
Lisa, your description of medical care in the US may be correct. However, to suppose the NHS or socialised medicine has anything to do with freedom is a nonsense, and based, as I said, on a misunderstanding of what freedom is.
Freedom is not the same as having what you want. It merely means the freedom to pursue your goals providing you do not violate the freedom of others to do the same. That was what the Founding Fathers fought for, and the young idiot on the BBC programme seemed totally oblivious to this, which as some have remarked above, atests to his ignorance.
But you never know, he is young and might learn.
Amelia and Kevin: No, it’s not just your imaginations, I’ve carried my own catastrophic and paid cash out of pocket before, and they love you dearly when you do that at the doctors office.
When you do that, you are a higher profit margin patient, without all of the delay until they get their money too.
The look on their face when I replied to “What insurance do you have?” with “I’ve got blah-brand catastrophic, this visit will be cash as it’s under my deductible” is truly stunning. They actually seem like they want to HELP YOU!
And when you have a condition that you KNOW there is an appropriate specialist for, you can go right to them directly without so much as a by your leave to your HMO (or the NHS or local equiv).
Just One Visit.
That right there has been worth it to me (those whos’ time is worth less may not see it the same way, but I’m glad I get to make the choice as to that trade off here).
And, of course, you are free to buy medical insurance here in the UK if you can afford it as well.
But as the state forces me to pay for nationalised healthcare even if I do not use it, that is hardly a reasonable argument to make.
>Lisa, tell them that you consider a life threatening
>medical condition to be a “crisis”, which justifies
>government intervention that would not otherwise
>be allowable. Your own illness is to an epidemic
>what someone attacking you is to a war.
You are either obtuse if that is what you think my argument was Scott, or you are intentionally falsely characterizing my remarks. Which bit about collective social crisis did you not understand? Yet again you show an inability to see the difference between loosing your house because you got fired from your job and having the neighborhood flattened by bombers.
Two of the examples you gave of crisis situations were someone being attacked, and someone’s house burning down (the fire was a crisis, but unemployment is just a bad situation). Neither of those was a collective social crisis.
Count me as another one who carries catastrophic health insurance in case of something big, but pays out of pocket for everything else.
I was really startled when I switched from my HMO to discover that routine medical care really isn’t all that expensive. We’ve been so conditioned to think that medical services cost a kjillion dollars a minute and only the whole force of the Gross National Product can pay for a checkup.
I pay thirty to sixty dollars for an office visit to my GP. A tetanus booster was about twenty bucks. A thorough blood workup by an independent lab is just over $100. I go to any doctor I please, I’m completely in control of the relationship, and I buy my services a la carte (no, thank you…no chest x-ray this year).
And I spend a heck of a lot less on medical services than I spend on car maintenance.
And I spend a heck of a lot less on medical services than I spend on car maintenance.
This is all well and fine until you find something on the blood work up or in a routine medical.
Can you afford to handle the costs if something non-life threatening but expensive comes up? Say, for example, hypertension or such like?
At least with mine its not called catastrophic b/c something “life threatening” has to happen, just something over $2000.00 in a year. If really pricey insurance will kick in regardless of cause as long as “medically necessary.”
Dave – Catastrophic policies are just health insurance policies with high deductibles. If they find anything in his blood work that costs a kajillion dollars, the policy will cover it regardless of whether it is life-threatening or not.
Weasel makes a point that I often make in this context – we have somehow gotten to a point that people who will not hesitate to spend $500 on their car out of their own pockets somehow have had their rights trampled if they have to spend $500 on their own health out of their own pockets. People think that if health care isn’t paid for by someone else, they are barred from accessing it – you often see people conflating “not covered by insurance” with “not available to you under any terms whatsoever.”
T Hartin, which is fine for people who pay for regular checkups.
But one of the problems this can lead to is people don’t have regular checkups and only find out something is wrong when you’re out of the preventative realm. High Blood pressure is a good example.
I also think the car analogy is flawed.
A car has a high sunk cost attached but, unless you’re buying high end cars, the total value attached isn’t necessarily high.
I’ve a $5000 second hand car. If the engine needed replacing or the gear box I would, in all probability scrap it and get a newer car. If you need a triple bypass your options are a little more limited.
But one of the problems this can lead to is people don’t have regular checkups and only find out something is wrong when you’re out of the preventative realm.
Yes. People are free not to have checkups, if they think that sixty bucks might be more usefully spent elsewhere.
Not, perhaps, the decision I’d make, but it’s all part of being a grown-up. Making important decisions for yourself, that is.
And, of course, without the ruinous taxation necessary to support a national health service, even the poorest among us would have that sixty bucks (or forty pounds, as the case may be) to fret about.
S Weasel,
Not, perhaps, the decision I’d make, but it’s all part of being a grown-up. Making important decisions for yourself, that is.
Well, as we know the situation in the US is that if that person develops a serious illness the government or a hospital will treat them.
So, surely avaialable preventative medical services would be more sensible?
In the 7 years I’ve lived in the UK, I have never had to wait more than a week for an appointment with my doctor and just yesterday was given an appointment the same day because I was worried about something and wanted simply to ease my mind with a check-up. My current contribution as a self-employed person is, I believe, £2.50 a week, although I’m sure I paid much more when I was full-time employed (I was on the highest tax rate at that time – I don’t complain. I think I get a lot from what I contribute and have more than enough money to burn as I like).
That said, the worst dental care I ever received was in the US and it nearly broke me (I fell and broke 4 teeth and the dentist ended up breaking his drill off in my jaw and leaving it there, unbeknownst to me), whilst here, I have a fantastic dentist that costs me next to nothing.
As for my shocking socialist views on education, it’s no different, really, from what I grew up with in the states. Everyone, I believe, should be provided with an education because educated people are less likely to be a burden on society and less likely to do stupid things that impact on my personal freedoms (in my opinion, of course). This, for me, extends to medical care because, well, just because. I don’t like to suffer needlessly and don’t like others to suffer either – I guess I’m just a bleeding heart liberal.
I’m glad to see that the conversation went beyond the childish “fuck socialised medicine”.
So, surely avaialable preventative medical services would be more sensible?
Woohoo! Count the unproven assertions in this one!
…That preventive medicine actually reduces the overall cost of community medical care (there is no evidence for this beyond wishful thinking and public health service orthodoxy).
…That people somehow need public assistance to pay for preventive medicine (when, in fact, most preventive measures – such as blood pressure screening – are cheap or free, and the majority – like quitting smoking – are commonsense measures entirely under the control of the patient).
…That the US doesn’t provide free preventive medicine now (when, in fact, you can’t swing a cat without hitting free diabetes screening, free pre-natal care programs, condom distribution programs, health seminars, informational programming, brochures, advertisements, thousands of useless giant money-oozing boondoggles. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make other people take care of themselves.).
Of course, the biggest assumption is that individual health is government’s business in the first place.
OK, Johnathan, so what if a bunch of people (of varying income levels) all got together and decided that they all wanted to pool their money and create a pot from which any in the group could draw to pay for healthcare? Is that allowed in a Libertarian society? What if then they decided that they’d buy some nice place somewhere and say that anyone could live there as long as they contributed? (I know it’s sounding like a commune now and that’s not what I’m getting at – I’m just following a thought stream).
I guess I’m trying to get a grip on the libertarian outlook because I see some things – like laws and law enforcement – as incompatible with an entirely libertarian view and wondered where the line was drawn. What are you free to do or not do in your worldview?
I hope you don’t think I’m being critical or factitious in any way. I’m hoping that the conversation will be a civil one. I agree with a lot of things that you lot say but others I’m not so sure about, again, probably because I’m too soft-hearted in a lot of ways. Who knows, though, I could be converted. Surely that’s better than driving people away with invective? And again, I don’t aim that at anyone in particular – it just seems you all get quite angry at commentors sometimes.
OK, Johnathan, so what if a bunch of people (of varying income levels) all got together and decided that they all wanted to pool their money and create a pot from which any in the group could draw to pay for healthcare?
You’re in luck. There is such a thing. It’s called “private medical insurance”.
It’s as libertarian as the day is long, and it works a treat.
well, except for the fact that there’s some guy who doesn’t contribute to the pot taking the lion’s share of the dosh (I guess ’cause he’s the one holding onto the money). Unless you know of a medical plan that doesn’t rip people off, of course…
Unless you know of a medical plan that doesn’t rip people off, of course…
Rip people off? Oh, you mean invest the collected money, because individual contributions would never be sufficient to cover the collective liability, and keep a chunk of it for his trouble? No, I don’t know of an insurance company that doesn’t do that. Because such a thing wouldn’t work.
That preventive medicine actually reduces the overall cost of community medical care
Apart from your opinion of medical “orthodoxy” do you have any reason to say this is not the case?
Apart from the small point that if a person has, for example, hypertension, is there available free treatment to support that, up to and including the right medication.
If not, then your “free” service is not “free”, nor all that preventative.
Apart from your opinion of medical “orthodoxy” do you have any reason to say this is not the case?
Well, Theodore Dalrymple says so, and backs it up with statistics. But since my copy of Mass Listeria: The Meaning of Health Scares is in London and I’m in Boston, I thought it better not to source it, since I can’t quote him exactly.
Apart from the small point that if a person has, for example, hypertension, is there available free treatment to support that, up to and including the right medication.
I couldn’t tell you the particulars of our healthcare giveaway programs. Some things are free, some are subsidized at various levels. I’d bet there’s at least heavily subsidized treatment for hypertension, since black Americans suffer from it more frequently, often don’t treat it and are a demographic much courted by politicians. I can’t imagine we’d have all the posters and TV ads and so on trying to persuade them to take their meds, unless we were also willing to pony up for those meds.
There’s a TV commercial in my neighborhood that features a series of people with unidentifiable accents and healthcare issues ranging from pregnancies to broken bones, fretting about how they’re going to pay, until a voice off-camera informs them they’re eligible for the “neighborhood health care program”. Cue beatific smile, freeze frame.
Most medical programs are state, city or community funded, not federal, so the particulars would vary from place to place. It’s all essentially the same beast, though.
To make an honest assessment I need to know how much “Free Healthcare” costs. In the US I pay roughly 40% of each paycheck to the government. How much do they pay in the UK or Canada?
“But as the state forces me to pay for nationalised healthcare even if I do not use it, that is hardly a reasonable argument to make. ”
Do they actually, though? Because I just got my NI bill and it said that if I didn’t pay it, my “coverage” would be interrupted” or some such thing (heh – can’t find the bill now – oops). Since I have to physically write out a cheque, I am assuming that this is a voluntary contribution of some sort. Maybe this is only for self-employed people. Ever consider going into business for yourself?
Ruprecht, I was on 40% up until recently. A recent news article just informed me that National Insurance contributions are now 11%, although, like I say, at the moment, I pay £2.50 a week. I assume that when I figure my final income at the end of the year, I’ll have to make up the difference.