patrick.net

Limiting max quote size would be a good start. Thanks.

Tricky Dick,

Now you're just being lame. First you defend bap33's claim, and demand that I disprove it. Then when I post and critique the available (but suspect) material, you suddenly disown the claim. That should sum up the level of hinesty in your argumentation, right there.

Bap33,

So now you claim some "independent study" about the relative levels of giving by conservatives and liberals. Still no reference to your study.

And please do not come and claims that Arthur C. Brooks made an "independent study". Go back and read what I had to say about that one.

From http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2
...But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.
Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity...
(Supports my previous hypothesis that charitable giving seems to be linked to some possible future benefit (Heaven?))

Maybe we should start a new thread about health care. This one is getting slow with all the comments on it. Anyone have a new inflammatory position on health care they would be willing to post?

Nah, they're busy slinging names, blaming it on the libs and delving into semantics.

drfelle,

And I do not know what makes you so smug about hiding behind this whole "If I was rallying in support of Bap’s claim," semantic game.

It's a lot like Tricky Dick saying "IF I was behind the breaking into the Watergate Hotel".

Californian,

Thanks for the link to the study that shows that rich people contribute a smaller fraction (i.e. percentage) of their income to charitable causes than do poor people.

This was exactly what I claimed. Now, Tricky Dick, *IF* you were rallying in support of Bap’s claim, what would you say to that?

Phew.

And bap33,

>>An independant source did the study. And, I gaurentee you that the libs posters know about it already too since Rush plastered it all over the place a year or so ago

>> #2a) Conservatives OUT-GIVE liberals by a HUGE margin.

Somehow I have always had the feeling that you and "Rush" (Limbaugh) were on a first name basis.

But in any case, you haven't said much about the facts of the case lately. Your "huge margin" turned out to be only $373/year even in a highly suspect study. Well, whop-de-do, them conservatives really are generous, aren't they.

drfelle,

>“Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.”
>> Oh, “many researchers” told them so.

So now you have given up on your main thesis and instead want to squabble about *WHY* poor people give more? Does that mean that you have finally acknowledged that poor people give more?

By the way, I made no claims about what the motivation was, I just said "poor give more as % of income". Who is it you are arguing with now, exactly?

drfelle,

Then why are you getting into arguing about the motivation of poor versus rich people giving?
Perhaps you should instead argue about the motivation of conservatives versus liberals?

Speaking of people that need to make up their minds, you are one of them.

>> Is someone playing a joke on me???

I think so, but it isn't I.

hanskung23 says

AIDS drugs, cholesterol drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-hypertensives–the majority of these were developed by American pharmaceutical companies.

How would eliminating insurance companies eliminate the motivation for these companies to operate and produce advancements in medicine?

By the way -- this statement isn't even true. Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world by a small margin (unless you count J&J), but after that you have Bayer (germany), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Novartis (Switzerland), Aventis (France), Roche (Switzerland), and AstraZeneca (UK).

All of those companies do quite well, and even Pfizer makes more money in Europe than they do in the US (and the EU and the US have comparable GDPs).

So that's just a stupid argument.

Pay for doctors is also not really the issue here (though that's certainly a concern for other reasons). It isn't doctors that are making the US system cost twice as much as the Canadian or swiss systems.

The "best and brightest" who are purely motivated by money don't go into medicine -- they go into business and law, which pay a hell of a lot better than what even top surgeons get paid. Your $400k salary is nothing compared to the bucks being brought in by the people on wall street. Those other countries that you seem to think are so much worse off seem to have the same basic staffing situation as we have in the US, and offer just as good, if not better medical care for half the price. This tells me that the vast majority of people who go into medical professions for $400k will still go in for $200k, though I'm skeptical that there would be much of a pay difference in the first place.

The Swiss have more physicians (and nurses) per capita than the US. They actually had to implement a moratorium on new medial practices in some cantons because there were TOO MANY doctors. All this despite a government that sets strict price controls and where coverage is universal.

The current system does not benefit ANYBODY but the "insurance" companies. What benefits and innovation are they bringing?

Every dollar that we don't give to an insurance company is a dollar that can go to research and paying for talented physicians.

Hanskung23 - you are exactly right. I'm tired of people with no knowledge whining about our healthcare system because they don't want to pay for the service and goods they are receiving. The saying "you get what you pay for" is true, and the value has always been better historically in the presence of a free market, where people get rewarded (monetarily ie with something that gives them purchasing power to turn around and get what they want.) I know why people choose to ignore facts - they are lazy and want something for nothing - but why throw away everyone else's access to QUALITY healthcare just because someone is too lazy to take care of themselves and earn the money they need to pay for treatment. If people are truly worried about affordability in society, they shouldn't entrust everything to government programs, they should call for a reform of our fractional reserve monetary system. People have no common sense or critical thinking skills - if they did they would not want a national healthcare system.

I very much agree with what Kevin just said, except for the statement

>>The “best and brightest” who are purely motivated by money don’t go into medicine — they go into business and law, which pay a hell of a lot better than what even top surgeons get paid.

I'm not so sure they are the best nor the brightest, not even by a fairly long shot.

nogovhealthcare, what free market? Health Insurance is a rigged market... fixed market oligarchy to be exact.

"...QUALITY healthcare just because someone is too lazy to take care of themselves and earn the money they need to pay for treatment."

So your advocating a cash health care system.

A properly functioning health care system is supported by investment... taxes are an investment. The delivery can remain private, nothing wrong with that, but private insurance has to go. The difference in per capita health care spending IS private health insurance industry indirect cost... overhead and their profit.

We don't need a middle man. Private health insurance out. Profit out. By the way Medicare is 5 times more efficient in indirect cost/ overhead than the private Health Insurance industry.

Why do you think US corporations AGAIN want a fixed market so they don't have to compete?

It is like Wall Street is today, a parasite on the economy. Originally Wall St. function was capital formation for a real producing economy. Not a developing a bunch of fraudulent paper to shuffle around ripping off investors and pension funds.

"If people are truly worried about affordability in society, they shouldn’t entrust everything to government programs..."

Back to free markets solve everything?

Listen closely. Free markets DO NOT EXIST.

A perfectly competitive market is an academic construct on a blackboard because a static economic model is much easier to teach than dynamic one. Due to wealth and political power free markets will never exist. It is one of the fundamental failings of economics as a discipline.

As soon as the economic actors have the wealth and the means, they use their wealth to influence or subvert government and its regulators to the advantage of the wealth holders in the markets. Every time. The markets eventually become fraudulent and manipulated as wealth concentrates further... Hence, Wall Street today.

With your argument, we privatize fire, police and the military next.

Dear Mr. Drfelle:

I want single payer not for profit health care in this country because it will be much less expensive for business. This is the main reason it will be coming sooner or later. We cannot afford the massive Wall Street private health care profits, bonuses, salaries and beauracracy.

So why should all the "responsible" people have to pay more for health care to support the private health care insurance industry? You conveniently ignore the main issue while railing against the deadbeats.

Howdy,
Some good points have been made about the limitations of economic theory. People quote economic ideas like religion, but fail to realize they are sometimes predicated upon ideal assumptions. Problemis makes the point above about a level playing field.
Another *big* one is that health care is not a "normal" good. Most normal goods you will want or use less of as they become more expensive (e.g. fewer Hummers today). Some healthcare is "elective" but much is not. When people need it, they really "need it", and do not accept limits on provision (at least in this country). Whether you think any given intervention is reasonable or not, most times the patient and family want it.
People whine all day about why it's their right to not wear a motorcycle helmet, it's "their risk", then come broken up into the ER and do not refuse care. Nor do their families. The self-abusing obese smoking type II diabetic comes into the ER in heart failure. No one has the heart to tell her to go die without care. Certainly not the docs, who have to watch it. And not the squeamish public; "just help her!".
So we all have human sympathy. The problem is that people don't want to pay for things. And, in the land of fiscal fiction, no one has to... "Conservatives" don't realize we're already paying for much of this through the ER, and "liberals" don't realize that we really can't afford to (a) do even more and (b) do any of this forever. And neither group really wants to pay for it. They want their own taxes to go down.
If we were honest, we'd pony up more money and/or limit care. Care is, in fact, rationed in many countries with socialized medicine.
Yes, there are efficiencies to be had, but that's just part of it.

drfelle says

So you want cheaper insurance so you can use the extra money you were paying to health care for a more lavish lifestyle. I understand….at least your honest.

Ah sir, one of my big pet peeves.
People want to reduce their work hours, do only work that "motivates" them, pay >$100/month for cable TV, etc., yet consider paying $500/month for health care "outrageous" (that number I pull out of the air as a price I recently had to pay in for a cheap high-deductible plan).

drfelle says

That is unless you’re responsible, have insurance, and get sick or hurt. Then it benefits you all of a sudden huh?

No, the health care benefits me. There are many ways to get health care that do not involve insurance systems like we have in the US today.

drfelle says

I hate paying car insurance as well. 15 years and no accidents (knock on wood). How is the current auto insurance companies benefiting me? I think the Fed should pay my car insurance.

We have a mandate for insurance -- everyone must have it, and rates are partially governed by the government. I'm advocating for a similar system for health coverage (like the Swiss have), though I'd accept single payer as well.

The swiss system is better than the U.S. system in every way, using any metric you want. Plenty of innovation, care is cheaper, and everyone is covered. The only losers in the swiss system are the insurers.

Bap,

Good to see that you are not arguing with any of my points, nor disagreeing with the $373 number.

That means everyone else can decide for themselves how significant the difference is, and what the bigger implications are, if any.

Bap33 says

Liberalism is a mental disorder , normally brought on by drug use, with deviant sexual behavior a common side effect.

LOL! When someone talks about drug use, don't you guys think that he/she should quote someone other than Limbaugh. :)

A description of sleazy business practices in the health-care industry

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1187-Health-Reform-Who-Are-They-Trying-To-Fool.html

This author often shouts a bit loudly, but what he says on this topic is right on the mark:

Excerpt:

Look folks, you want to know why we have the health cost problems we have? I'll lay it out for you - in a way you can't refute or argue with:

1. There are no published prices. In no other line of work is it legal to do this. Nowhere. You can't sell someone a hot dog and tell them after they eat it what it just cost them. You can't hire a lawyer and have him tell you "I'll tell you what this will cost when we're done." You can't hire an electrician and have him tell you "I'll make up a bill when I'm done." In every line of work except health care, this is illegal. There are even laws for "major" consumer work (e.g. contracting, auto repair, etc) where they must give you a binding written estimate before beginning work!

2. Robinson-Patman makes it illegal to discriminate against like kind purchasers of goods in pricing decisions when the effect of doing so is to lessen competition. While it does not apply to services, it darn well should. Whether you are paying privately, you have private insurance or you're a Medicare patient if you need to have a breast reconstructed due to cancer the complexity of the procedure does not change. Yet it is a fact that the privately-billed amounts for uninsured ("rack rate") patients are often ten times or more that billed to insurers or Medicare. Try charging a cash purchaser 10x more for a TV than someone who finances that TV on your in-house credit facility and you would be shut down and thrown in jail.

Bap33 says

We? who we?

Every state in the US has mandatory liability insurance. Failure to have said insurance results in fines, loss of license, etc.

Bap33 says

must have? ya, sure. What a fuggin joke man. Just another rule that is only followed by law-following folks (kinda like the gun laws)

90% of drivers have auto insurance, and that rate is higher in states that have stricter requirements and more regulation of the insurers. Mandates work (just like they work in health care).

The biggest reason why that 10% of drivers don't have insurance is cost -- some states actually waive the insurance requirement if you can prove that it would have caused you financial hardship to be covered. In states with higher coverage rates, premiums are lower because uninsured driver coverage isn't as necessary.

With health care, we're talking about a tax-funded plan that will cover the low income folks. By ensuring that those people can visit GPs instead of emergency rooms, we reduce the total cost of care on society as a whole, which ultimately comes back onto the people.

Just because you get health insurance through your employer doesn't mean that it's cheap or free. Employers view health insurance as a part of the total cost to employ you. In the US, the average cost per employee is between 150 and 200% of salary, whereas in countries without employer funding that number is below 125% of salary.

Bap33 says

rates are governed? sure they were RIGHT AFTER THE LAW PASSED .. or did you forget that part?

WTF are you talking about? Virtually every state has strict laws about how auto insurers are allowed to asses and adjust premiums based on driving record, location, and value of vehicle.

The government can't even time "stop lights" correctly! How in the hell are they going to run our heathcare? I swear when I'm out driving around at night, I must waste 15 minutes out of a 1/2 hr trip just waiting at stop lights with not another fucking car around for miles. Don't these dipshits that run our government ever sit at one of these lights & ever realize that they are all complete morons?

moonmac says

The government can’t even time “stop lights” correctly! How in the hell are they going to run our heathcare? I swear when I’m out driving around at night, I must waste 15 minutes out of a 1/2 hr trip just waiting at stop lights with not another fucking car around for miles. Don’t these dipshits that run our government ever sit at one of these lights & ever realize that they are all complete morons?

Ok, so what are all of the other countries with socialized medicine doing right that we can't do? Or are you seriously going to claim that ALL socialized medical systems around the world don't work?

Hey Bap33,
Not free to leave a socialist state? Since when? Moreover, socialized healthcare has been working fine all over Europe. The lifespan, infant mortality rate, and overall health of people living there is much better than in the US and that is because those life loving Christian politicians here would rather have you sick and dying than be healthy. Keep up with the ridiculous talking points, your lack of understanding shines clearly through.

Not only that, didn't we just socialize the Financial and Banking Industry with our tax payer bailout?

Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries
by: Chris Bowers
April 6, 2009

Levels of socialism in G-20 nations, plus selected other economies
Cuba: 81.4%*
France: 61.1%
Sweden: 58.1%*
Italy: 55.3%
Netherlands: 54.7%
Libya: 53.0%*
Germany: 48.8%
Canada: 48.2%
Spain: 47.3%
Angola: 44.8%*
United States: 44.7% (2009)
United Kingdom: 42.1% (2009)
Australia: 43.6%
Venezuela: 41.1%*
Saudi Arabia: 40.4%
Turkey: 39.1%
United States: 35.5% (2007)
South Africa: 33.9%*
Indonesia: 33.2%
Japan: 30.9%
South Korea: 29.3%
Mexico: 26.7%
China: 22.0%*
Russia: 20.9%
India: 20.4%
Argentina: 19.1%
Brazil: 17.3%
* = officially, or at least famed for being, communist or socialist

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less 'socialist' than the US on this chart...not sure about the others but I'd bet many of the others do as well. I have no idea what criteria Chris Bowers used to come up with these numbers but it doesn't look at all credible to me.

edit: ok, I googled it. He just divided all gov't expenditures by total national GNP. So the huge US military budget makes us more socialist. Heck, servicing the national debt counts as socialistic by this measure. *shrug* Whatever.

nowwattsup1 says

Just How Socialist? A Survey of Major Countries

by: Chris Bowers

April 6, 2009
Levels of socialism in G-20 nations, plus selected other economies

Cuba: 81.4%*

France: 61.1%

Sweden: 58.1%*

Italy: 55.3%

Netherlands: 54.7%

Libya: 53.0%*

Germany: 48.8%

Canada: 48.2%

Spain: 47.3%

Angola: 44.8%*

United States: 44.7% (2009)

United Kingdom: 42.1% (2009)

Australia: 43.6%

Venezuela: 41.1%*

Saudi Arabia: 40.4%

Turkey: 39.1%

United States: 35.5% (2007)

South Africa: 33.9%*

Indonesia: 33.2%

Japan: 30.9%

South Korea: 29.3%

Mexico: 26.7%

China: 22.0%*

Russia: 20.9%

India: 20.4%

Argentina: 19.1%

Brazil: 17.3%

* = officially, or at least famed for being, communist or socialist

WTF is this list even supposed to be? What is a "level of socialism"? Socialism means only one thing: That the state owns the means of production. It almost looks like this might be the percentage of the GDP of the country that comes from government spending, but if it is it's flat out wrong for many countries -- it says nothing about "ownership", and therefore nothing about socialism.

During WWII, something like 90% of US GDP was spent on the military -- and the US wasn't any more "socialist" than it was before or after the war.

bdrasin says

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less ’socialist’ than the US on this chart…not sure about the others but I’d bet many of the others do as well.

Alright, I'm just going to ask this one once -- what the fuck is "socialized medicine"? Of the countries you listed here, only one has government "run" health care, and the others all have public insurance options.

I'm pretty convinced that Bapp33 wants to live in a country where the government does not control anything. Maybe he should try sub-Saharan Africa.

Why the health care system is broken:
1) Lawsuits
2) limited doctors/medical school
3) insurance industry

1) Lawsuits : The primary function of judiciary is to deter harmful behaviour and to get compensation for victims. Lets take two examples
Country X : Patient sues a doctor for forgetting a scissor in the stomach after a surgery and needed emergency re opening. Judge awards 100K compensation which patient is happy to recieve.The doctor feels enough finacial punishment as he just lost a significat money and will not try to repeat the mistake. Both objectives of the judical system achieved.
Country USA : Patient sues a doctor for the same reason. Doctor has liability insurance. Objective 1 (deterence) already failed.Judge awards 1 million to victim which the insurance pays and is not a big deal for insurance company.Patients as a group share the burden of the 1 million through the doctor.If all doctors take liability insurance, all awards just get inflated and there is not much deterence for risky behaviour as insurance is spreading the risk.
FIX: ban liability insurance and limit awards to 3X the yearly salary of the doctor involved.

2) limited doctors/medical schools : The AMA lobby plays all the tricks to keep the supply of doctors low so that the salaries of doctors is very high.IF you are a civil engineer , would you not love to have a lobby which makes sure that the supply of civil engineers is very low so that you can get paid 400K/year ?
In engineering jobs we don't see this happening because the corporates get involved and manage to get cheap labour ( globalization ...etc crap). which eventually helps the customers who buy the final products. When it comes to medical field , their is nobody to fight for the customers except the citizens themselves ( who are stupid and poorly organized). AMA is one of the biggest paying lobby and has made it very defficult to setup medical schools and entry of foriegn doctors by difficult exams..lenthy educations,licensing...etc.
Who the heck are they to come between supply and demand ?
Fix : make them create different accreditations for all level of skills like A, B ,C ..etc
certificate A : high school + 4 years of medical school
certificate B : high school + 6 years of medical school
....
This will create abundant supply of doctors at different levels of expetise and skills.The patients will decide which doctor they want based on thier condition.I can go to low skilled doctor for a minor scratch on my finger and pay $20 rather than go to $200 M.D
Remove all the red tape from medical schools and produce more doctors.
If the average salary of doctor is 300K, you can smell arficial supply problem or barier of entry problem....right ?

3) Insurance Industry : The whole concept of third party payment is ridiculious.Its a free market killer.
The third party ( insurance ) shields the customer and seller and has a hazard similar to "tragedy of commons". This creates a bubble in prices.Lets assume we all suddenly start taking insurance for paying for groceries.The buyer will buy more than he wants and at very high prices because somebody else is paying.
The store will have very high prices because cutomers are price insensitive. This vicious cyle will end up in a can of milk at $100.Even if ,there is another insurance company which comes to compete and has lower premiums because it can reduce expenses by having deductibles and detering customers from wastage....equilibirium is reached but the third party shielding cannot be eliminated due to the nature of the system, so it reaches an equilibirium at inflated prices.
FIX: ban all insurace except catastrophic insurance. insurance is a flawed system and should be used only in exceptional cases in a society when risk has to be distributed because a single individual cannot handle certain shocks.Insurance should not be allowed for normal expenses ( like paying for doctors visits)

snmr1234 says

The primary function of judiciary is to deter harmful behaviour and to get compensation for victims

No, it's to interpret the laws that are made by the legislative body so that the executive body knows how to enforce them.

Determing harmful behavior is the responsibility of the legislature (who makes the laws) and the executive branch (who enforce them).

It is mostly up to juries to decide on compensation for victims.

The fear mongering that exists around malpractice lawsuits is complete bullshit. The total amount of money awarded to malpractice victims is miniscule -- less than one tenth of one percent of the annual cost of health care.

Very few countries have limits on malpractice suits. This is just a boogeyman that health care organizations want you to think is real so that they can avoid any liability when they screw up. The insurance companies LOVE the myth of the rampant lawsuits, because it ensures that medical professionals will continue to pay them obscene amounts of money.

bdrasin says

UK, Australia, Japan, and South Korea all have socialized medicine and yet are less ’socialist’ than the US on this chart…not sure about the others but I’d bet many of the others do as well.

Alright, I’m just going to ask this one once — what the fuck is “socialized medicine”? Of the countries you listed here, only one has government “run” health care, and the others all have public insurance options.
I’m pretty convinced that Bapp33 wants to live in a country where the government does not control anything. Maybe he should try sub-Saharan Africa.

Ok, I agree that socialized medicine is not a very helpful term. I guess I meant to say "These countries have systems that, if proposed here, would be widely derided as socialized medicine" (I believe they are all basically single payer systems). They all have universal coverage and significant government-provided care and, I might add, much lower health care costs than we do.

drfelle says

The key word is “awarded”. Doctors have to pay a hefty premium for their malpractice insurance, and Insurance companies have to pay a hefty premium for their legal fees to avoid the “Boggeyman”. The legal team have to pay their staff, and turn a profit; Not to mention cost of staff, supplies, utilities, etc, etc. Add all of that money up with the “awarded” malpractice victims.

You're still wrong. Try digesting this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16136632 (in 2001 the figure was 0.46% for the combined cost of defending, insuring, and settling malpractice claims; less than a quarter of that was awarded to victims. At best, completely banning lawsuits is going to reduce medical care costs by less than 1%. Awesome.

drfelle says

Again, where is this data coming from? Regardless, If the Governement has Socialized Health Care in these countries they’ve “probably” Socialized Law amongst other things. Once Socialism starts it snowballs, Comrade.

Laws are public information, you know. I can't find any country with a decent health care system with any meaningful limitations on malpractice lawsuits. Perhaps you can find one? Maybe? Just one?

bdrasin says

believe they are all basically single payer systems

Of the countries you listed, only the UK is single payer. Australia has a substantial public program (also called medicare), but private insurance also exists.
There actually aren't that many single payer countries. By far the most common system is a hybrid public/private insurance scheme, where employers are required to provide insurance and the government provides insurance for those who are unemployed or retired.

Kevin,

Excellent that you dug up that number (0.46% in 2001). Now what will the propagandists say, I wonder?

"Socialized Law"

That's a new one. Does it mean that that the law applies equally to everyone? If so, I'm for it.

Kevin says

Of the countries you listed, only the UK is single payer. Australia has a substantial public program (also called medicare), but private insurance also exists.
There actually aren’t that many single payer countries. By far the most common system is a hybrid public/private insurance scheme, where employers are required to provide insurance and the government provides insurance for those who are unemployed or retired.

Maybe it depends on how you look at it (and I'm no expert). According to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Japan: "Payment for personal medical services is offered through a universal health care insurance system that provides relative equality of access, with fees set by a government committee. " I thought that was the definition of a single payer system (govt agency sets fees and provides the insurance). It is my understanding that South Korea's health care system is modeled after Japan's so I assume it works in a similar way. Is it the case that some people can 'opt out' of the national system and get private insurance instead? Or is private insurance purely supplemental?
I guess medicare (in the US as well as in Australia) is a single payer system, but the difference is that in Australia it provides universal healthcare and in the US its only for part of the population.
If a country has a single payer system that covers everyone I'd say that makes the country's health care system 'basically' single payer, even if there is some supplemental/alternative private insurance options.
My Swiss coworker explained to me that in Switzerland while all health insurance is private, the insurance companies aren't allowed to set prices for medical care as those are determined by a government medical board and they aren't allowed to refuse to cover people. I don't know how many other countries work that way.

bdrasin says

Is it the case that some people can ‘opt out’ of the national system and get private insurance instead?

Not quite. In Japan (and S. Korea, so far as I'm aware), employers provide insurance and the government provides universal coverage to people who don't get it from work. This was mentioned in the wikipedia article as well :)

It kind of "looks like" single payer because employers are all required to participate in the same group plan, but it is definitely the employers paying the bills for that one, not taxes.

Additionally, there are substantial co-pays (20-30%) for individuals with sufficient income, even on the government system. That's not "single payer".

I'm not a big fan of the Japanese system. It seems a little better than what we have in the U.S., but not by much. I think taking the burden off of employers is an important goal, which is why I'm in favor of a system like Switzerland's.

Drfelle,

Uh, you have read and posted the ABSTRACT of the article, and based on the fact that the abstract does not contain the exact wording that Kevin used, you are calling him a liar. Now hold that thought for a moment.

Here is a slightly longer summary of the paper (pdf):

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/In%20the%20Literature/2005/Jul/Health%20Spending%20in%20the%20United%20States%20and%20the%20Rest%20of%20the%20Industrialized%20World/846_anderson_hltspendingUS%20world_itl%20pdf.pdf

The summary says, and I quote:

"Including awards, legal fees, and underwriting costs, the total amount spent defending
U.S. malpractice claims was an estimated $6.5 billion in 2001, or 0.46 percent of total health spending."

So, in other words you called Kevin a liar and you were WRONG. What does that make you?

On a greater note: Next time the terrain does not fit your right-wing-nutjob map, you should believe more in the terrain and less in the map, lest you walk off a cliff.

PS: Just doing a little sidekick duty here. I don't mind being the sidekick for a good cause :). No need to be first banana all the time.

Oh, so now that you have been disproven, it is time to question the authors of the source.

>> his mind is already made up.

I don't think the problem is that Anderson's mind is already made up. The problem is that *your* mind is made up, and no amount of fact is going to change that.

Dude, Bap33 was not quoting any study by Brooks, *I* was. Bap never produced the source, I dug one up myself.

That aside, the claim was that conservatives give $377/year more. Even if we assumed the number is correct, the significance of this pittance is minimal. In fact, charitable giving overall is a drop in the bucket.

Now, why don't you follow through on your claim and produce some specific numeric values from a reputable right-wing sourcr about the total cost of malpractice.

You cannot dismiss facts by saying "the author is liberal". You've painted yourself into a corner, and you know it.