My Experience with the French Health Care System
I got quite ill over the Christmas holiday, and am still recovering. My wife and I elected to spend a few days in Paris just before the New Year, most of which was spent in my hotel bed. As I continued to worsen, and as I felt an ear ache on the day before I was supposed to fly out, I called a doctor. This was New Years’ Eve. After a couple of hours, the doctor came straight to my hotel room, and examined me. It turned out I had a flu-induced fever combined with an infection of the ears, tonsils, and sinuses. I had to delay my departure. The doctor was both efficient and friendly. She left me with a detailed prescription for seven different items. My wife filled it first thing in the morning, immediately, no waiting. Later in the day, the doctor called my hotel room to check up on me. I was most impressed. In the United States, the only option would have been the emergency room, a forlorn and depressing place, with long waits and impersonal treatment. I always knew the French health care system was superior; now I experienced it in person. There is a better way, a way centered on the person.
Comments are closed.
At least the u.s. system ain’t communist.
Neither is the French system.
This is my experience in Germany, as well.
This has not been the norm in the United States since my parents, born in 1940 and 1945, respectively, were children, although traces of this ethos persisted into my own childhood. Roughly, this has coincided, in my lifetime, with the spread of private, for-profit health insurance, which has imposed a non-patient-centric form of regimentation upon medical professionals.
Well, anecdotal “evidence” doesn’t exactly prove much, in any matter. This is also how dislike of whole groups start.
That said, house calls still happen in Austria, particular in more rural areas.
Now for my anecdotal “evidence” :-P I remember our GP coming over as well. Of course, the hours for that are limited. As far as waiting times in urgent care, ER etc. goes, it’s similar, if not better here. I threw out my back 36 hours before the wedding (got married on Percosett or something like that), Not being able to get off the floor for an hour, we went to the ER at 2 a.m. This was SHARP in San Diego. It took about an hour until it was my turn and within 10 minutes I was on a morphium drip. Weeeeee ! 5 seconds and you’re floating. Urgent care has never been more than 30 mins really. I’m doing a lot of Yoga now, no more trips to urgent care :-)
I’d say the European system is, by and large, better for “regular” people. Not because of the quality of care, I’d think, but because you keep your freakin’ insurance regardless of job changes. The American “solution” was developed in WW II, and probably for good reasons then (?), but now it’s just ridiculous. Get a new job, get new insurance, need new doctor, might have to fight over pre-existing conditions (well, no s***, since you just switched my insurance it pre-existed – I wasn’t born yesterday)
In addition, you always have to find out which doctors, hospitals etc. are available under your insurance (the hospital in our town we aren’t eligible for – woohoo, drive half an hour or more during rush hour).
American health care costs are also strongly impacted by people here illegally. Which could be solved by….anybody ? Bueller ? Tax revenue could be increased by…. ?
American health care costs are also strongly impacted by people who don’t want to afford (yes, there are plenty who could pay for it but think they’re young and fine and if they are in big trouble the ER has to take them anyway) and those who can’t afford it. Like car insurance, health insurance should be mandatory, and subsidized for those who really cannot afford it.
Prescription costs are pretty identical in Austria and the USA – for the “regular stuff”. By now, more “fancy” meds also cost more to fill there, but not as widespread. My Vyvanse precription is $45 a month – since it’s a new med – only generics cost $5. Now imagine you need several non-generics a month (and don’t live near the Canadian border). Eat or take pills ? Oh and the argument in favor of this ? Since other countries get the meds so cheap, we have to charge more. Seriously. Now, uhhhhhh, a big percentage, if not the majority, of the pharmaceutical industry is in Europe – France, Switzerland, Germany. Take a guess about the price difference. Ambien for example – French.
Basic mandated/made possible health care, with an option to “upgrade” coverage, that “stays with you.” That’s the right way to do it. Of course, that’s socialism, LOL.
An excursion on the American system (email me if you want a bigger piece on this for this blog – after 11 years and recent ‘awakening’, I can tell a lot about the differences)
First off, it’s better for someone starting a business. As a photographer, I’d have to go through a whole “guild” system, basically servitude, to get the permit to own a business myself – this is the same for hairdressers, pretty much any trade. You can pay off a “master” of course, to extend his license to you, i.e. shady deal. There are many advantages of living here, especially if you’re a professional.
That said, the American people get raped. And, not just raped, they are indoctrinated in a manner that makes them thank their rapists.
- Can’t have decent healthcare for all, because that’s socialism (and this is a reason to reject it why ?)
- Everything is based on a) credit. I don’t think any other country has as big a per capita debt. Of course, in order to raise your credit – which is important for, uh, everything, you have to spend money, and usually won’t be able to pay it back in time and pay the banks until kingdom come.
- Everything is based on b) stocks. Retirement based on stocks, or at least for the most part ? Sure, some, but most ? Good luck. Especially in a country where hardly anything is regulated (well, except Martha Stewart, ooo for THAT you go to prison) and unscrupulous, greedy people with a tendency towards immolating everything, sometimes even themselves. What the heck are futures good for ? It is possible to make transactions about things that don’t exist. Remember Enron ? Due to a lack of regulation (and partly political correctness), the people running this country managed to lay waste to whole branches of business, from real estate to finance. Who knew debt secured with debt wouldn’t work ? Who knew having 1/40 in capital wouldn’t work ? This isn’t capitalism – there was no freakin’ capital.
- “Outsourcing”, aka “You’re fired!”
- Military cult & constant wars.
- People being screwed, while big business/finance gets bailed out, turns around and sticks it to the customers.
- Student loans – Doctorate can easily cost $150k. Austria: Cost of books, nominal semester fee, including going for the doctorate.
- Taxes aren’t that much lower here, but you get…what ? Military and freeways, I guess.
- No vacation time worth mentioning. 6 weeks? Why, that’s socialism and lazy! There are conservatives who actually view this as immoral
- Working on holidays. Weee! I saw Longs’ sign “Open until midnight on Christmas Day”. I do like the longer opening hours, but who needs a computer at 10pm ? On the other hand, try and get dinner later in the evening.
- Give birth during work, wipe yourself off and back to the register you go. I saw a woman in freaking contractions still working. “They’re not that bad yet”. Paid maternity leave…for a year ? Clearly Communist.
- Savings paying no interest worth mentioning. My parents’ regular savings account (i.e. withdrawals/deposits any time) has 4% interest.
And the worst of all, as I said, people are drilled into believing that this is the “American Dream (TM). That this is the “greatest country in the world”. And you know this how ? Especially when most have never left the country ? Sure it is for some, but not for regular people.
You (Americans) get brainwashed from day one, into believing that it’s great to get screwed, great to “serve your country” by invading other countries and that the metric system is Communist. Heck, conservatives view soccer as a “red menace”.
You are made to believe – and apparently many buy into it – that it’s great to be worse off. To distract you, there are these idiotic “culture war” issues. Creationism, megachurches, food till you drop certainly helps to distract you from what’s actually important. There are people who actually get more outraged by a nipple on tv than by war. Bush restored honor to the White House. The list is endless. Admittedly, I bought into a lot of that, but I was wrongly medicated. Maybe SSRIs are the government’s mind control LOL. I’m surprised Vyvanse isn’t illegal :-)
You are made to believe that Canada is a bad country. Health care, education, low crime rate, not starting wars, gay marriage, you name it. (Granted, there are those ueber-political-correctness freaks who sometimes try to stifle free speech). Who protested gay marriage in Canada ? 10 SSPX people ? You’d think it’d be obvious that a system is superior that those who live close to use in order to afford medication, for example. Of course, those systems can have bad excesses as well, such as exploiting the system, too much regulation and so forth. But I don’t think you can get screwed as much as here. Sure, French nigh-impossibility to get fired isn’t a good idea at all, but there being no “waiting period” at all in California, who benefits most from that. Anyone ? Schwarzenegger wants two mandatory days off for state employees, for two years. Good luck trying that in Austria.
In conclusion, the conservatives who support all those things listed above….I wonder what percentage is brainwashed and what percentage is just a bunch of whores of business and military. Those two reasons are the only feasible ones. There should be a middle way between full-on welfare state (of course, conservatives see anything as a welfare state that doesn’t throw grandma in the snow) and full-on screw-you state. That said, the American system is rigged from start to finish, and not in the favor of regular people. Those fooled will thank the system for “using lube this time”. How kind.
This is why you have to sing the anthem at intra-national ball games (LOL) and raise the flag on every dung hill. Car dealership ? We want a 50 foot, nah, 100 foot flag! I want it to be seen from SPACE !
Row you bastards. Greatest country in the world. Row you bastards…Greatest country in the world. Why, thank you ever so kindly for slowing down the drumbeat.
F*ck.
* Schwarzenegger signed an executive order requiring two mandatory days off per MONTH for two years. A FURLOUGH. Translation: Screw you, better you have less money than increasing taxes on the rich, or rather, the money that’s not un-taxed and off-shore. After all, that stimulates the economy. And hey, we gave you a $300 check the other year, so STFU. Here’s your check. Here’s your sign.
In the United States, the only option would have been the emergency room, a forlorn and depressing place, with long waits and impersonal treatment.
I don’t want to dispute that, but I will say that I was sent to my doctor to the emergency room of Lennox Hill Hospital (Manhattan) because I had pleuritic chest pain and he needed to catch a plane (and it was also Memorial Day). I really shouldn’t have had to go to the ER, but they took me in immediately, treated me very kindly and attentively even though I was clearly the least sick person there. I had atypical pneumonia.
Also, my nephew is a doctor and works in emergency medicine, so let’s not be too down on emergency rooms. If only they could limit themselves to treating emergencies, they would be much better places.
I’ve only been to good urgent care and ER’s. I don’t think care is bad (and waiting is a much bigger problem in Austria), it’s the cost and Kafkaesque administration. ERs are no picnic in Austria.
Excellent. How did you pay for the service?
MM, why do you hate the USA so much????? ;-)
peace to all
Merry Christmas!
There’s no way that system, if introduced in the US, would be cheaper than what we have now. Allegedly lower administrative costs can’t even begin to compare to the cost of personal hotel visits.
I hope that you’re feeling better now.
That’s certainly very encouraging service, but I can’t help imagining that if you’d been a working class Algerian man living in a bad part of Paris you would not have got a house call on a holiday. Being a foreigner staying in a nice hotel generally opens doors that are not open for everyone. And come to that, most nice hotels in the US list in their book of services that if you are in need of a doctor they can either direct you to a facility or arrange for someone to see you in your room.
Whatever the merits of its health care system, France lives with the shame and stigma of having Socialized Medicine – one baby step away from commie pinko status.
BTW, I will never forgive the French for not sending troops to Iraq. Freedom Fries Forever.
Freedom Fries Forever.
Yes, can you please change the title of this post to read “Freedom Health Care.”
Yeah, Hook’m. Where do those French people get off, helping sick people and not killing people. That is a very stigmatizing shameful thing indeed.
DarwinCatholic,
I share your concerns about French social services and the low income/immigrants. I don’t know much about the French Church, but I hope they are helping them.
You’re incredible. I guess based on your story about some doctor in Paris, the United States should adopt socialist medicine, huh?
Since you feel that your experience is somehow representative and should be an indicaiton of quality, let me give you my family’s experience.
When my Irish grandmother first got really sick about 15 years ago, we tried hard to study and explore her options near Limerick. But we couldn’t find any appropriate cancer treatment for her illness there or anywhere else in Ireland, particularly at her level of savings. Fortunately, we were able to actually bring her to us full-time in Boston where we could get a specialist familiar with her condition – something that rarely happens in socialist/government health care systems – here in the United States. And we could do it in a reasonable way working with a program here that fit our family’s budget.
Being able to meet the needs of people because a market-based system allocates resources more efficiently than a socialist system: that’s what I call a “way centered on the person.”
George Crosley:
Please read my previous entries on health care before passing judgment. This personal anecdote merely bolsters the case I have been making for some time now for a single payer system, based on efficiency, equity, and solidarity considerations. It’s based on facts and analysis, not slogans.
Morning’s Minion:
I’m new to this blog so I am not familiar with your previous posts, nor am I passing judgement on them. I do absolutely pass judgement on the idea that one can use a single anecdote and consider it reflective of a whole system or even that it can be evidence of a superior “way centered on the person.”
I also pass judgement on the idea that a single payer system is preferable on efficiency, equality and solidarity considerations. A single payer system would not control costs; it would balloon them. The best way to allocate resources is through the freedom of the market, not through central planning.
Look at sectors of the economy the government doesn’t control: goods and services are affordable and timely. Sectors of the economy with high regulation: intense rent-seeking, high cost and low quality. It doesn’t matter what the good or services is, these economic behaviors will always hold true.
Michael, reading my painfully long piece above, don’t you find it scary that we sound similar these days ?
I think Joe the Plumber (TM) served Freedom Fries (TM) before he became famous and got his own “derangement syndrome”.
Damn you, France, for not supporting our wars of aggression!!
Excusez-moi, Monsieur Redneck, but we’re ‘aving a fine Pinot here, avec fromage, s’il vous plaît…go avay ! Mangez, mangez, tous que vous pouvez manger. Si vous devenez plus gros, peut-être, vous ne pourrez pas commencer des guerres plus.
Mr. Crosley makes my point perfectly. His single anecdote is very reflective of our system, as opposed to the ridiculous French example referenced by the socialist Morning’s Minion. America’s health care system is the envy of the world. Based on efficiency, quality and cost, Kings, shahs, royalty, wealthy elites from all over the world come here to the Mayo Clinic, Sloan Kettering, etc for treatment because they demand the finest. It’s imperative that our healthcare remains- strictly market based lest we start down the slippery slope of socialism. I call into question the patriotism of anyone who does not recognize the extreme danger our country faces at this time. Be forewarned: Obama is intent on 3 things: killing babies, confiscating our guns and turning American into a socialist state.
rance lives with the shame and stigma of having Socialized Medicine – one baby step away from commie pinko status
Actually, there is no historical correlation between the establishment of socialized medicine in a nation and the subsequent plummet of that nation into communism.
Hook’m Horns,
You are going to have to do better caricaturing the American right.
At least be more comically clumsy…
The fact that rich people can come from other countries to elite hospitals is not a lofty vindication of the system. Many people who live here, who have middle class incomes and work hard (the “real America”) will never have access to those same places. In fact, many of them cannot afford healthcare in spite of their decent incomes.
You don’t get to only choose the good parts of market driven healthcare.
“A single payer system would not control costs; it would balloon them. The best way to allocate resources is through the freedom of the market, not through central planning.”
Absolutely false. You are letting ideology “freedom of the market” get in the way of facts. Single payer systems generally achieve superior outcomes for about half the per patient cost as the US system. See here for the beginning: http://vox-nova.com/2007/06/26/health-care-reform-in-defense-of-single-payer-systems/
Hook’m Horns is obviously a satirist. Or Michelle Malkin.
Actually, rich Arabs frequently come to Austria for treatment.
“America’s health care system is the envy of the world”
If you’re actually part of it…
Now let’s assume Hook’m is not a satirist – after all, the opinion expressed is not uncommon. Why do Americans think everything they do or have is the envy of the world ? Vacation time ? M/Paternity leave ? Wars ? Expensive education ? Lousy high schools ? Evangelicals ?
Nobody’s ever explained why “socialism” is a bad thing – is it because it’s made synonymous with Communism ? Guess who the Communists first target. Obviously, “pure” socialism isn’t a good idea. But, uh, what’s bailing out all those *#!* corporations if not socialism.
I understand. If you’re a corporation, you get government aid. If you’re an individual you can go #$!# yourself, or have the government do it for you.
(and it’s not like Europe is “Socialist”. Every economy is a blend of many things. It’s just used as an argument to convince Americans that it’s great that politicians are the whores of business and that its interests are the primary concern)
Au contraire, AdamV. Rich people are rich for a reason: they have worked harder than others or they come from superior stock as in the case of royalty. The mere fact they come to America for their healthcare is not only a tribute to our market based system, it is something we Americans should be proud of. I know I certainly am. You won’t see people of quality going to hospitals in socialist countries like France or Canada where they would encounter plebian commoners (possibly in the next bed!) when a private suite at the Mayo clinic would be so much more suitable. You are spouting typical liberal Class Warfare jargon against rich people as your heart bleeds for middle class Americans who, as you say, “work hard” and can’t afford healthcare. If they can’t afford healthcare, they are not working hard enough. In America, not only do we have the finest healthcare in the world, the streets are paved with gold in the form of golden opportunities. People need to stop whining, get off their collective butts and WORK.
Admit it Mark, Hook’m Horns is you :-P You’re channeling Ann Coulter & Michelle Malkin’s love child.
Gerald Naus, since you are obviously EXTREMELY anti-American and a socialist to boot, all I can say is I will pray for your soul. If America is not the envy of the world, why are so many Mexican ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS sneaking over the border every day? I will pray for your soul but you probably aren’t even Christian.
Okay, I’m pretty sure Hook’m Horns is being sarcastic. If he is, I think its unfortunate that he sounds exactly like my Dad when he’s being serious
“tis hard these days to tell satire from reality. You’d think “While it is true that we didn’t find weapons of mass destruction and much of our intelligence was wrong, no one can now doubt the word of America” was satire, yes ? I mean, who could say such a thing and be serious ? http://augustphotos.com/?page_id=33
HH’s usage of capitals reminds me of digbydolben.
Admit it, dd; it’s you
Absolutely false. You are letting ideology “freedom of the market” get in the way of facts. Single payer systems generally achieve superior outcomes for about half the per patient cost as the US system.
Your analysis is highly misleading. The fact that France implements its system at a lower cost (apparently by paying doctors peanuts?) provides no assurance that such a system would lower costs in the United States. After all — and we’ve been through this before, so you surely are aware of these facts — the United States government already spends just about as much per capita on healthcare (and that is including the entire population) as the French government, which necessarily that there must be some huge factors in the United States driving government healthcare spending to the sky (the US government is spending the same amount of money but covering only a fraction of the people). Until and unless you show some awareness of what those cost-inflating factors are in the United States (and obviously you can’t blame evil corporations, because we’re only talking about government spending here), you have NO basis for claiming that a single-payer system would necessarily be cheaper. Maybe, given those huge pro-government-spending factors, a single-payer system would drive costs even higher.
None of this, by the way, is meant to disagree that the French healthcare system does (to me) seem better than the US. I just dislike bad arguments and bad reasoning.
AdamV, your dad sounds very patriotic. Too bad the apple fell so far from the tree.
Mark DeFrancisis, Please let a life. I don’t appreciate your confusing me, a PATRIOTIC FAITHFUL CATHOLIC AMERICAN with Digby, a COMMUNIST AMERICA HATER of DUBIOUS RELIGIOSITY who dwells among SOCIALISTS in a FOREIGN COUNTRY!
Non, Mark, ce n’est pas moi–c’est un cretin!
Es un bufon.
Pourquoi me réveiller, ô souffle du printemps? (nudge to Mark)
Ditto everything S.B. said.
And it’s not only the price that needs to be examined. If price were the only factor at stake, we could simply create affordable housing through rent controls that drove down the price (with the end result of black markets and shortages, which is precisely what happens in socialist health care systems).
There is no “ideology” of the free market. There are only the realities of economics.
I opened your earlier post. I’m sure it’s very well intentioned. But when your opening paragraph includes this whopper, “Americans have fewer doctors per capita, go to the doctor less often, and are admitted to hospital less frequently” it is hard to feel the need to go any further in your piece.
A) Americans have fewer doctors per capita. Have you considered that that is because the market for doctors in the United States is smaller? Let’s say that there are fewer corn farmers in the United States. Does that mean that Americans will necessarily eat less corn? Unless you take a simplistic view that there is a positive correlation of unlimited elasticity between health care quality and the number of doctors, the number of doctors (at least in an industrialized country such as the US) is irrelevant.
B) Americans go to the doctor less frequently. The reason should be so obvious as to defy logic. Americans go to the doctor less because they directly bear some of the cost of their involvement with health care. If I know that doing something will cost me X dollars in an immediate sense rather than never having to view the cost (as a part of my income, consumption or other taxes) I will be much more prone to use that something on a level that equates with my need and willingness to pay. If ice cream were subsidized by the taxpayer (you and I, in other words), I would consume it much more frequently not facing the full cost immediately.
C) Ditto (B). A perfect example: a friend of mine broke his ankle a week ago. But he wsan’t sure whether he broke it or not so he took a couple days off to lie on the couch with bags of ice to examine the swelling etc. He knew that if he had gone immediately to the ER and gone through a myriad of tests, he’d have to face a singificant deductable, even if the tests ended up being totally unnecessary. If the government (i.e. taxpayers) were to foot the entire bill, he would have zero incentive for waiting a couple days to help clarify his problem and zero incentive to take a little more responsibility over his own health.
(And by the way, he agrees entirely with this analysis of the appropriate way to think about health care and his situation.)
George: I think you need to read further, Your argument is the typical false argument that the free market restrains health care costs, and that the problen is one of over-consumption of health care. This is more than a little bizarre given that (unique in the developed world) something like 40 million people lack health insurance and an equal number of under-insured. Rationing by cost is a huge issue. And yet, Americans pay twice as much per capita in health care spending than any other country. Ask yourself what is going on. Ask yourself where that money is going.
MM —
You really need to read Shannon Brownlee’s book Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer. She’s a supporter of universal healthcare, by the way, so you needn’t refuse to read her on ideological grounds. But she nonetheless makes an absolutely devastating case that one of America’s most pressing problems is, yes, overconsumption of health care. Doctors put people in the hospital too much, they do heart operations too much, they do back surgery too much, they prescribe antibiotics too often, and many more examples — all of which actually kills and harms people.
If you’d try to learn something about the human body and how medicine actually works, you’d find out that healthcare is not just a good thing. Health care, in fact, is one of the leading causes of death in America (that is, getting health care, not being denied health care). Health care inevitably comes with a substantial risk of death or injury. Doctors and nurses are human, and they make mistakes. Surgery has ineradicable risks. Drugs interact and cause an allergic reaction or even death. People get infections (often very serious ones) from the very fact that they’re receiving treatment in the same building as other sick people. And on top of that, only about 15% — 15%!!!! — of the treatments that doctors use are supported by actual evidence (e.g., randomized trials).
It’s really an eye-opening book, well-supported by numerous studies. If you want to learn anything about the health care issue, start there.
In fact, I suspect that the absolute best argument for universal healthcare would be the opportunity to clamp down on the overuse of medicine. Strict rationing, and we’d all be healthier. (And that’s the only way you’d get costs down anyway.)
As usual, facts seem to be irrelevant to disciples of the socialist health care system.
The free market doesn’t restrain anything. The free market allocates resources in a way that optimizes resources to fit the needs of people given what is possibly for society as a whole to afford.
Inflating numbers of uninsured in the United States doesn’t help the argument in favor of socialized health care. Besides, coverage that consists of a State-run bureaucracy making medical decisions isn’t coverage at all.
Rationing is exactly what will happen under health care run by the State. The State will decide who gets what and at what price. And just like the attempt to control rent, the biggest results will be shortages and black markets.
Because people who are hyper wealthy will get the health care they want, regardless of availability. If they have to hire personal doctors who will work off the clock or in their own private system, so be it. So much for a “way centered on the person.”
Maybe you should “ask yourself what is going on.”
People get infections (often very serious ones) from the very fact that they’re receiving treatment in the same building as other sick people.
I have read statistics that 100,000 people a year die from infections acquired in hospitals. I picked up a very nasty GI infection when I was in the hospital for eye surgery. My brother-in-law was in the hospital with a “superbug” infection, and the family had to put on paper gowns and paper shoe-covers to visit him. However, he had to keep reminding the doctors and nurses dealing with him to wash their hands. I don’t know why there is not greater concern about this kind of thing.
In fact, I suspect that the absolute best argument for universal healthcare would be the opportunity to clamp down on the overuse of medicine. Strict rationing, and we’d all be healthier.
I would tend to agree, and I suspect a lot of single payer advocates feel the same way (though for obvious reasons they feel the need to be circumspect on the subject).
Of course, if cost cutting is a major concern, then what we really ought to do is adopt something along the lines of the Singapore model. Their health care spending is even lower than Western European nations, and their health outcomes are just about as good.
As usual, facts seem to be irrelevant to disciples of the socialist health care system.
George,
I am by no means an expert on this, but it seems to me France doesn’t have a “socialist health care system.” They have a national health insurance plan. Most doctors are in private practice, and it sounds to me like there are fewer restrictions than I experienced in what was a very good managed health care plan here in the United States.
The way socialist is thrown around, you would swear it were the antonym of personal. Under such an understanding, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Kaiser Permanante would be considered socialist. Health care has always been a social good. Some of the first manifestations of it were sewers and protected water supplies. Many hospitals had their origins as either religious works or municipal/county operations.
Socialist is the antonym of personal. It is the idea that the State can run things better than individuals and groups operating and exchanging through freedom.
David,
Okay, it isn’t as socialistic as Sweden. It’s just much moreso than the United States.
Socialist is the antonym of personal.
No, it isn’t.
It is the idea that the State can run things better than individuals and groups operating and exchanging through freedom.
No it isn’t. While your aristocratic agrarianism is cute, no western nation operates under it. The world has recognized the merits of seperating ownership from agency, be it in capitalism or socialism. The beaucratic/managerial class is a reality.
I thought George Crosley was arguing AGAINST the American system :-P *scratches head*
The argument he uses struck me as odd when I read it first in some conservative publication…Americans should be tough! It should be expensive to afford a doctor visit! Unlike those sissy Europeans, we don’t need no stinkin’ doctors. And those who do, well they’re just wasting everybody’s money ! It’s like Phil Gramm telling people to stop whining after his kind destroyed the economy.
Seriously, I don’t know where one would have to go to find arguments as absurd as in this country. North Korea ? Where else do you find people arguing that a lot of vacation is just wrong ? Or that keeping people from going to doctors by having it cost a lot ? Ahhhhhhhhh. I swear, the Simpsons’ depiction of the Republican headquarters as Castle Dracula, Monty Burns in charge, is not satire. Not that liberals are a joy, but they still can’t aspire to the heights of madness and unabashed “*&#! you, keep rowing, you lazy bastards” you’ll find among conservatives.
Of course, American doctors tend to over-medicate (incentives from pharmaceutical industry ?), since this is a country based largely on hysteria. If a kid isn’t comatose it gets Ritalin, if you don’t feel happy, here’s Prozac. Of course there are people who need things like that, e.g. me (Vyvanse being a stimulant, controlled substance with the same purpose as Ritalin). Antidepressants, if one were a conspiracy theorists, one’d think the government hands it out. Highly dubious, SSRIs. Especially given how freely it is prescribed. Lethargy, dull, numbing, kills sex drive and really depressed people might get just enough energy to kill themselves. Thankfully, my doctor is European (probably a socialist ?) and doesn’t just offer cookie cutter solutions.
None of the over-treatment, over-medication has to do with arguing against affordable, organized healthcare. After all, the stuff cited happens, and especially so, in the wondrous American system, n’est-ce pas ? My Republican orthopedic surgeon wanted to have me ankle surgery (achilles tendon), after $80 per 10 minute laser treatments. Then I thought, well, he’s a surgeon, what else is he gonna suggest ? So I stopped going there and started doing Yoga. Guess who has no ankle problem.
Of course, the other argument conservatives make is that waiting periods are so long in socialized healthcare. Why do the bastards wait in the first place, for operations they don’t need ? :-P Wouldn’t than wean the hypochondriac plebs off the doctors’ teat ?
No system is perfect, so one can find flaws aplenty in any. Waiting times may be longer in some countries, but getting a doctor’s appointment here isn’t exactly overnight either. Try finding a general practitioner in the first place (and don’t let him/her prescribe you psych meds, see a psychiatrist). They are a dying breed. One has to be pretty out there to think that the American system is a) desirable and b) the envy of the world. These conservatives basically but Europe on par with Cuba. (and granted, there are some liberal idiots who tout Cuba because of its universal “health care”….).
I swear, I have had many an American say to me, “But isn’t Austria a socialist country ?” As in “Isn’t he a child molester ?” (Sure, the economic system there once was too heavily nationalized in some branches, say steel, but that’s pretty much gone. ) They seem to think it’s like Stalin having risen from the grave – that “my people” don’t get to vote or some such – when it is the American system that de-facto only allows for 2 parties (and uncontested seats throughout). Or that there is such a thing as purely socialist or capitalist. Vienna does have a stock exchange, so does Frankfurt, Paris etc. The USA is far more socialist when it comes to saving corporations, far less socialist when it comes to protecting jobs. They’re the main export, it seems. As I wrote above, the American system is the biggest con job conceivable – convince people who are worse off that they’re better off – and sneer at those who are better off (lazy, whiny etc).
Sorry for going nucular. I probably just hate you because you’re free, like the terrrrrists. Universal health care means the terrrrrists win. Freedom healthcare, dispensed by Joe the Plumber.
Can you imagine if Michelle Malkin got to decide who gets treatment ? LOL Talk about waiting period.
Want to solve the American health care problem ? Close all-you-can-eat places, make it illegal to ask “Would you like fries with that ?” . This is the fattest country in the world. And, the lard is not concentrated in San Francisco, mind you. Remember Obama being ridiculed for eating Arugula ? Where else but in America would such a thing be an argument against someone ? I guess, a true American eats Wonderbread and needs no vacation. Just a sugar coma. Shouldn’t those clamoring for less doctor visits sing the praises of Arugula ?
“State can run things better than individuals and groups operating and exchanging through freedom.”
I guess the exception to that freedom is the American state running wars ?
Granted, one has to appreciate George “Uncompromised Soul” Bush’s effort to privatize war. His employment of a private company, Blackwater (run by an “orthodox” Catholic, no less), is a trailblazing, visionary move. War should be profitable, after all. What are we? Socialists ?
Sorry, MZ, I’m neither aristocratic nor aggrarian. But it’s a nice bit of ad hominem from someone who denies the logic of economics. The fact is that almost all European states operate under socialistic-styled government. Don’t need to ask me; ask them. In Europe there are no pretentions that socialism is negative.
And yes, socialism is the antithesis of personal. But since nobody’s a socialist, it really doesn’t matter, does it? Is this one of those “it didn’t happen but if it did it isn’t a problem” arguments? Socialism replaces free human contact as the driving agent of society by control and coercion.
When you properly articulate what socialism is I will be more willing to accept arguments from your personal authority about my ignorance of basic economics.
I guess this “socialism” (in rather capitalist countries) is to blame then for the lack of wars, Evangelicals, low crime rates, better education and such ? Damn those commies.
* lack of Evangelicals
There is no “ideology” of the free market. There are only the realities of economics.
George, I really have to raise an objection to this. The idea that “economics” describes reality, that it freedom is something demonstrable and equatable with personal liberty, is an ideological notion. One that could be potentially true, but no more or less ideological than anything else.
adamv,
Economics can and generally does describe reality.
It is a positive science with the goal of doing as much. Elements of society can either choose to accept or not accept the nature of human relationships as suggested by the economic science through normative debate, but they cannot alter the positive (i.e. scientifically, logically derived facts) facts of economics.
The free market is a matter of normative philosophical application of the positive realities of economics. Namely, that the way to optimize resources for the benefit of the maximum number of pepole is through free exchange uncoerced by government intervention. And that the State is incapable of optimal economic calculation.
If you think that it describes reality that’s fine, but its not magically free from ideology. Its based on assumptions, as I said above, namely assumptions that equate freedom with liberty and economic utility. That’s a belief that can’t be proved or disproved; especially not by numbers.
I don’t think you understand the difference between positive and normative science. Maybe you reject the methodology entirely. I do think it is absolutely possible to compare and constrast effectiveness and efficiencies of public policy “by numbers” in a normative sense.
I’m trying to be charitable to people who think that the State should run health care by acceding the point that they actually recognize a problem and want to improve health care. The problem is that the best health care can’t be delivered by central planners; only in a market are resources optimized.
That’s a normative argument, not “ideology.”
There is no “ideology” of the free market. There are only the realities of economics.
HA!
The free market is a matter of normative philosophical application of the positive realities of economics. Namely, that the way to optimize resources for the benefit of the maximum number of pepole is through free exchange uncoerced by government intervention. And that the State is incapable of optimal economic calculation.
Free market is a fine economic system for most things, but I think you are overlooking some stark realities if you think the free market economic system is optimal for everything. For one, there is always government pressure in the market place – from copyright and patent, to defining what is a business unit, to providing the infrastructure that allows commerce to happen (roads and mail). Economic activity is always coerced by something, I have a reason to engage in the transaction. Just because the government isn’t involved doesn’t mean that I am happy and wishing I didn’t have other options.
One real problem with applying a straight free market approach to health care is that people are not ‘free’ in regards to their health. Routine and preventive care can be well served by a free market. But sick people don’t feel well, and just about any illness can affect a persons ability to make rational self-determining decisions. The sick and wounded are known for making poor market decisions.
The other real problem with a straight free market approach is that it quickly becomes apparent that some people simply can’t afford to live. Diabetics, quadriplegics, et. al. with chronic conditions can be a bit on the pricey side.
George Crosley,
I generally consider Economics to refer to the science of how a society or culture allocates scarce resources. Is that the same definition you are using?
sick people don’t feel well, and just about any illness can affect a persons ability to make rational self-determining decisions.
To the extent that this is an argument for government intervention, it would seem to justify not only government funding and/or provision of health care, but also government control of health care decision making. After all, if being sick renders someone incapable of rational decision making, then they are hardly capable of making their own health care decisions for themselves. Fortunately the statement is, so far as I know, largely without empirical support.
The other real problem with a straight free market approach is that it quickly becomes apparent that some people simply can’t afford to live. Diabetics, quadriplegics, et. al. with chronic conditions can be a bit on the pricey side.
My step-father is diabetic. So far as I know he receives no government assistance, yet somehow he manages to stay alive and out of poverty. If being a diabetic has been a major drain on his pocketbook, he hasn’t mentioned it. In any event, assuming that there are some rare cases where people can’t afford some sort of vital treatment and (for some reason) neither their family or friends or any charitable or private organization is able to help, then this would be an argument for government intervention – but only in those rare cases. It wouldn’t provide much of an argument for a government takeover for the vast majority who aren’t in such dire straights.
My step-father is diabetic. So far as I know he receives no government assistance, yet somehow he manages to stay alive and out of poverty.
Of course I don’t know the specifics, but most people with chronic conditions have health insurance through their employer, which is under government regulation. In a totally free market, this would not be the case, and I would wager that people with expensive chronic conditions would be priced out of the insurance market.
After all, if being sick renders someone incapable of rational decision making, then they are hardly capable of making their own health care decisions for themselves. Fortunately the statement is, so far as I know, largely without empirical support.
In order for a free market to thrive, there needs to be the ability to ‘take it or leave it’. if apples get to expensive, you switch to oranges. For some health care and procedures, that is simply not an option.
To be clear – I agree that socialized medicine has some real problems, however, our current system is no gem either.
Jeremy, I think that’s one way to think of economics, “how society organizes limited resources given unlimited wants.”
I’d ditto blackaderriv’s comments but to your comment: “In a totally free market…” I would say that actually I think the employer-provided insurance is (sort of) one of the results of the free market: it’s a place where employers have organized with their employees to provide a service voluntarily offered that is a return for the voluntary work.
Now, it’s not completely a result because there are obvious, huge tax incentives. But I think if nothing else it demonstrates that when the government reduces its regulatory/tax burden (i.e. by making health insurance by employers tax free) it helps to facilitate health care. Having the government control the costs (and likely the medical decision-making) will not be as effective as a reduction in control.
By the way, in researching stuff, I came across the Austrian regulations for pregnancy and mothers. I am laughing so hard, because you won’t believe just how f*cked you are in this country. It’s AMAZING. And then listen to the conservatives deride Europe. Bahahaha. I’ll have to write it up for you. My wife needs to learn German :-P
So, on to the evil socialists of Europe….ready ? Pregnancy, child birth and related manners in Austria (but common throughout Europe). I’m gonna have to save this :o) The next time someone scolds Europe’s “socialism”, slay them. Even the left in this country would be viewed as ultra-pro-business.
Ok, first of all. My wife makes six figures. She works for the state. Her maternity leave ? Zero, bahahahaha. She’d have to take sick leave.
Let me preface this by mentioning that Austria’s standard of living is in the very top of the world.
In Austria (where the legally mandated minimum vacation time, for everyone, is 5 weeks per year)
- Pregnant women cannot be fired during pregnancy. Afterward, they are also protected for the duration of maternity leave (the father can take over her leave). The only way to dismiss a pregnant woman/recent mother is with the ok of the court for labor and social affairs, which isn’t exactly in the hands of corporations.
- Pregnant women cannot work 8 weeks before scheduled birth date as well as 8 weeks after birth. Is the baby born early, the remainder of the 8 weeks is added to the 8 after birth.
- For these sixteen weeks, women get their full salary (the average of what they made during the last 3 months) paid by the government
- Pregnant and nursing women have a legal claim to breaks, up to 90 minutes (paid) per day. The employer has to have a room reserved for the women.
- After the 8 weeks period during which a woman cannot work, “Care time” begins, it can be split, twice, between both parents. The government pays during this time as well, although less. This time can last up to 2 1/2 years, or 3 if the other parent takes part of the time.
- Add to this good schools, low crime, free university including doctorate, no wars, high environmental protection standards, health insurance etc.
What are the taxes like ? (Health insurance, social security, education etc. included)
(Austria has a 13th and 14th “month” of salary – vacation and Christmas)
if someone makes approx. $600,000 per year before taxes, she pays 48% taxes, social etc.
If someone makes approx. $130,00 per year before taxes, she pays 45%
If someone makes approx. $35,000 per year before taxes, he pays 31%
If someone makes approx. $20,000 per year before taxes, he pays 18%
The United States of America spent 47% of the global military spending.
After all, if being sick renders someone incapable of rational decision making, then they are hardly capable of making their own health care decisions for themselves. Fortunately the statement is, so far as I know, largely without empirical support.
I disagree. When I was hit by a van, I did not have the rational capacity to pick the least expensive ambulance service, nor was I in a position to object to the $50 neck brace that I did not need, or the O2. I was in shock, and incapable of making decisions.
The last time I went to the doctor for a problem that wasn’t routine, I was feeling really crappy and not able to make decisions. I’m told to go to this or that building, the charges rack up, and I’m not in a position to shop around, or really question what they are doing. My wife isn’t in a position to question what is and is not really needed.
I love the free market, I love the options the free market provides, however, the free market is not the end-all be-all of why we exist. Economic efficiency is good, but not the only good, and certainly not better than happiness. It takes no imagination to see where a free market health care option will break down. Some force must be present to counteract.
Mr. Naus,
The Austria you love and long for will not exist in 50 years.
It has aborted anc contracepted its own future.
Muslims will replace them (not meant as an anti-Islam boogeyman scare, but as a demographic reality).
I love the United State because it is one of the few Western countries that still has a will to live.
Russia vs. USA vs. China vs. Arabia vs. the Sick Man of Europe
Mais vous etes tous des cretins….Moi, je suis nee en France et I live in this great America, where those who have no insurance or money, yes, will receive medical treatment if needed, but will be forever hunted by telephone to pay the astronomical costs involved for the treatment and forever stigmatized (credit liability) when they make the choice of eating and keeping a roof over their head versus paying their medical bills. Yes, socialized medicine would be probably easier on those who cannot afford insurance or are uninsurable or too impoverished, but again, is it really fair to lump all of us in the same room with illegals who crowd emergency rooms for their inability to control their birth rights and that’s what’s happening now, and I doubt very much that “change” would be effected under socialized medicine, but probably worst.