Xsarus wrote:
Yeah, this isn't the case. A social program at most makes it possible to survive a bad situation, it does not encourage it. Talk to anyone who is a struggling single parent and see if they wouldn't be happier if they were part of a complete family that wasn't struggling.
Ah... The "No one would choose to be poor!" argument.
Causality does not require intent. The existence of social assistance programs makes the consequences for various choices less unbearable, which increases the chance of those choices being made. No single individual chooses to end out single with a child, but it's pretty clear that the existence of the social programs increases the rate at which it happens across the set of all women.
It's funny how a safety net both reduces the injury to those who would have walked that tightrope anyway *and* increases the total number of people who choose to do it in the first place. That is all fine and good, but in this case, there are social issues which result beyond the initial financial problems of the potential single mother to consider. We're literally training people that they don't have to worry about taking personal responsibility for their own actions and decisions and then standing around wondering why an increasing percentage of the population doesn't take responsibility for things like raising their children.
Quote:
There are laws about child support that means that the father is required to help. The government steps in when that isn't sufficient or possible. All of which is irrelevant anyway as we were talking about public schools. I was under the impression that you were making a point that the kids felt entitled or something and so because of that weren't trying hard in school. Which I disagree with.
No. My point was about "bad parents" who do not involve themselves with their children's education. They expect that their only responsibility is to send their child to a school, and it ends there. I'm drawing a parallel between the choice to assume that the government/school will take care of their child's education without them having to do anything, to other choices in which personal responsibility is passed along to the government as well. It think it's pretty clear to see that someone who comes to accept the idea of government entitlement with regard to assistance programs will be more likely to adopt the same idea with regard to education, right?
gbaji wrote:
Car insurance in manitoba. Government run. Some of the least expensive premiums anywhere, no lawsuits about who's at fault, quick settlement and the premiums reflect the costs. You actually get a refund if they made money in a year. After capital spending of course, so they can expand if they need to.
I'd assume that the primary reason the costs are so low is that the payouts are determined by the government, right? You don't get to sue for additional damages. This is no different than Tort Reform movements here in the US. Private car insurance would be just as efficient if we could eliminate the obnoxious personal injury lawsuits as well.
I'd wager that if payouts were similarly restricted in a private system, it would be even more cost effective than the government system. Probably pretty similar to be honest. Both systems will involve overhead, so that's really the only area where cost differences would be seen, assuming an otherwise even playing field.
Um... I'd also point out that car insurance "works" where health insurance does not, for reasons having nothing to do with who's running it. I've mentioned in the past the absurdity of applying an insurance methodology to any sort of cost which is regularly incurred by everyone in the system. Insurance mechanisms work because you the thing insured against is a rare occurrence. A whole bunch of people put money into the fund, and only a small percentage draw out. Most people over their life times will lose money on insurance. It's a reverse lottery. If you're unlucky and something bad happens to you, you're covered. If you aren't unlucky you don't get anything, you lose money (but you weren't hurt, totaled your car, lost your home, etc).
The mechanism simply does not work when applied to something which requires regular payouts to everyone. At that point, it's just a cost redistribution scheme. There's no actual service gained here. With insurance, the idea is to protect you from a sudden cost which you cannot afford. But the vast majority of the payouts for health care are regular and small. A doctor visit. A prescription. Minor care. All we do by using insurance to pay for those things is increase the total cost (cause there's always overhead).
This is also not really about whether it's privately or publicly funded. The reality is that in the US the vast majority of people who receive health care as a benefit from their employer would be much better off if they could simply pocket the money taken from payroll for said health insurance, put it in an account, and spend it on their own health as needed. If we covered only major medical care (hospitalization) with insurance, the premiums would probably be about 25% of what they are today. Again. The employees could receive the remainder in direct payroll instead of having it taken off the top to pay for an insurance system they don't need.
The US system is a mess. I'm not denying that. But the core problem isn't solved by going all the way to a government controlled system. That only hides the problem. It does not fix it. Regular health care would be "cheap" if we didn't have a bloated system in the first place, complete with massive paperwork and payer tracking systems to make sure that the correct amounts are charged to the correct source. Obviously, making the government the payer in all cases makes this more efficient. But it's making a bad system more efficient. It's still a bad system.
We should be moving in the other direction. The real problem is the very concept of using an insurance mechanism to cover day to day health care. It's moronic, and it's why the costs are so high.
gbaji wrote:
Long waits is better then no health care.
Only if the alternative is no health care. Long waits is worse than short waits, right?
Quote:
However I'm not going to give you that point. If surgery is needed now you get it now, and if your health insurance isn't up to snuff in the states you can wait for a very long time, and sometimes not even get a chance to wait.
Yes. Because the system is bloated with all the care which need not and should not be handled by any sort of insurance process in the first place. And even then, if you have insurance you will get care. Quickly. It's interesting that comparisons between state-run systems and the US system always revolve around comparing to someone who just doesn't have any health coverage at all. When you compare the speed and quality of care for someone in Canada to say my own health coverage, the Canadian system falls far short.
Quote:
So yeah, what a wonderful system. There are of course resource issues, and the system isn't perfect, but we spend way less per capita then your government does on healthcare and get way more out of it.
Per capita costs should not be a relevant way to compare health care systems. I'm sure you spend less per capita on housing too. Does that mean that homes in Canada are "better"?
Quote:
There can be bad experiences, but hey, there are a ton of good ones too.
Same here. However, your odds of having a bad experience in the US is less that in Canada.
