use Perl

• Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of? (Score:1)

  by tunaboy (4309)

  There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."

  Where is your hard evidence to support the above statement? In the absence of such evidence I guess you are stating an opinion as well.

  The reports I have seen indicate that the United States spends more as a percent of GDP than Canada and yet leav
  • Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of? (Score:2)

    by pudge (1)

    Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.
    
    I am not saying the U.S. is necessarily better than Canada, although I prefer our system. I am talking about broader principles, e.g. private vs. public dollars and the impact on the economy. Our
    • Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of? (Score:1)

      by tunaboy (4309)

      I never would. :-)

      I knew that was too good a setup to ignore. ;)

      Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.

      Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus
      • Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of? (Score:2)

        by jdavidb (1361)

        If Canada spends less (as a percentage of GDP, which I though a fair metric to use) on healthcare than the US how can it be screwing the economy? Doesn't that leave more money to be spent on other goods and services?

        You have committed the broken window fallacy [gmu.edu]. Note that I am not arguing that it is necessarily true or false that such a change in spending would leave more money to be spent on other goods and services. Simply pointing out that your reasoning is incomplete; as pudge mentioned, the money

        --
        J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
        • Re:Where is this 'hard evidence' you speak of? (Score:1)

          by tunaboy (4309) <reversethis-{moc.ccekb} {ta} {ekb}> on 2004.12.22 12:36 (#37032)

          I'm afraid I don't understand how this applies. I am saying that less is being spent on health care leaving more to be spent on other things.

          The broken window fallacy applies when I say that it is good that a situation was created because it creates economic opportunity while ignoring the opportunity cost of the situation. What is lost by spending less money on health care?

          It seems that the reverse is true, saying that the US spending more per GDP is a good thing because it is good for the economy ignores what that money might have otherwise been spent on.

          I also don't understand how money spent by a private system enters back into the economy but money spent by the government does not. Where does that government spent money dissapear too?

          Anyways, the whole point of mentioning the percentage of GDP spent on health care along with the amount that is "lost" was simply to point out that the socialized health care is perhaps not as inefficient as claimed by some, and also does not screw the economy as claimed by pudge.

          Reply to This

          Parent