The Great Debate 10/21/2007
(39 downloads)Download this episode (44 min)
Doug and Nate try Dead Guy Ale with their guest host AJ. Nate regales us with his kickball prowess. Doug offends both the Samoans and the Welsh (a rare feat in two minutes). Doug and Nate try and actually have a knowledgeable discourse on Canadian versus American health care. Doug insults lawyers. Doug insults politicians. Nate insults "big oil". AJ threatens the free world with being naked. Councils are convened.This day in history is boring again. We need to plan better. But Princess Leia is still hot 20+ years later.
Will AJ join us again? Email us your opinion.
9 Comments:
Hey guys - just listened to the latest episode. The production quality still sounds great. And thanks for the shout-out, however quickly retracted it was.
Doug - were you not able to find any newspaper articles from after 1994? The problem with the "free market economy will solve every problem" approach is that it does not provide a safety net for the millions of people who would not otherwise survive. And as soon as you account for a publicly-financed safety net, the people paying for the safety net start wondering why the net doesn't catch them. Abolishing the insurance industry, which seems to be your end-solution, would end up bankrupting hundreds of thousands of people who could never afford the skyrocketing costs of health care without an insurance company limiting their exposure.
Also, free-market capitalism does not apply when the stakes are life-or-death. If you think the closest hospital is too expensive, you're not going to drive to a hospital 50 miles away to save a few dollars.
I'm pretty sure AJ said a total of about 20 words, including pondering the value of a woman's crotch. But he could be worse.
I'm also not entirely sure your approach to the verdict system makes sense. First, remember that the attorney in the McDonald's case (which is everyone's example of a ridiculous verdict, and it's like 20 years old) WON HIS CASE. And you think he did something wrong? You think his client did something wrong for filing a successful lawsuit? Lawyers are the bane of everyone's existence, obviously, but we're not at fault for everything.
Okay - despite my comments, still looking forward to your next show.
Todd,
it seems that you are making the assumption that everyone is entitled to healthcare. If you start with that assumption we will quickly come to an impass.(Saftey net?) Show me where it's a right in the Constitution and we'll talk.
There are insurance companies that REQUIRE that if you are within 50 miles of "their" hospital, you have to go there.
I don't think lawyers are all evil, but I think you have to admit that there seems to be very little in the way of barring such cases from making it to the court room. In your opinion, how do we stop frivilous suits?
Doug
As a member of the much maligned healthcare system, I can tell you that there isn't a simple answer to this. Yes, the system we currently have can be improved on. However, it's noteworthy that I have personally cared for multple folks who have come down from Canada to receive care that just wasn't available to them. Not that the Canadian system doesn't necessarily do these procedures but that they may only be able to do so many of them per year and if you're not first on the list, you wait. The scenario my patient painted was one in which he needed a hip replacment but hadn't been waiting as long as others. He reecounted a bleak tale of people waiting more than a year with disabling pain. These people couldn't work, were on goverment aid and many ended up with addictions to their painkillers.
That's why he chose to come down to live with family here for 2-3 months so he could get back to his life. A key piece is that he had the financial ability to do so.
Another concern you mentioned was pharmaceuticals. I will tell you the one sector we desparately need to to keep in the free enterprise system is drug companies. As we have seen in antibiotic resistant "superbugs", antibiotic development needs to be an ongoing priority. Cardiac and osteoporosis medication development as babyboomers age is important as well. Research in drug development is not a straight line from concept to production. There's always lines of research that don't pan out along the way. Drug companies just aren't going to produce new meds without being able to recoup enough to cover all the stops and starts along the way.
Going back to an earlier debate, I'll tell you that I have seen firsthand the negative effects on medical care of illegal, non-English speaking patients. I was actually told by a Medicaid patient in a US emergency room (after he'd had all his ER care and followup care explained by the pricey intrepreter we were legally mandated to bring in) that I needed to learn Spanish. I am in no way advocating not providing care. However, if people are here illegally, they're adding costs to a system everyone agrees is too costly already.
Douglas, your goatie is HOT!!
Doug:
The Constitution has no language that says that everyone is entitled to healthcare. It was drafted to insure domestic tranquility and to promote the general welfare, however, and many of the values we as a society hold near and dear are staked on far less. My point is simply that we as a society will not bear watching people suffer from illness or die in the streets simply because they cannot afford to be treated by a doctor. If you think that the free market and capitalism requires insect-level Darwinism, then I think that is where our impasse exists. If you are simply saying that we should not have socialized health insurance, then we have plenty of room to talk.
In my opinion, you do not stop frivolous lawsuits. And while I hate to rely on Wikipedia, I think you should read about the hot coffee case so that you guys are prompted to find another example of a frivolous lawsuit. Here's the cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
As you will see, the woman wanted to settle the case for $20,000 to cover more than $11,000 in medical expenses resulting from an eight-day hospital stay, including skin grafts. McDonald's offered $800. The fact that a jury awarded her $2.9 Million only happened because McDonald's wouldn't offer more than a thousand dollars to resolve the litigation. Most of the truly frivolous lawsuits that are filed are never heard of by the general public because they are thrown out or fail miserably.
Todd,
My point in bringing up the Constitution was mainly to clear the table for real dialouge on what is obviously a multi-facted subject. There are many, including my on-air counterpart, who seem to want to make the claim that health care is a right that should be advanced and protected by the US Governement. I think that you and I agree that it is not. That being said, I think we can also agree that what we decide to do as a society to take care of the "general welfare" is both a warranted and good conversation. I do not labor under the idea though that taking money out of my pocket to subsidize a system that, not only goes against the grain of the founding ideals of this country (free-market), but seems to create more ill than good in other nations where it is tried, is a good plan. I would agree to your idea of a "safety net", just as long as there was a preventative stop-gap in place to prevent it from becoming a hammock.
As to the frivilous lawsuit issue, if you noticed in the podcast I mostly blamed the woman in the coffee issue. Upon reading further (thank you), it does seem that McDonald's was engaged in some odd practices. Practices that (to me) woiuld warrant a request for compensation. Again though, my intent in bringing up lawsuits was to try and give an account of one of the reasons behind high-priced medicine in this country...not to slam lawyers.
As a side note, am I understanding the case correctly in the sense that the judge reduced McD's payout to $640,000?
Doug:
You are understanding that correctly. This is the part of the story that the media tends to ignore. And based upon the fact that the case settled before it was resolved on appeal, I think she probably ended up with even less for the third-degree burns she suffered over 7% of her body.
Good, well-reasoned response on the health care issue. We can agree, I think, that we don't really disagree. At least so far. But I am not sure that the "free market" was one of the founding ideals of this country. If you look back through American history at tariff, tax, and interstate commerce transitions that have taken place, I think it is pretty clear that localities have long had a hand in regulating the markets. I believe your notion of a historically hands-off government is more hopeful than actual.
Todd,
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed112205b.cfm
I guess that I am trying to convey the notion of "free-market" as the ability to sell and buy that which the market determines is sell-able and buy-able. The idea of being forced to contribute money by the federal government to support policies and programs that don't seemed to be expressed in the Constituion really seems to be going against the grain of the "American" spirit. I think you will agree that at the very least, the Founders felt that government should be a "necessary evil" that would be tolerated to do that which the indiviual could not do on their own.
I quote the following more for others than, perhaps, for you...
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." (James Madison, Federalist No. 45)
When I talk of an "American spirit" or an "American ideal" it is this type of deliniation and restriction of the government that I think is inherit to that spirit and ideal. I fear the idea of straying from those convictions upon which the country was founded and I dare say that returning to those ideas is neither impossible nor undesirable.
Getting to go to the emergency room is a far cry from universal health care...what about checkups? Screenings? Chronic illnesses? What does someone do once they leave the emergency room with a diagnosis of AIDS or cancer and needs expensive drugs for the rest of their live, if they would prefer to live?
If there were more preventative medicine and screenings there would be less need for expensive medical procedures later.
Post a Comment