"Liberty...
[1].freedom from constraint or force.
[2] freedom from captivity.
[3] a basic political,social,and economic right to choose how to think or act.
[4] {N/A} a short authorized leave from naval duties."

The N/A refers to the fact that I consider the 4th definition is not relevant to present comments.

Perhaps then you would be so kind as to offer your definition of liberty.

Grewgills;I did.

The first was a muse on a hypothetical.
The second was a philosophical position.
Neither was an attempt at definition.
The only allusion to a definition was the parenthetical "autonomy".

What is the point of the song and dance? Wouldn't it have been easier to just give your definition of liberty?

You never answered my question:

If socialized medicine is good enough for you when you are most in need of medical care why isn't it good enough for you now?

When the time comes you will gladly embrace Medicare, that which you call socialized medicine, and you will never have to battle an insurance company again or ever worry about having your insurance cancelled.

The one example you give of possible liberty you negate with the very next sentence.

A man so ensconced may be the only one to experience true liberty.

Being content with one's circumstances,however, is not the same as liberty.

Ken;
Please be kind enough not to speak for me. You are interesting only when you speak for yourself. You just did a lot of big reading without much comprehension.
The most effective way to take a man's liberty is not at gunpoint, but rather by the narrowing of his options.

Regrettably, past conversations indicate that nuanced definitions of words are something we share in small enough quantity as to severely inhibit discourse...
Being content with one's circumstances,however, is not the same as liberty.

Perhaps then you would be so kind as to offer your definition of liberty.

That's a lot of big talk without much substance.

You know full darn well that when you turn 65 you are going to enroll in Medicare, what you would call socialized medicine, and never have to worry about getting insurance cancelled on you ever again.

If socialized medicine is good enough for you when you are most in need of medical care why isn't it good enough for you now?

I suppose that a man in a jail cell would never be aware of of his incarceration, if he walked in of his own accord and found the place so agreeable as to never attempt an exit.A man so ensconced may be the only one to experience true liberty.

Being content with one's circumstances,however, is not the same as liberty.In fact it may only be comfortable imprisonment.

The illusion of autonomy[liberty] is as important to the subject as the illusion of power is to the tyrant. Keep yours in tact and continue to try to convince me, it sounds so blissful. Thank you.

ould you please read the article. Cowen points readers to past posts. Google is relatively easy and quick.

Thanks for providing the links rather than a snark.
For anyone who cares the first comment Steve highlights apparently refers to this.
He points to 15 of the last 22 Nobel Prizes in medicine being won either by Americans or by people working in America to support his thesis.
In all but 3 cases the research done to win the Nobel was done at a University (some public, some private most with government money). The other 3 were from research done at the NIH, the Carnegie Institution, and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Additionally he points to 4 of the 6 most important medical innovations: CT scans, ACE inhibitors, coronary artery bypass surgery, and statins (though they were first developed in Japan) being developed in the US.*
CT scans were concurrently developed in the US and UK. The US portion of the research was done at Tufts.
The first effective ACE inhibitor was developed by Squibb.
Bypass surgery was pioneered at the Cleveland Clinic.
Statin drugs were pioneered in Japan, but first marketed by Merck.
Almost none of this is testament to the exceptionally high health care expenditures of the US and certainly not due to the less socialized nature of our health care.
He points to the high US spending by the US in biomedical research (not figured in to health care spending) and to over half of that research being conducted by the private sector. He fails to mention that the Nobel's came more from public spending rather than private and the publicly financed research in the US, while less in terms of investment has given more in terms of health benefit. That was probably just an oversight.

He also states

This innovation-rich environment stems from the money spent on American health care and also from the richer and more competitive American universities.

Looking at the Nobel list it has far more to do with the latter than the former.

Kaiser provides a nice summary and allows for head to head to head comparisons of the various candidates health care proposals.

That many other countries are able to provide universal care cheaper and control increase in costs better than the US does under our current system while meeting or exceeding health outcomes (not just life expectancy and IMR) means we should be able to be accomplish this in the long run. We cannot transition without incurring significant costs. The savings of reduced reliance on ERs, pushing back what should be routine treatments until they become emergencies, and reduced strain on insurance carriers and hospitals due to indigent care while difficult to predict should be significant.
Do you really think this is a case of American exceptionalism. That we simply cannot do what every other Western industrialized nation does?

Floyd,
I am living in a country and am feeling no loss of liberty and in fact have a number of liberties that I do not enjoy in the US.

* this according to a 2001 survey of physicians. Why he stops at 6 I don't know, perhaps because of where innovations 7-10 come from.

I think it also bears mentioning that assumptions on the load-bearing capability of our healthcare system assume resources that don't exist. To handle a 20% increase in the number of of patients being treated there has to be excess capacity among primary care physicians that simply doesn't exist today.

In my country the individual has the health insurance and the company can restitute the money. But if you leave the job you still have the insurance and if your employer has a more attractive package due to the size of the company (usually discount on rates) you can still have the insurance but just without the extra's. I think that is much much much better.

Do they account for the costs that wait times impose? If not, then there is another possible source of bias.

I can assure you that I have never ever waited even close to 10 days before my GP could see me, especially not when I'm in pain. Waitinglists in socialized healthcare countries take account of need/urgency.

But I think one of the bigger problems in the US is that you don't have enough doctors. You are one of the countries (together with the UK) with high rates of foreign-educated doctors, and still you have much less doctors per capita than most countries with socialized healthcare. Why are there much less US doctors?

As for the Democrats plans, check them out. So long as they will cost anything in excess of $0 then they will almost surely increase health care spending, not decrease it.

If we're treating the uninsured at emergency rooms, which is obviously far more expensive than at a doctors' office, and we're sometimes treating conditions that could have been treated much more cheaply if found earlier, then, yes, universal coverage could actually save money overall. As it does in other industrialized democracies.

And our taxes (and our insurance premiums) today pay for that care-for-the-uninsured, because we've decided that we're not going to let people die in the streets. So drop this canard that today's state of affairs isn't costing you anything because you have insurance.

Different health systems may also be part of the story. The researchers note that the US spends $5,274 per head on medical care while the UK spends $2,164, adjusted for purchasing power. But Britain’s National Health Service provides publicly funded medicine for everyone, while Americans under the age of 65 have to rely on private insurance.

Do they account for the costs that wait times impose? If not, then there is another possible source of bias.