[Lemmo]

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

As I had mentioned above, the examples you give are a reason to provide some sort of national "disaster insurance" to cover those who suffer from sort of unpredictable illness or injury resulting in costs beyond the ability of most people to pay. But you wouldn't need to nationalize the entire system just to address those extreme cases.

[TheSlayer]

(03-05-2013 11:48 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

As I had mentioned above, the examples you give are a reason to provide some sort of national "disaster insurance" to cover those who suffer from sort of unpredictable illness or injury resulting in costs beyond the ability of most people to pay. But you wouldn't need to nationalize the entire system just to address those extreme cases.

How would the disaster insurance work and who would be in charge of it? The government or the insurance companies? I think "nationalize" has a negative connotation to it. Even in Canada's socialized health care doctors and nurses are very well-paid. It's not like doctors and nurses receive less money because they work in a UHC in the Western World.

[tenderman100]

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

Of course, the Dark Knight shooting is an outlier.

A guy in his 20s who gets terminal cancer is an outlier.

Bob Jones in my thought experiment is NOT an outlier. The Bob Jones' of the world are much more prevalent, and consequently a much larger drain on health care resources, than other victims.

Bottom Line? The market is much better an managing risk than the government.

Government wants to take money from you not to address the Dark Night events, but the Bob Jones events. Government run health care inevitably feels it has to address ALL healthcare problems. There is no end, then, to what it has to address. But like any economic activity, it faces the proverbial "scarcity" problem. Resources are ALWAYS limited and costs must therefore must be controlled.

Government health care, to work, HAS to control pricing. And when a central entity controls pricing, distortion inevitably occurs.

THAT'S the difference.

[MidWest]

The American idea of HealthCare is through privatization. The idea is that if you privatize healthcare or leave it in the private sector it will force companies to compete against each other in order to provide High quality HealhCare to patients. The government helps very poor people with MediCaid to help pay for HealthCare costs and in the 60s passed MediCare for Seniors who couldn't afford it. The idea is for the government to help people with costs but not take over the system completely, this is how college works as well. Government helps students with financial aid and grants but doesnt take the university system over.

The argument is that if you let the government take over HealthCare, then the quality of healthcare will go down since the government is the one in charge and whatever they say goes. Many argue that taxes will increase to help pay for it which is something many Americans arent willing to do. Americans in general are very paranoid and scared of government taking over anything, people here do not trust government at all and is why Universal Health Care is not very popular here.

[Hannibal]

It would have been a good thing thirty years ago when people took better care of themselves.

The entire climate of how to take care of yourself in America is unintentionally geared towards making money for someone else. There's no money to be had when everyone's healthy, knows how to be healthy, and stays that way.

Paleo is a pretty good way to eat and stay healthy, it makes sense and some of the stories I've heard about it sound incredible, but I've heard of some people having cheat windows so that their thyroid doesn't shut down. I'm no nutritionist, though, I just read a lot of books and I've tested it out for myself with great results. I just know it's beats the hell out of the food pyramid.

The fitness industry (like infomercials and shit) isn't really in the business of keeping you fit, it's mostly to keep you buying worthless crap like ab machines and thigh masters. That's more of a fault of our own general laziness, ignorance, and lack of physical work ethic, but whatever. Long distance running has always seemed to be in vogue among people who are January 1st "converts" to the whole physical fitness schtick; they claim that they want to get toned and they don't want to become musclebound (as if that were easy, ha ha).

The big pharma industry also caters to our general laziness because it's easier to pop pills than it is to change out lifestyles. It's important to work out, eat right, and socialize to prevent stuff like depression. There would be a lot less money to be had if our diets and lifestyles prevented the need for drugs to treat depression, diabetes, heart problems, and insomnia. We also wouldn't need Viagra too badly if our women stayed thin.

I would wager that a good half, maybe more, of our health problems would be eliminated if people just ate less and we completely banned shit like soda. The whole (f)attitude of "I'd rather live to seventy and eat this cake than eighty and watch exactly what I eat" is pretty damn common and unhealthy.

Now, if they had a fat tax for this universal health care thing, you might have something there.

/endrant

[Ovid]

Just a thought: What's wrong with charity? Americans contribute, I believe, more per capita to charitable causes than any other country in the world. (I wish I had an official statistic for that, but I don't, so it could be BS I read, but I digress.) In my life, I've heard of a number of local people who have been diagnosed with some cancer or rare disease, and faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. In virtually every case, if they had no insurance and could not afford to pay, there was, in short order, some kind of charity movement founded for their benefit, and money was raised. I know it's not a "hard and solid" thing like a government program, but IMO the evil of its "lack of solidity" is less than the evil of imposing mandatory taxes and government-sponsored healthcare on all of society, just to provide for cases in which, ordinarily, the person's own means, or charity, foots the bill.

[MidWest]

(03-06-2013 12:39 AM)Ovid Wrote:  

Just a thought: What's wrong with charity? Americans contribute, I believe, more per capita to charitable causes than any other country in the world. (I wish I had an official statistic for that, but I don't, so it could be BS I read, but I digress.) In my life, I've heard of a number of local people who have been diagnosed with some cancer or rare disease, and faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills. In virtually every case, if they had no insurance and could not afford to pay, there was, in short order, some kind of charity movement founded for their benefit, and money was raised. I know it's not a "hard and solid" thing like a government program, but IMO the evil of its "lack of solidity" is less than the evil of imposing mandatory taxes and government-sponsored healthcare on all of society, just to provide for cases in which, ordinarily, the person's own means, or charity, foots the bill.

I can say that you are 100% correct. I had cancer in college and lots of charites helped pay my hospital bills something like 50% of my chemo treatments. So true and Americans are always having fundraisers for every disease imaginable.

[bacon]

the biggest problem with universal healthcare is that it will slow innovation. afterall its capital investment which has driven the recent developments in medicine and healthcare treatments. most of those developments in medicine and treatment have come from the united states which has the best market for results as profits are what drives doctors and companies to make the investment for new drugs,treatments,medical machines and technology. just look at plastic surgury and its amazing growth which as a market is removed essentially from the capital of insurance companies and government subsidies but because of investment capital into plastic surgury to meet consumer demand its probably had the most growth/devlopment in any the fields of medicine/health care in recent years

what brits and other europeans dont understand is that poor americans who cant afford medical care are covered by medicaid, there are also health programs for children and elderly. since insurance companies within our capitalist system can charge different rates to people based on their medical conditions if you exercise and have a clean lifestyle you can expect to have a very low insurance payment. however if your obese with 10 types of medical problems caused by your obesity you can expect to get pay much higher insurance rates than a healthy skinny person. thats how our capitalist model works. sure some people fall through the cracks and get fucked but again thats how capitalism will always work. but again those people still have medicaid and if they are old medicare and lastly charities if all else fails.

side note: that fat fuck michael moore really annoys me because a lot of people in other countries watched his sicko documentary and now they feel the usa is some terrible place if you get sick when nothing could be further from the truth.

[T and A Man]

You'll find the driver for weight is gender relations and food culture, not the prospect of free treatment for abusing ones body.

Just look at France.

As far as costing more, the U.S. spends more on health services than any other country in the world, typically twice as much as the rest of the OECD average.

For all the "ZOMG.., EXTRA TAX!!!!", you'll get money back from your private insurance premiums, and more.

The argument from a Ricardian equivalence perspective is stupid, it is economic libertarianism spurted by useful idiots.

For supply/demand taken in this argument, 'free' healthcare means unlimited demand yeah?

So people will develop hypochondria and jsut rock up to hospital to get ficticious ailments treated just because the treatment is free?

Otherwise, you can conclude that people will seek treatment for legitimate ailments, or real demand. Not extraordinary demand that 'free' implies. So either you allow a system that treats them, or you let them live in hardship because a cost structure locks them out.

Then the purpose for determining a cost structure is 'for what benefit'. For this we compare to universal education. Most countries moved from agrarian backwaters to industrial societies because they educated their population. An educated population became more productive, thus creating more wealth.

However the same argument against 'free healthcare' could be applied to 'free secondary education'. A healthy population is more productive.

Now I know this will draw 'blah blah, diploma/degree of HR/marketing/playstation', so the equivalence is framing the limits of socialised medicine.

To conclude socialised medicine will make the u.s. fatter because treatment if free is absurd. The outcomes of spending aren't there. In Australia a majority is treating geriatric ailments and cancer treatments.

Then part of our costing is the PBS, which is a form of subsidised, and provision of generic forms of medicine. his brings treatment for people such as epilsepsy or asthma sufferers at a pretty affordable rate. Allowing these pepole to be more productive than they would otherwise be.

[Genghis Khan]

I think UHC can work, but only if the culture allows it. I.e. if everyone has a sense of duty towards the community, you can bet UHC system works. Why? Because most people will feel obliged to stay healthy and be productive.

I would have no problem paying into a UHC system if most people (there will always be assholes) are willing to take responsibility for their health. However in most countries I don't see that happening.

[T and A Man]

(03-06-2013 12:49 AM)bacon Wrote:  

the biggest problem with universal healthcare is that it will slow innovation. afterall its capital investment which has driven the recent developments in medicine and healthcare treatments.

Well that's a bit short sighted.

The 'treatments' we receive are not the best outcomes an altruistic sense.

Firstly, health care has become let people get sick, then treat them with a perpetual form of treatment. In other words, captive, life-long customers.

One only has to look at male hair loss to fid they'd rather give you a $2,000 per year treatment for the rest of your life than cure it once and for all.

Same as medicines that treat high blood pressure, etc. They'd rather have you fat so they can sell you thse for perpertuity, than resolve fatness.

Innovation has been driven by the public sector, the internet for example would never have come out of the private sector. It was a system devised by the military and it's government funded hewlett industries.

Only when the heavy lifting was done by the public research sector did the private sector seek to privatise the wealth opportunities in the early 90's.

Cochlear's bionic ear was developed out of public funding from the university of Melbourne is another example. All of the soviet union's technology was developed without this pursuit of private wealth, and they got into space first.

Quote:

most of those developments in medicine and treatment have come from the united states which has the best market for results as profits are what drives doctors and companies to make the investment for new drugs,treatments,medical machines and technology.

No, your treatments are about capturing in captive customers. Guaranteeing future cash flow, instead of cures or preventative measures.

The HPV vaccine for example, is a one off cure, and it was deveoped in Australia. The u.s. model would likely have seen a form of recurring annual treatment.

Your model isn't focused on delivering best outcomes for those seeking treatment, it is focused on capturing sick people to hand over cash year after year.

Quote:

just look at plastic surgury and its amazing growth which as a market is removed essentially from the capital of insurance companies and government subsidies but because of investment capital into plastic surgury to meet consumer demand its probably had the most growth/devlopment in any the fields of medicine/health care in recent years

what brits and other europeans dont understand is that poor americans who cant afford medical care are covered by medicaid, there are also health programs for children and elderly.

They understand it, they are just delivering bad outcomes.

Quote:

since insurance companies within our capitalist system can charge different rates to people based on their medical conditions if you exercise and have a clean lifestyle you can expect to have a very low insurance payment. however if your obese with 10 types of medical problems caused by your obesity you can expect to get pay much higher insurance rates than a healthy skinny person.

You can aply the same treatment under many models around the world too.

What is different is that the u.s. spends around 14% of GDP of healthcare, compared to ~7%-ish most others do, for pretty similar outcomes.

Quote:

thats how our capitalist model works. sure some people fall through the cracks and get fucked but again thats how capitalism will always work. but again those people still have medicaid and if they are old medicare and lastly charities if all else fails.

Those that aren't falling through the cracks are also paying more than most of their global peers.

Quote:

side note: that fat fuck michael moore really annoys me because a lot of people in other countries watched his sicko documentary and now they feel the usa is some terrible place if you get sick when nothing could be further from the truth.

I reckon there's around 30+ million u.s. citizens who would argue otherwise.

[Apollo]

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

As per both of your examples.

Bad things happen to people all the time, often without warning or reason. This is the world we live in and it is unavoidable. Did anyone in that theater or that guy at that job deserve that? Of course not.

And here's the difference...

We want to help and we would be glad to do it. To help out a friend, a family, or a person in our community strengthens ourselves, because these are the people that give our lives meaning and purpose. When I see one of those kids with a cleft-pallet on at 3 AM in the morning, we want to see that kid rise up past the ridicule and live a normal life. When that guy shakes the bell at the grocery store, I want to give him money so that some family can have a nice Christmas, and I WANT to give away my canned food so that some hungry guy who lives under the bridge can have something to eat.

What we do not want is to be forced to do these things. To invest, to spend, to waste OUR precious resources on things that we could careless about. While these stories are tragedies, you don't have to bring that tragedy to people who had absolutely nothing to do with it. If you want to assess blame, blame genetics, or blame that kid's parents from Newtown for teaching their disabled son how to properly holster and fire a loaded weapon, don't blame the innocent.

Enough people in the middle class are already squeezing by, all with their increasingly higher health premiums (how is Obamacare reducing these premiums again? Answer: It's not...http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/) and a vast multitude of other self-inflicted bullshit (house, car, alimony, etc.) that the last thing they need in their lives is for some new government agency to open up and demand that they pay more into a system that they will never see a return on. Even if they did see a return on it, it is only coming at the expense of some younger guy who is not going to be getting what he paid into it. In finality, that's what it is...a redistribution of wealth, from the capable (and at times, the lucky) to the voluntarily uncapable and the misfortunate. The government does nothing and will do nothing to discriminate between these two latter classes because they have the incentive to cater to both the unfortunate and voluntarily uncapable alike, because this support translates into votes and money from special interest groups. It takes a self-interested individual, not government, to discriminate between these two, because 1.) it's his fucking money, not the governments, and 2.) he knows how to best put his money to work to help those around him.

I would hypothesize from this that a government system would be easier in a smaller country with a high level of homogeneity, since there are more likely to be social controls in place to ostracize outliers, who are abusing the system.

This is why this will not work in the U.S. We are not small, and we are not a homogeneous nation. Hence, there is no social control to punish abusers...especially when the majority party constantly encourages and rewards these people with handouts.

Which is why I'll end with this...Individuals are responsible for the people around them, and when left to their own devices, they do this quite effectively.

Rant over.

[T and A Man]

Quote:

This is why this will not work in the U.S. We are not small, and we are not a homogeneous nation. Hence, there is no social control to punish abusers

You've effectively punished abusers of tobacco. Managing health isn't limited to just a doctors bill.

[TheSlayer]

(03-06-2013 01:27 AM)Apollo Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:00 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:58 PM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I dislike the idea of paying extra tax for people to get free healthcare when they make bad decisions.

Here's a thought experiment for those who like the idea of government run universal health care.

Bob Jones comes into the emergency room...wheezing, short of breath.

He is 48. He is 50 lbs overweight. He hasn't exercised in 30 years. His diet is terrible -- he eats tons of processed food, loads of simple carbs. For years, he thinks lettuce and green vegetables are for rabbits.

He has never seen a doctor until now.

The tests are run, the blood is drawn. Bob has had a myocardial infarction.

He remains in the hospital for 3 days. The cardiologist decides he needs an a cardiac catheterization -- moving a stent into his heart to open the stenosis.

The blood work comes back and it turns out Bob is a type II diabetic -- his glucose numbers are through the roof.

This episode costs $75,000. The tests. The equipment. The doctors. The nurses. The procedure. The time in the hospital.

And then there is the ongoing cost of attempting to control his diabetes.

**************

You, who have exercised, have eaten healthy, have seen a doctor regularly...you get your paycheck. Your taxes are itemized. One line item is your tax for the universal health care. One of the ways to see how your health care tax dollars are used to is to go to a governmental web site. There you can find details on every patient the health service has treated.

You scan the list. You click on Bob Jones.

You read about his care. You read about how he has behaved for 30 years.

And you think...the money I HAVE EARNED has gone to take care of HIM!!

As the psychiatrist might say during therapy, "How do you feel about that?"

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

Enough people in the middle class are already squeezing by, all with their increasingly higher health premiums (how is Obamacare reducing these premiums again? Answer: It's not...http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2013/01/12/insurance-analysts-obamacare-to-increase-out-of-pocket-premium-costs-despite-lavish-subsidies/) and a vast multitude of other self-inflicted bullshit (house, car, alimony, etc.) that the last thing they need in their lives is for some new government agency to open up and demand that they pay more into a system that they will never see a return on. Even if they did see a return on it, it is only coming at the expense of some younger guy who is not going to be getting what he paid into it. In finality, that's what it is...a redistribution of wealth, from the capable (and at times, the lucky) to the voluntarily uncapable and the misfortunate. The government does nothing and will do nothing to discriminate between these two latter classes because they have the incentive to cater to both the unfortunate and voluntarily uncapable alike, because this support translates into votes and money from special interest groups. It takes a self-interested individual, not government, to discriminate between these two, because 1.) it's his fucking money, not the governments, and 2.) he knows how to best put his money to work to help those around him.

I would hypothesize from this that a government system would be easier in a smaller country with a high level of homogeneity, since there are more likely to be social controls in place to ostracize outliers, who are abusing the system.

This is why this will not work in the U.S. We are not small, and we are not a homogeneous nation. Hence, there is no social control to punish abusers...especially when the majority party constantly encourages and rewards these people with handouts.

Which is why I'll end with this...Individuals are responsible for the people around them, and when left to their own devices, they do this quite effectively.

Rant over.

I agree with your argument that the USA has a huge population compared to Canada and the other European nations and I even said above that it's a legitimate debate to be had if the US ever moves in that direction. However, you said that the USA middle class is being squeezed by ever increasing premiums and new taxes will be hard on them. Well, obviously if UHC is introduced than those insurance premiums will be eliminated. You don't need UHC and insurance premiums. Only need the one.

[TheSlayer]

Quote:

Bottom Line? The market is much better an managing risk than the government.

What risk are we talking about here? Financial risk or health risk? If anything it can be argued that the market may have a bigger incentive to keep people on the health care treadmill.

Quote:

Government wants to take money from you not to address the Dark Night events, but the Bob Jones events. Government run health care inevitably feels it has to address ALL healthcare problems. There is no end, then, to what it has to address. But like any economic activity, it faces the proverbial "scarcity" problem. Resources are ALWAYS limited and costs must therefore must be controlled.

Isn't controlling costs in health care actually something to be desired?

Quote:

Government health care, to work, HAS to control pricing. And when a central entity controls pricing, distortion inevitably occurs.

THAT'S the difference.

I am not sure what you mean by price control here? Let me elaborate. For example, in Canada when I go to the doctor, I don't pay the doctor at all. I just swipe my health card and the government directly pays the doctors. If you are talking about distortion, somebody posted a chart that per capita, USA actually spends more than other OECD nations. How is it better than UHC?

I am too lazy to pull the stats for this but the doctors and nurses are paid extremely well in Canada. I am sure their counterparts in the USA can't be making that much more. So who exactly is the government controlling costs for? Pharmaceuticals are not covered under our UHC, by the way.

[Kentucky]

(03-06-2013 12:20 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 11:12 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

tenderman, your example is very valid and a good example of how you are subsidizing others who may be stupid in UHC. I want to present you with a counter to this, however.

I posted this before but nobody answered, what happens if you are one of the survivors from the Dark Knight Rises shooting and you are lucky enough to survive you get hit with a hefty bill because you don't have insurance (probably in the hundreds of thousands). Is that really your fault that some dumbass shot you while you were watching a movie and you were lucky enough to survive?

Second example (this actually happened at my dad's work). Some guy in his 20s who was working part-time and also going to school part-time was diagnosed with cancer. He ended up dying but he was able to prolong his life for 2 years without going broke.

My point is what is you actually live healthy like you said and you or your family relative have cancer or some other hideous disease but can't afford the extremely expensive health care. Would you be okay with saying in that instance let him/her die or go broke because of the medical bill?

In the end, both, UHC and private health care have drawbacks and you can provide scenarios like we both just did but I prefer the security of people not having to worry about not receiving adequate health care due to money.

Now in the USA, there might be other factors that can make it unworkable such as the huge population, illegal immigration, and insurance lobbyists but that's a separate debate altogether.

Of course, the Dark Knight shooting is an outlier.

A guy in his 20s who gets terminal cancer is an outlier.

Bob Jones in my thought experiment is NOT an outlier. The Bob Jones' of the world are much more prevalent, and consequently a much larger drain on health care resources, than other victims.

Bottom Line? The market is much better an managing risk than the government.

Government wants to take money from you not to address the Dark Night events, but the Bob Jones events. Government run health care inevitably feels it has to address ALL healthcare problems. There is no end, then, to what it has to address. But like any economic activity, it faces the proverbial "scarcity" problem. Resources are ALWAYS limited and costs must therefore must be controlled.

Government health care, to work, HAS to control pricing. And when a central entity controls pricing, distortion inevitably occurs.

THAT'S the difference.

There is no truth in what you are saying. In the UK the system is excellent, the doctors are well paid and it works very efficiently.

In the USA letting corporations run the system has meant that per person you spend the most in the world.

Your system is both very costly and inefficient.

[Kitsune]

There is a lot I'd change about the UK, but the health system isn't one. I mean, it could easily be improved upon (less admin, more health service) but I think UHC is positive overall.

No, I don't like the fact that obese people get a portion of taxes, but then I disagree more with politicians getting huge salaries, 3rd world countries which pose no threat to me getting bombed, and my taxes subsidising economies which don't need subsidising. Taxes going to stuff the citizenship don't want is part and parcel of the West, the US included.

At least if I get hit by a car some of the taxes I shouldn't have to pay will get spent on me getting fixed without having to spend the rest of my life fighting debt.

Also, whether fat-boy gets help medically doesn't affect my mood. I have a better life than an obese person regardless, so if they want to live like that and extend that poor quality of life through medical help, it won't cause me sleepless nights.

[Teedub]

Matt C makes some ponits I agree with, especially in regards to foreign people using it to the extent they do.

(03-06-2013 12:34 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

Now, if they had a fat tax for this universal health care thing, you might have something there.

I definitely agree with a fat tax, Japan has one.

The UK system has it's faults, but I'd fight to keep it, as it is just beyond my comprehension having to worry about getting ill due to the effect is may have on my finances.

[Hannibal]

Shit, Japan has a fat tax? Is it based on BMI or body fat percentage?

[Teedub]

Yep, it appears Denmark had one too, but was repealed: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/busine....html?_r=0

Vis-a-vis Japan, have a look at this thread I found - http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread...861&page=1

[sixsix]

The US police force is socialist.
The US fire brigade is socialist.
The US school system is socialist.
The US army is socialist.

But universal health care would be a communist evil?

The problem is indeed with all forms of social security, that parasitism ruins it for everyone. When people are allowed (by a lack of social control) to take advantage while not contributing anything, sooner rather than later no one will want to contribute.

Everyone should receive necessary medical attention. If you get a tropical disease, or your child is born with leukemia, a good society should support your recovery.

In the Roosh-Roissy-sphere a lot of people want a strong, cohesive society. Cooperation between hardworking people makes great nations.

When your lazy, entitled lifestyle of sitting on the couch and eating junk food leads to obesity and cardiovascular diseases, you deserve as much as you gave: nothing.

But instead of animosity towards the weak, it's better to think of ways to help them. They suffer, like other helpless addicts. An effective way of forcing them into worthiness and being a contributor to their country is what should be focussed on.

Not because of Fairness or Justice, but because a land filled with uneducated, unhealthy lower class degenerates will ruin the party for everyone else: crime and ugly people.

But America is heterogeneous. And as Europe is getting less and less homogeneous, we also see cracks in our social support institutions.

A good, partial solution would be international, medical research. Centralized and publicly funded research and development with patent free meds and tech. A pill that costs $0.10 to make, costs $0.15 in Cuba and $80.15 in the US.

Anyway, without demanding more from the people, nothing is gonna work. But at least everyone got swag.

[Walderschmidt]

(03-06-2013 05:04 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

Matt C makes some ponits I agree with, especially in regards to foreign people using it to the extent they do.

(03-06-2013 12:34 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

Now, if they had a fat tax for this universal health care thing, you might have something there.

I definitely agree with a fat tax, Japan has one.

The UK system has it's faults, but I'd fight to keep it, as it is just beyond my comprehension having to worry about getting ill due to the effect is may have on my finances.

Maybe I'm being too pedantic here, but I do worry about getting for the effect it has on my finances. I worry about getting ill for the effect it has on my mortal coil.

Therefore I take care not to be careless with it.

I think that if people have a safety net, they will be inclined to be careless because the consequences do not warrant them to reconsider their actions as much life without it would.

[sixsix]

This is how Universal Healthcare should work:

A nation of like-minded people. Everyone goes to school, learns to read, write, calculate. Some people become plumbers, artists, policemen and teachers. Other people study to become doctors, engineers and scientists. Parents raise their children to eat healthy and greet their neighbors. Exercising and critical thought is encouraged in school. People work hard and intervene when someone falls off the wagon. There's a sense of family and community.

If John the firemen gets sick, the entire community pays a small tax to pay for medical service.
If Rita the teacher gets sick, idem dito.

Everyone pays some tax, because you never know if you'll get sick. If you do get sick, this is your insurance. You spread the risk for yourself and care for your fellow man. Sickness is not a result of bad choices, but of bad luck.

This seems like a country most people want to live in. No reason to be libertarian, because that strategy would not be more economically rewarding for the individual. BAM!

This is how Universal Healthcare doesn't work:

There's a nation of hardworking, like-minded people. Everyone works hard and individual hardship is relieved by communal funds. A second group of people arises in this nation, through immigration and/or cultural erosion, that does not work hard and that does not live healthily. Some of them don't speak the same language, don't greet on the street, don't follow the same rules. Like everyone else, they receive all the benefits. The hardworking, socially-cohesive group feels threatened in their way of life. Walking down the street feels different, waiting lines at the hospital are longer. They start to resent the second group, and the system that now funnels resources to people that they don't feel has deserved it.

In this scenario, hostility increases and productivity decreases.
Social support only works when everyone would return the favor.
"I help you when you're down because you would help me."

People are okay with reciprocal altruism, not with getting screwed over.

[ElJefe]

(03-06-2013 06:05 AM)Walderschmidt Wrote:  

I think that if people have a safety net, they will be inclined to be careless because the consequences do not warrant them to reconsider their actions as much life without it would.

I doubt this is explains all recklessness.

Having a poor health has negative consequences for you whether or not it's paid for by someone else.

Having messed up priorities and bad eating habits makes a bigger difference, I'm almost certain. People will always choose health and vitality over illness and obesity, no matter who foots the bill.

Americans just eat too much junk for the kind of work they do. They should all eat paleo, although I hate to think what conditions animals would have to live under to support that kind of food production. Eliminate farm subsidies while you're at it.

I used to think otherwise, but I’ve changed my mind.

Another problem with a private insurance market is how do you make sure insurance companies do not concentrate all risk by excluding customers with something like a genetically inherited disease? The companies could make money off the 90 percent who are basically fine, but the final 10 percent are just fucked! We could of course let them die, or depend on charity, but that won’t necessarily solve the problem.

You need the 90 percent to take on the cost of risk of the remaining 10 percent in order to minimize overall costs. Actually performing the health-care tasks can be done by soliciting offers from private practices. Letting doctors or entrepreneurs bid to take over hospital wards in order to treat patients, where the public pays for the service, but private agents actually “produce” the health service.

This way, you ensure public financing and thereby the minimizing risk for all individuals in society while at the same time maximizing efficiency by ensuring the most effective use of health-care capacity by letting private agents keep the profits when they manage that capacity well.

Specifically how you’d ensure a proper quantity-quality trade-off is no easy question and I’d leave that to a panel of doctors and economists to sort out.

[Teedub]

(03-06-2013 05:50 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

The US police force is socialist.
The US fire brigade is socialist.
The US school system is socialist.
The US army is socialist.

But universal health care would be a communist evil?

Haha yeah I've always wondered about that. Plus, from what I know about it (little), the draft system in the sports there are also much more socialist than the European model.

(03-06-2013 05:50 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

But America is heterogeneous. And as Europe is getting less and less homogeneous, we also see cracks in our social support institutions.

A good, partial solution would be international, medical research. Centralized and publicly funded research and development with patent free meds and tech. A pill that costs $0.10 to make, costs $0.15 in Cuba and $80.15 in the US.

The fact about the cost of pills should be enough for Americans to seriously question their healthcare ideology. I agree about what you say about Europe, as it fragments, people will become more like Americans.

People are more willing to support 'alike' people, but are much less willing to support the 'other' people in that country. I speak, in European terms, specifically about Scandinavians and the non-integrationist Muslims. Often these immigrants do not work and claim benefits, both due to state-supported laziness and a sort of welfare-funded demographic conquest. One radical cleric in Britain, names his benefits 'Jihad Allowance'.