Common Sense
-
If I have a sniffle when I come back from the US in May, I will probably be quarantined. I hope it's not like quarantine on Red Dwarf.... The US thrives on this sort of thing, keep the people scared.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
The US thrives on this sort of thing, keep the people scared.
I think you meant "The US media thrives on this sort of thing"... Actually, although the media has a tendency to be more than a little hysterical (they seem to think hysteria and ratings are correlated) most Americans are so desensitized to this that it produces little anxiety. In many ways this is bad, since REAL crisis tend to get ignored as well- witness Katrina. When the government starts being hysterical, we check to see if we still have our wallets, then look around for whatever it might be that they don't want us to notice...
-
I usually have insurance, but that's not really the point. The point is not the $500 a GP visit cost me, but the terrible standard of care that I got for my $500. How much does a real doctor cost in the US, right now ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
How much does a real doctor cost in the US, right now ?
I pay nothing per visit; never have to wait more than a day for an appointment - less if I am willing to accept who's up, but I prefer to see my doctor; get to talk with her for 15 mins or so, plus the time with the nurse. They run their own pharmacy so prescriptions, when I need 'em, cost me from $4.00 - $15.00, depending. My wait, once I arrive has never been longer than 15 mins. I am extremely satisfied with the quality of their service and have been going to them for 4 years, though I could switch to another Doc, simply by walking into his or her office. Of course, if you walked in there, not having bought insurance, and being a drive-by patient with a funny accent that they'd never see again, you might not walk out as happy as I do. in other words, YMMV. Why is this such a surprise Christian, and more importantly why does one unhappy experience in one doctor's office make you an expert on the American health system? If you got bad service in one restaurant picked at random in one city in the U.S. would you announce that all food in the US was bad and all US cooks were charlatans?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Since Friday, the news shows, especially on the cable stations, have been yammering on about Swine Flu as if the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse had been seen riding down from the clouds. My friends in Canada tell me it's the same there. Every year we have a real influenza epidemic. EVERY year thousands of people die from the 'flu, including 83 children in 2008. Yet there is NO panic, and people who are susceptible still don't get the shot. Yet if there was a shot for swine flu, these same people would line around the block for it. Here's what the CDC said about the flu - last year's flu: "During the 2007--08 influenza season, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) exceeded the epidemic threshold†† for 8 consecutive weeks in the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System during the weeks ending January 12--May 17, 2008 (weeks 9--16). The percentage of P&I deaths peaked at 9.1% during the week ending March 15, 2008 (week 11). During the previous three influenza seasons, the peak percentage of P&I deaths has ranged from 7.7% to 8.9% and the total number of weeks the P&I ratio exceeded the epidemic threshold has ranged from one to 11. The P&I baseline and epidemic threshold values are projected for each season at the onset of that season and are based on data from the previous five years. The robust regression model used to calculate the 122 Cities Mortality Reporting System baseline and epidemic threshold values was recently modified. This new methodology better takes into account shifts in the long term trends of the 122 Cities data, and will be used in the upcoming 2008-09 influenza season to project the baseline and epidemic threshold values." This site is updated daily[^] Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
OK, so you're saying that people won't become doctors if it means they are accountable for their actions ?
not at all, it'll be because the government will control their income.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Why would you assume this to be the case ? It's not in Australia. Doctors can charge what they want. I choose to go to a doctor that charges more, I simply choose to pay more than the amount that Medicare covers.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
You certainly draw a sweeping conclusion from a single bad experience. Do you never consider that you might just have encountered a boundary case?
Yeah, it's true I have a limited sample. All I know for sure is that it cost me $500 for a standard of care that would make the newspapers if it happened here.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How much does a real doctor cost in the US, right now ?
I pay nothing per visit; never have to wait more than a day for an appointment - less if I am willing to accept who's up, but I prefer to see my doctor; get to talk with her for 15 mins or so, plus the time with the nurse. They run their own pharmacy so prescriptions, when I need 'em, cost me from $4.00 - $15.00, depending. My wait, once I arrive has never been longer than 15 mins. I am extremely satisfied with the quality of their service and have been going to them for 4 years, though I could switch to another Doc, simply by walking into his or her office. Of course, if you walked in there, not having bought insurance, and being a drive-by patient with a funny accent that they'd never see again, you might not walk out as happy as I do. in other words, YMMV. Why is this such a surprise Christian, and more importantly why does one unhappy experience in one doctor's office make you an expert on the American health system? If you got bad service in one restaurant picked at random in one city in the U.S. would you announce that all food in the US was bad and all US cooks were charlatans?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
why does one unhappy experience in one doctor's office make you an expert on the American health system?
It doesn't, but it does interest me that some people ( not you ) want to tell me that the Australian health system is obviously inferior, being socialist and all, but when I went to a doctor in the US, I instead found my experience to be well below the standards I have come to expect, to the point that I wondered how it is possible to practice medicine effectively in the manner that I experienced.
Oakman wrote:
If you got bad service in one restaurant picked at random in one city in the U.S. would you announce that all food in the US was bad and all US cooks were charlatans?
*grin* I have no doubt there are good doctors in the US, I just assume that as an uninsured visitor, I need to spend a lot more than $500 to get a basic GP visit that would cost $30 in Australia. The point is really an attempt to draw a real comparison between my (admittedly limited) experience, and my *obviously* flawed 'socialist' system at home, not to then assume that my experience means that all US medical care sucks.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Oakman wrote:
why does one unhappy experience in one doctor's office make you an expert on the American health system?
It doesn't, but it does interest me that some people ( not you ) want to tell me that the Australian health system is obviously inferior, being socialist and all, but when I went to a doctor in the US, I instead found my experience to be well below the standards I have come to expect, to the point that I wondered how it is possible to practice medicine effectively in the manner that I experienced.
Oakman wrote:
If you got bad service in one restaurant picked at random in one city in the U.S. would you announce that all food in the US was bad and all US cooks were charlatans?
*grin* I have no doubt there are good doctors in the US, I just assume that as an uninsured visitor, I need to spend a lot more than $500 to get a basic GP visit that would cost $30 in Australia. The point is really an attempt to draw a real comparison between my (admittedly limited) experience, and my *obviously* flawed 'socialist' system at home, not to then assume that my experience means that all US medical care sucks.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
some people ( not you ) want to tell me that the Australian health system is obviously inferior, being socialist
I don't imagine many North Americans understand the Australian healthcare delivery system. I know I didn't until Josh and you explained it. We are used to hearing about the Canadian system's problems - from, among other sources, their Supreme Court.
Christian Graus wrote:
a basic GP visit that would cost $30 in Australia
Wow. Been a long time since I paid that much! ;)
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is really an attempt to draw a real comparison between my (admittedly limited) experience, and my *obviously* flawed 'socialist' system at home, not to then assume that my experience means that all US medical care sucks
Perhaps having as your entire response, "you're actually having a vote on having actual health care in the US ?" didn't convey your intentions as well as it might have. . . ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Christian Graus wrote:
some people ( not you ) want to tell me that the Australian health system is obviously inferior, being socialist
I don't imagine many North Americans understand the Australian healthcare delivery system. I know I didn't until Josh and you explained it. We are used to hearing about the Canadian system's problems - from, among other sources, their Supreme Court.
Christian Graus wrote:
a basic GP visit that would cost $30 in Australia
Wow. Been a long time since I paid that much! ;)
Christian Graus wrote:
The point is really an attempt to draw a real comparison between my (admittedly limited) experience, and my *obviously* flawed 'socialist' system at home, not to then assume that my experience means that all US medical care sucks
Perhaps having as your entire response, "you're actually having a vote on having actual health care in the US ?" didn't convey your intentions as well as it might have. . . ;P
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Wow. Been a long time since I paid that much!
*grin* let me clarify. If I go to a doctor for whom I am willing to pay extra, it will cost as much as $30. Most people go to a doctor who is free.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps having as your entire response, "you're actually having a vote on having actual health care in the US ?" didn't convey your intentions as well as it might have. .
*grin* well, I do like to stir people up from time to time. I have been stuck in Melbourne for the past few days, much of that just sitting in a hotel room, so I was happy to stir up some discussion to keep myself amused.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Oakman wrote:
Wow. Been a long time since I paid that much!
*grin* let me clarify. If I go to a doctor for whom I am willing to pay extra, it will cost as much as $30. Most people go to a doctor who is free.
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps having as your entire response, "you're actually having a vote on having actual health care in the US ?" didn't convey your intentions as well as it might have. .
*grin* well, I do like to stir people up from time to time. I have been stuck in Melbourne for the past few days, much of that just sitting in a hotel room, so I was happy to stir up some discussion to keep myself amused.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
I was happy to stir up some discussion to keep myself amused.....
Well, of course, I don't understand any motivation like that. But I do recognize that there are a few people who post here who do not have the same noble, high-minded, and altruistic motives in posting that I do. (Where's that haloed icon when you need it?)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
By reducing the level of care everyone else gets.
That does seem to be the Canadian system. (A Canadian friend of mine is celebrating - next month she actually gets into see an orthopedic surgeon - something she's been trying to arrange for the last 18 months since she was hit as she crossed the street by a teenager driving through a red light.) However, if I understand it correctly, in Australia, there is a basic minimum health care available that is paid for by taxes. Since not everyone works, but everyone is covered, this is definitely a single-payer national health plan. However, you can also get more/better health care if you've got the bread by buying additional insurance. Just as you can over here. As Rob pointed out awhile back, some sort of national healthcare would get the costs off the back of the business community, allowing them to be much more competitive with businesses in other countries.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
However, if I understand it correctly, in Australia, there is a basic minimum health care available that is paid for by taxes. Since not everyone works, but everyone is covered, this is definitely a single-payer national health plan. However, you can also get more/better health care if you've got the bread by buying additional insurance. Just as you can over here.
I don't believe it. Like many such plans, it might appear to work initially. However, simple logic demands that there is some subset of the population which must be forced into the system who would otherwise not need government health care if the productive weatlh of the nation were not being sucked into a health care bureaucracy. That class of individual will inevitably grow. There is no such thing as a static economic model. Economies must either grow or shrink, and an economy controlled by the government cannot grow. There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow. There are systems of taxation which can allow an economy to grow naturally (by encouraging hard work and investment) but none that can actually cause it to happen.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
However, if I understand it correctly, in Australia, there is a basic minimum health care available that is paid for by taxes. Since not everyone works, but everyone is covered, this is definitely a single-payer national health plan. However, you can also get more/better health care if you've got the bread by buying additional insurance. Just as you can over here.
I don't believe it. Like many such plans, it might appear to work initially. However, simple logic demands that there is some subset of the population which must be forced into the system who would otherwise not need government health care if the productive weatlh of the nation were not being sucked into a health care bureaucracy. That class of individual will inevitably grow. There is no such thing as a static economic model. Economies must either grow or shrink, and an economy controlled by the government cannot grow. There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow. There are systems of taxation which can allow an economy to grow naturally (by encouraging hard work and investment) but none that can actually cause it to happen.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Like many such plans, it might appear to work initially
No plan works forever, Stan. Even the universe will die of heatdeath.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, simple logic demands that there is some subset of the population which must be forced into the system who would otherwise not need government health care if the productive weatlh of the nation were not being sucked into a health care bureaucracy.
Well, I admit I only took a couple of courses in logic, so maybe you could explain to me exactly what a prioris you are using and what, if any, reasoning went into them. Then if you'd go on to spell out your logic, I'd be very grateful.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no such thing as a static economic model.
A truism, yes? But equally true of any political/economy system you or I might ever have heard of. As I said this morning about natural disasters: it's not a matter of whether, just of when.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow.
There is definitely a redistribution of wealth involved in their system, I agree. As I pointed out, individuals are taxed to pay for it, while businesses are freed of a burden they are expected to bear in this country. Ultimately that means the middle class pays the lion's share - but so they do in the here and now, as well. And the middle class often has less health care available in this country, whereas it sounds as if the poor have some but not as much as the middle class in Australia.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Like many such plans, it might appear to work initially
No plan works forever, Stan. Even the universe will die of heatdeath.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, simple logic demands that there is some subset of the population which must be forced into the system who would otherwise not need government health care if the productive weatlh of the nation were not being sucked into a health care bureaucracy.
Well, I admit I only took a couple of courses in logic, so maybe you could explain to me exactly what a prioris you are using and what, if any, reasoning went into them. Then if you'd go on to spell out your logic, I'd be very grateful.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no such thing as a static economic model.
A truism, yes? But equally true of any political/economy system you or I might ever have heard of. As I said this morning about natural disasters: it's not a matter of whether, just of when.
Stan Shannon wrote:
There is no system of taxation that can force an economy to grow.
There is definitely a redistribution of wealth involved in their system, I agree. As I pointed out, individuals are taxed to pay for it, while businesses are freed of a burden they are expected to bear in this country. Ultimately that means the middle class pays the lion's share - but so they do in the here and now, as well. And the middle class often has less health care available in this country, whereas it sounds as if the poor have some but not as much as the middle class in Australia.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
No plan works forever, Stan. Even the universe will die of heatdeath.
I'd be willing to bet the universe outlives the Australian health care system.
Oakman wrote:
Well, I admit I only took a couple of courses in logic, so maybe you could explain to me exactly what a prioris you are using and what, if any, reasoning went into them. Then if you'd go on to spell out your logic, I'd be very grateful.
Because the alternative is that taxation has no affect at all on the behavior of those paying it. If you are taking money away from people, there must be some segment that falls in between those in need and those able to pay. The system either decreases those able to care for their own needs or it increases those able to do so. It cannot simultaneously do both or neither. If paying for the health care of the poor changes the economy so that the number of people able to care for their own health care increases, than at some point everyone would be able to care for their own health care. Or, the reverse is true. One state is true, the other state is not. It is black or white, on or off, true or false. It is perfectly binary. If the system in Australia appears to be static, it is only because revenue is being diverted from other purposes to make it appear to work.
Oakman wrote:
But equally true of any political/economy system you or I might ever have heard of. As I said this morning about natural disasters: it's not a matter of whether, just of when.
But some systems are more inclined to grow. Free market systems will grow up to the physical capacity of the environment to support growth. Than they will collapse. Collectivist systems will shrink and collapse over time because they have no mechnism which allows for economic growth.
Oakman wrote:
There is definitely a redistribution of wealth involved in their system, I agree. As I pointed out, individuals are taxed to pay for it, while businesses are freed of a burden they are expected to bear in this country. Ultimately that means the middle class pays the lion's share - but so they do in the here and now, as well. And the middle class often has less health care available in this country, whereas it sounds as if the poor have some but not as much as the middle class in Australia.
I don
-
Why would you assume this to be the case ? It's not in Australia. Doctors can charge what they want. I choose to go to a doctor that charges more, I simply choose to pay more than the amount that Medicare covers.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Why would you assume this to be the case ? It's not in Australia. Doctors can charge what they want. I choose to go to a doctor that charges more, I simply choose to pay more than the amount that Medicare covers.
well ... the way Medicare works (the model oft quoted) is that a doctor must agree to accept what Medicare deems to be the appropriate charge. if he doesn't agree then the patient is stuck for the balance of the bill and must acknowledge that in writing (signing a form). Medicare supplement policies are a way of covering the difference but it isn't a gaurantee. that more or less works okay for the elderly (those covered by Medicare) but if you listen to the rhetoric while you're here you'll see that our healthcare "crisis" is a result of 45 million uninsured. now do you think those same 45 million uninsured will all of a sudden decide they need to purchase a supplemental policy ?? now that was a rhetorical question. what will happen is we'll anounce yet another crisis and the medical community will be forced to accept the government's view of what a fair ("fair" being my sarcastic slant) charge. that'll work for those medical professionals "trapped" in the system but will not last more than a generation. I've heard the Canadian system touted, and to be honest I was once enthralled by the possibility, but I just watched a news report with a Candaian doctor being intervied. there are currently 750,000 Canadians waiting for their turn for a procedure (some surgery) our of a population of 32 million. doesn't sound like a system I want here, especially given the other tidbit; 4 months to go from primary care physican to a specialist and there's a shortage of primary care physicans with a waiting list (waiting to be assigned an open slot). it simply will not work.
-
Oakman wrote:
No plan works forever, Stan. Even the universe will die of heatdeath.
I'd be willing to bet the universe outlives the Australian health care system.
Oakman wrote:
Well, I admit I only took a couple of courses in logic, so maybe you could explain to me exactly what a prioris you are using and what, if any, reasoning went into them. Then if you'd go on to spell out your logic, I'd be very grateful.
Because the alternative is that taxation has no affect at all on the behavior of those paying it. If you are taking money away from people, there must be some segment that falls in between those in need and those able to pay. The system either decreases those able to care for their own needs or it increases those able to do so. It cannot simultaneously do both or neither. If paying for the health care of the poor changes the economy so that the number of people able to care for their own health care increases, than at some point everyone would be able to care for their own health care. Or, the reverse is true. One state is true, the other state is not. It is black or white, on or off, true or false. It is perfectly binary. If the system in Australia appears to be static, it is only because revenue is being diverted from other purposes to make it appear to work.
Oakman wrote:
But equally true of any political/economy system you or I might ever have heard of. As I said this morning about natural disasters: it's not a matter of whether, just of when.
But some systems are more inclined to grow. Free market systems will grow up to the physical capacity of the environment to support growth. Than they will collapse. Collectivist systems will shrink and collapse over time because they have no mechnism which allows for economic growth.
Oakman wrote:
There is definitely a redistribution of wealth involved in their system, I agree. As I pointed out, individuals are taxed to pay for it, while businesses are freed of a burden they are expected to bear in this country. Ultimately that means the middle class pays the lion's share - but so they do in the here and now, as well. And the middle class often has less health care available in this country, whereas it sounds as if the poor have some but not as much as the middle class in Australia.
I don
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'd be willing to bet the universe outlives the Australian health care system.
Along with you, me, the United States, Terra, and Sol. So?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the alternative is that taxation has no affect at all on the behavior of those paying it.
that's your a priori? Or your conclusion? For someone using formal logic, you aren't being terribly clear.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist systems will shrink and collapse over time because they have no mechnism which allows for economic growth
Just out of curiosity, what is China?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe
That's the crux of our differences, I think. I cite what has been given me as fact. You find that these facts don't gibe with your beliefs and discard them. I feel like Galileo.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only efficient way to maintain a health care system is to allow it to be managed by free market capitalism.
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider. Exactly the same thing is true for Medicare. Doctors can refuse to accept the rates and then the patient must make up the difference between the fee and the reimbursement - or simply find another Dr. By the way, I am not talking about Bush's pharmacy add-on nor medicaid which is a welfare program not an insurance program.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'd be willing to bet the universe outlives the Australian health care system.
Along with you, me, the United States, Terra, and Sol. So?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because the alternative is that taxation has no affect at all on the behavior of those paying it.
that's your a priori? Or your conclusion? For someone using formal logic, you aren't being terribly clear.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Collectivist systems will shrink and collapse over time because they have no mechnism which allows for economic growth
Just out of curiosity, what is China?
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe
That's the crux of our differences, I think. I cite what has been given me as fact. You find that these facts don't gibe with your beliefs and discard them. I feel like Galileo.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The only efficient way to maintain a health care system is to allow it to be managed by free market capitalism.
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider. Exactly the same thing is true for Medicare. Doctors can refuse to accept the rates and then the patient must make up the difference between the fee and the reimbursement - or simply find another Dr. By the way, I am not talking about Bush's pharmacy add-on nor medicaid which is a welfare program not an insurance program.
Oakman wrote:
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider.
Oakman wrote:
that's your a priori? Or your conclusion? For someone using formal logic, you aren't being terribly clear.
And I think its perfectly clear. Either increasing taxes changes the state of the system or it doesn't. If it does not, what would be the point?
Oakman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what is China?
I consider modern china to be a capitalistic system for any practical economic purpose. I don't beleive it will be sustained over the long term, but currently they are.
Oakman wrote:
I cite what has been given me as fact. You find that these facts don't gibe with your beliefs and discard them. I feel like Galileo.
Guilty as charged. But I consider it more like the facts not gibeing with common sense, so I feel more like Galileo. I think if one could truly observe the economic reality of Australia, one could more accurately discern its actual structure. Revenue is being diverted from other purposes somewhere, somehow to obfuscate the truth.
Oakman wrote:
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider.
More effective than what? Insurance companies? It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's before government involvement in the system.
-
Oakman wrote:
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider.
Oakman wrote:
that's your a priori? Or your conclusion? For someone using formal logic, you aren't being terribly clear.
And I think its perfectly clear. Either increasing taxes changes the state of the system or it doesn't. If it does not, what would be the point?
Oakman wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what is China?
I consider modern china to be a capitalistic system for any practical economic purpose. I don't beleive it will be sustained over the long term, but currently they are.
Oakman wrote:
I cite what has been given me as fact. You find that these facts don't gibe with your beliefs and discard them. I feel like Galileo.
Guilty as charged. But I consider it more like the facts not gibeing with common sense, so I feel more like Galileo. I think if one could truly observe the economic reality of Australia, one could more accurately discern its actual structure. Revenue is being diverted from other purposes somewhere, somehow to obfuscate the truth.
Oakman wrote:
And yet, consistently, the most effective and efficient provider of health care in the US turns out to be Medicare with administrative costs far lower than that of insurance agencies, and before you trot out that old horsechestnut about the doctors are forced to provide the health care more cheaply and charge others to make up for it, any doctor has to agree to accept the rates the insurance company will pay or not be an insystem provider.
More effective than what? Insurance companies? It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's before government involvement in the system.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think if one could truly observe
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either increasing taxes changes the state of the system or it doesn't.
But you never consider - even to show why the option must be discarded - the possibility that taxes affect the system positively.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it does not, what would be the point?
Strangely enough, T. Jefferson and friends believed that taxes on imports would provide the income the government needed to pay its workers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider modern china to be a capitalistic system
I am amazed that you say that. They are as managed an economy as was Soviet Russia in the fifties, or Germany in the forties. Fascism always masquerades as capitalism without a free market, but that, pretty much, is a definition of a pregnant virgin.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But I consider it more like the facts not gibeing with common sense
When the facts don't gibe with any theory -- including a common sensical one, a rational man discards the theory, not the facts. Witchdoctors, Shamans, et al, of course, disagree and continue to claim that the best method for preventing post-operative deaths is to sprinkle the patient with holy water.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's before government involvement in the system.
Sorry, but that system was so inefficient that it was replaced by HMOs. The cost savings were significant. Look it up.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think if one could truly observe
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's
Stan Shannon wrote:
Either increasing taxes changes the state of the system or it doesn't.
But you never consider - even to show why the option must be discarded - the possibility that taxes affect the system positively.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If it does not, what would be the point?
Strangely enough, T. Jefferson and friends believed that taxes on imports would provide the income the government needed to pay its workers.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I consider modern china to be a capitalistic system
I am amazed that you say that. They are as managed an economy as was Soviet Russia in the fifties, or Germany in the forties. Fascism always masquerades as capitalism without a free market, but that, pretty much, is a definition of a pregnant virgin.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But I consider it more like the facts not gibeing with common sense
When the facts don't gibe with any theory -- including a common sensical one, a rational man discards the theory, not the facts. Witchdoctors, Shamans, et al, of course, disagree and continue to claim that the best method for preventing post-operative deaths is to sprinkle the patient with holy water.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is not more effective than the system we had in the 1950's before government involvement in the system.
Sorry, but that system was so inefficient that it was replaced by HMOs. The cost savings were significant. Look it up.
Oakman wrote:
But you never consider - even to show why the option must be discarded - the possibility that taxes affect the system positively.
Yes I did. Reread my post. All I've said is that it cannot be made static. If governmetn can create a positive economic feedback mechanism rather than a negative one I've seen no evidence of it. If Australia has, than at some point there should be no need for government health care.
Oakman wrote:
Strangely enough, T. Jefferson and friends believed that taxes on imports would provide the income the government needed to pay its workers.
And I'm sure they were correct. But it is because they were trying to control the state of the system in a differnt way.
Oakman wrote:
am amazed that you say that. They are as managed an economy as was Soviet Russia in the fifties, or Germany in the forties.
But it is currently being managed to emphasize capitalistic operations. People are earning profits.
Oakman wrote:
Fascism always masquerades as capitalism without a free market,
There is no relationship between capitalism and fascism. Fascims is simply a form of socialism that recruits capitalistic institutions to promote its agenda rather than trying to control them directly.
Oakman wrote:
When the facts don't gibe with any theory -- including a common sensical one, a rational man discards the theory, not the facts.
I don't believe your facts are actually facts but lies.
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, but that system was so inefficient that it was replaced by HMOs. The cost savings were significant. Look it up.
I don't have to look it up, I lived through it. Unlike you, I lived in a poor family in a remote rural community. We had no health insurance and there was no government health care at all. Over a ten year period my older sister suffered third and second degree burns over a third of her body, my father was badly injured in a work related incident, my mother had very experimental and expensive surgery to save her eyesight and my brother and I were born. We recieved full health care with all of that and at the end of it all, we owned no money at all. Amazing, huh?
-
Oakman wrote:
But you never consider - even to show why the option must be discarded - the possibility that taxes affect the system positively.
Yes I did. Reread my post. All I've said is that it cannot be made static. If governmetn can create a positive economic feedback mechanism rather than a negative one I've seen no evidence of it. If Australia has, than at some point there should be no need for government health care.
Oakman wrote:
Strangely enough, T. Jefferson and friends believed that taxes on imports would provide the income the government needed to pay its workers.
And I'm sure they were correct. But it is because they were trying to control the state of the system in a differnt way.
Oakman wrote:
am amazed that you say that. They are as managed an economy as was Soviet Russia in the fifties, or Germany in the forties.
But it is currently being managed to emphasize capitalistic operations. People are earning profits.
Oakman wrote:
Fascism always masquerades as capitalism without a free market,
There is no relationship between capitalism and fascism. Fascims is simply a form of socialism that recruits capitalistic institutions to promote its agenda rather than trying to control them directly.
Oakman wrote:
When the facts don't gibe with any theory -- including a common sensical one, a rational man discards the theory, not the facts.
I don't believe your facts are actually facts but lies.
Oakman wrote:
Sorry, but that system was so inefficient that it was replaced by HMOs. The cost savings were significant. Look it up.
I don't have to look it up, I lived through it. Unlike you, I lived in a poor family in a remote rural community. We had no health insurance and there was no government health care at all. Over a ten year period my older sister suffered third and second degree burns over a third of her body, my father was badly injured in a work related incident, my mother had very experimental and expensive surgery to save her eyesight and my brother and I were born. We recieved full health care with all of that and at the end of it all, we owned no money at all. Amazing, huh?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Reread my post. All I've said is that it cannot be made static
You said that in response to my question which seem to iomply that either your a priori or you conclusion was that taxes always affected the system negatively. It is you who aren't reading your own posts.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But it is currently being managed to emphasize capitalistic operations. People are earning profits.
People earned profits in Soviet Russia. Profits are merely what is left over after expenses are covered. Capitalism is about what is done with the profits.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't believe your facts are actually facts but lies.
The operative word is "believe." It is impossible to argue with someone who says the world is flat, God told him so. So I won't.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't have to look it up, I lived through it. Unlike you, I lived in a poor family in a remote rural community. . .
I'm very glad that you and your family received good care, but having spent time this afternoon taking Christian to task for claiming that his experience with the American system was a single instance and not indicative of the state of the entire health-care delivery system, I shan't repeat myself any more than I already have. If you believe that your experience outweighs the reams of data that says that says that the system was inefficient in the 50's and breaking down in the sixties, I suppose I am not surprised, but again the operative word is "believe."