Health
-
Words like Socialist get thrown around a lot, as if the label itself could somehow change the situation, morph it into something other than what it is. Apparently a National Health Care System would be 'Socialist', whatever that means. Maybe it means that it would be Communist and you'd have to wait in a long, long line-up to see a doctor named Lenin or Stalin. What if we remove the pejorative labels and think about what health care actually means? People get sick or injured and need medical care. Hospitals, doctors, equipment and medicine is expensive, and someone has to pay for it. In the case of serious injuries, the costs can be astronomical; too much for one person to pay. Nobody gets sick on a schedule anyway, so the best way to deal with the costs is insurance — everyone puts money in a pot and those that need it use the money to pay their bills. In many Western Democratic Nations, people pay tax and the government takes some of that money and funds health insurance. Simple enough. In the USA, people pay money to for-profit companies who dole out the insurance payments. Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit. In both systems, people pay money for insurance, but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies. Both systems have their good and bad points. The Canadian system treats everyone and pays for (most of the) costs out of the national insurance fund. Some people will say that the taxes are too high, and that a government-run system is 'socialist' and so there's too much bureaucracy. In actual fact, the Canadian system costs $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and the US system costs $6,714 (15% GDP)(2006, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf[^]). Then there's the case of a woman who spent 3 months in a Canadian hospital and didn't even have to pay, who cannot get insurance in the US even if she pays. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,2252325.column[^
-
Rationing makes sense because there's a limited supply of medicine and doctor's time. How do you decide who to ration things out to?
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
Words like Socialist get thrown around a lot, as if the label itself could somehow change the situation, morph it into something other than what it is. Apparently a National Health Care System would be 'Socialist', whatever that means. Maybe it means that it would be Communist and you'd have to wait in a long, long line-up to see a doctor named Lenin or Stalin. What if we remove the pejorative labels and think about what health care actually means? People get sick or injured and need medical care. Hospitals, doctors, equipment and medicine is expensive, and someone has to pay for it. In the case of serious injuries, the costs can be astronomical; too much for one person to pay. Nobody gets sick on a schedule anyway, so the best way to deal with the costs is insurance — everyone puts money in a pot and those that need it use the money to pay their bills. In many Western Democratic Nations, people pay tax and the government takes some of that money and funds health insurance. Simple enough. In the USA, people pay money to for-profit companies who dole out the insurance payments. Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit. In both systems, people pay money for insurance, but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies. Both systems have their good and bad points. The Canadian system treats everyone and pays for (most of the) costs out of the national insurance fund. Some people will say that the taxes are too high, and that a government-run system is 'socialist' and so there's too much bureaucracy. In actual fact, the Canadian system costs $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and the US system costs $6,714 (15% GDP)(2006, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf[^]). Then there's the case of a woman who spent 3 months in a Canadian hospital and didn't even have to pay, who cannot get insurance in the US even if she pays. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,2252325.column[^
This all makes sense. It's far easier just to bandy about words like 'socialist'. Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
-
Rationing makes sense because there's a limited supply of medicine and doctor's time. How do you decide who to ration things out to?
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
-
Words like Socialist get thrown around a lot, as if the label itself could somehow change the situation, morph it into something other than what it is. Apparently a National Health Care System would be 'Socialist', whatever that means. Maybe it means that it would be Communist and you'd have to wait in a long, long line-up to see a doctor named Lenin or Stalin. What if we remove the pejorative labels and think about what health care actually means? People get sick or injured and need medical care. Hospitals, doctors, equipment and medicine is expensive, and someone has to pay for it. In the case of serious injuries, the costs can be astronomical; too much for one person to pay. Nobody gets sick on a schedule anyway, so the best way to deal with the costs is insurance — everyone puts money in a pot and those that need it use the money to pay their bills. In many Western Democratic Nations, people pay tax and the government takes some of that money and funds health insurance. Simple enough. In the USA, people pay money to for-profit companies who dole out the insurance payments. Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit. In both systems, people pay money for insurance, but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies. Both systems have their good and bad points. The Canadian system treats everyone and pays for (most of the) costs out of the national insurance fund. Some people will say that the taxes are too high, and that a government-run system is 'socialist' and so there's too much bureaucracy. In actual fact, the Canadian system costs $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and the US system costs $6,714 (15% GDP)(2006, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf[^]). Then there's the case of a woman who spent 3 months in a Canadian hospital and didn't even have to pay, who cannot get insurance in the US even if she pays. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,2252325.column[^
If you believe that labeling something 'socialist' is pejorative, then you assume that what's being labeled is actually warm and fuzzy and that 'socialist' is a derogatory word. If it turned out, however, that that something was rightly being labeled 'socialist' because it is 'socialist', wouldn't that mean that 'socialist' wasn't just a bad combination of 9 letters but actually is a bad thing?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies
I don't think that's unique to Americas system, or to public run insurance either for that matter.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit.
And you think the government isn't interested in turning a profit? How about considering an example that's actually happened: Social Security. Basically state run 'social insurance'. Look at how that was handled. I was told when I started working that the thousands they take away from me for social security, that I would be paid back when I got old and wrinkly. What they didn't tell me was that the government had already opened that account and blown it all on whatever they wanted it wasted on at the time. It accounts for 60% of the federal budget. And we just keep stretching that debt further into the future. I'll never see a penny of it. To bad the designers didn't consider what would happen if the population grew in the future. Now let's also think about what happens with all that profit. A good portion of it goes to pay a lot of people to work for that insurance company. They get competitive salaries, and probably pretty good benefits. Good jobs, money back into the economy, good stuff. On the other hand, if the government runs it all, there's no competition for salaries, there's no diversity in job opportunities, just more tax burden. As a consumer I have the same problem with diversity. In a free market, I can choose whatever insurance fits me best. In a state run system, I get no choice. And with no competition, they can get away with anything they want. Which is convenient for them, since once Congress rapes the account to fund "art" exhibits and spotted owl preserves, they can fund less h
-
The cost is partly because we need insurance reform. It's definitely not a perfect system, but I'd keep the baby and just chuck the bath water if it were me. But then, I still care about babies.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
In the US we have; Medicade Medicare U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Indian Health Service
-
This all makes sense. It's far easier just to bandy about words like 'socialist'. Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
True, with socialist goodies we all get to suffer! :-D
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
This all makes sense. It's far easier just to bandy about words like 'socialist'. Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
Christian Graus wrote:
Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right?
I think that's the problem right there. Poor people are considered to be poor because they are not self-reliant enough, and paying for their health care would be rewarding their laziness. Certainly some people are lazy and want to take more than they contribute, but health isn't determined by income. Hard-working middle class people can get into car accidents too, and not be able to afford to pay their medical bills.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
The cost is partly because we need insurance reform. It's definitely not a perfect system, but I'd keep the baby and just chuck the bath water if it were me. But then, I still care about babies.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
No, your core issue is that as soon as someone is out of a job, they can't get insurance, and if they change jobs, their insurance changes.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Because, it's only the poor who suffer, so who cares, right?
I think that's the problem right there. Poor people are considered to be poor because they are not self-reliant enough, and paying for their health care would be rewarding their laziness. Certainly some people are lazy and want to take more than they contribute, but health isn't determined by income. Hard-working middle class people can get into car accidents too, and not be able to afford to pay their medical bills.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Poor people are considered to be poor because they are not self-reliant enough
Yes, that mistaken belief is the core issue.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Hard-working middle class people can get into car accidents too, and not be able to afford to pay their medical bills.
OK, well, if it's that bad, then I don't understand why it's allowed to continue.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
True, with socialist goodies we all get to suffer! :-D
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Words like Socialist get thrown around a lot, as if the label itself could somehow change the situation, morph it into something other than what it is. Apparently a National Health Care System would be 'Socialist', whatever that means. Maybe it means that it would be Communist and you'd have to wait in a long, long line-up to see a doctor named Lenin or Stalin. What if we remove the pejorative labels and think about what health care actually means? People get sick or injured and need medical care. Hospitals, doctors, equipment and medicine is expensive, and someone has to pay for it. In the case of serious injuries, the costs can be astronomical; too much for one person to pay. Nobody gets sick on a schedule anyway, so the best way to deal with the costs is insurance — everyone puts money in a pot and those that need it use the money to pay their bills. In many Western Democratic Nations, people pay tax and the government takes some of that money and funds health insurance. Simple enough. In the USA, people pay money to for-profit companies who dole out the insurance payments. Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit. In both systems, people pay money for insurance, but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies. Both systems have their good and bad points. The Canadian system treats everyone and pays for (most of the) costs out of the national insurance fund. Some people will say that the taxes are too high, and that a government-run system is 'socialist' and so there's too much bureaucracy. In actual fact, the Canadian system costs $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and the US system costs $6,714 (15% GDP)(2006, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/33/38979719.pdf[^]). Then there's the case of a woman who spent 3 months in a Canadian hospital and didn't even have to pay, who cannot get insurance in the US even if she pays. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus27-2009may27,0,2252325.column[^
Once the government gets to control your health care they will have an excuse to tax caffeine, sugar, salt, alcohol, and tobacco as much as they want. The poor ol' poor people wont be able even be able to enjoy a cup of coffee and a donut because it would create a burden on the health system.
-
"Being poor, or even very poor, does not necessarily qualify an individual for Medicaid.[2] It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.[3]" "Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria." So, if it's not for the poor, or even the very poor, who is it for ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Please read this[^] if you don't like the answer I gave to your question. "! i don't exactly like or do programming and it only gives me a headache." - spotted in VB forums.
-
If you believe that labeling something 'socialist' is pejorative, then you assume that what's being labeled is actually warm and fuzzy and that 'socialist' is a derogatory word. If it turned out, however, that that something was rightly being labeled 'socialist' because it is 'socialist', wouldn't that mean that 'socialist' wasn't just a bad combination of 9 letters but actually is a bad thing?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
but in the American system some people are denied coverage and that money is diverted into profits for insurance companies
I don't think that's unique to Americas system, or to public run insurance either for that matter.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Those companies want to grow their profits as much as possible, so they refuse to cover people they view as risky, and they avoid paying out claims if they can, because every dollar spent is a dollar that isn't profit.
And you think the government isn't interested in turning a profit? How about considering an example that's actually happened: Social Security. Basically state run 'social insurance'. Look at how that was handled. I was told when I started working that the thousands they take away from me for social security, that I would be paid back when I got old and wrinkly. What they didn't tell me was that the government had already opened that account and blown it all on whatever they wanted it wasted on at the time. It accounts for 60% of the federal budget. And we just keep stretching that debt further into the future. I'll never see a penny of it. To bad the designers didn't consider what would happen if the population grew in the future. Now let's also think about what happens with all that profit. A good portion of it goes to pay a lot of people to work for that insurance company. They get competitive salaries, and probably pretty good benefits. Good jobs, money back into the economy, good stuff. On the other hand, if the government runs it all, there's no competition for salaries, there's no diversity in job opportunities, just more tax burden. As a consumer I have the same problem with diversity. In a free market, I can choose whatever insurance fits me best. In a state run system, I get no choice. And with no competition, they can get away with anything they want. Which is convenient for them, since once Congress rapes the account to fund "art" exhibits and spotted owl preserves, they can fund less h
BoneSoft wrote:
Now let's also think about what happens with all that profit. A good portion of it goes to pay a lot of people to work for that insurance company. They get competitive salaries, and probably pretty good benefits. Good jobs, money back into the economy, good stuff. On the other hand, if the government runs it all, there's no competition for salaries, there's no diversity in job opportunities, just more tax burden.
In Canada the government pays 70% of medical costs and basically runs things, so why do Canadians pay $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and people in the USA pay $6,714? The $3,036 per-person (almost half!) that Canadians save goes back into the economy to pay for other things. What's the difference between paying $3600 in taxes and $0 to medical insurance compared with paying $0 in taxes and $6700 in medical insurance? You might say that $3600 is a lot to pay in taxes, but overall it's less expensive.
BoneSoft wrote:
As a consumer I have the same problem with diversity. In a free market, I can choose whatever insurance fits me best. In a state run system, I get no choice. And with no competition, they can get away with anything they want. Which is convenient for them, since once Congress rapes the account to fund "art" exhibits and spotted owl preserves, they can fund less health care and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it.
Here's the thing about consumer choice and the free market — it works great for consumer goods, like cars, clothes, etc. People 'support' the companies they like by buying the better products and thus the better companies survive. If you're in a car accident and you need to be rushed to a hospital to stop the bleeding, will you be shopping around for the best hospital? Will you be interviewing doctors to find out which ones you trust? You won't because you don't have time. When it comes to necessary medical care, consumer choice does not apply. When your life is at risk the most important consideration is quick care and high medical standards (clean equipment, talented doctors and nurses). On the other hand, if you want plastic surgery (or some kind of treatment that isn't urgent), you can shop around and find a doctor you like. In Canada plastic surgery is not covered by the government medical system, so doctors have to be good at what they do to convince people — just like the free market. Bottom line: urgent medical care
-
Once the government gets to control your health care they will have an excuse to tax caffeine, sugar, salt, alcohol, and tobacco as much as they want. The poor ol' poor people wont be able even be able to enjoy a cup of coffee and a donut because it would create a burden on the health system.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Once the government gets to control your health care they will have an excuse to tax caffeine, sugar, salt, alcohol, and tobacco as much as they want. The poor ol' poor people wont be able even be able to enjoy a cup of coffee and a donut because it would create a burden on the health system.
Yes, alcohol and tobacco are hit with special 'sin' taxes in Canada, but caffeine, sugar, salt and donuts are not. In the USA there the Alcohol And Tobacco Tax And Trade Bureau[^]. So... alcohol and tobacco are taxed in both countries even though the American government doesn't control the health care system.
You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Now let's also think about what happens with all that profit. A good portion of it goes to pay a lot of people to work for that insurance company. They get competitive salaries, and probably pretty good benefits. Good jobs, money back into the economy, good stuff. On the other hand, if the government runs it all, there's no competition for salaries, there's no diversity in job opportunities, just more tax burden.
In Canada the government pays 70% of medical costs and basically runs things, so why do Canadians pay $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and people in the USA pay $6,714? The $3,036 per-person (almost half!) that Canadians save goes back into the economy to pay for other things. What's the difference between paying $3600 in taxes and $0 to medical insurance compared with paying $0 in taxes and $6700 in medical insurance? You might say that $3600 is a lot to pay in taxes, but overall it's less expensive.
BoneSoft wrote:
As a consumer I have the same problem with diversity. In a free market, I can choose whatever insurance fits me best. In a state run system, I get no choice. And with no competition, they can get away with anything they want. Which is convenient for them, since once Congress rapes the account to fund "art" exhibits and spotted owl preserves, they can fund less health care and there isn't a damn thing anybody can do about it.
Here's the thing about consumer choice and the free market — it works great for consumer goods, like cars, clothes, etc. People 'support' the companies they like by buying the better products and thus the better companies survive. If you're in a car accident and you need to be rushed to a hospital to stop the bleeding, will you be shopping around for the best hospital? Will you be interviewing doctors to find out which ones you trust? You won't because you don't have time. When it comes to necessary medical care, consumer choice does not apply. When your life is at risk the most important consideration is quick care and high medical standards (clean equipment, talented doctors and nurses). On the other hand, if you want plastic surgery (or some kind of treatment that isn't urgent), you can shop around and find a doctor you like. In Canada plastic surgery is not covered by the government medical system, so doctors have to be good at what they do to convince people — just like the free market. Bottom line: urgent medical care
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
When your life is at risk the most important consideration is quick care and high medical standards (clean equipment, talented doctors and nurses).
and in the USofA it doesn't matter because the ambulance / para-medics give you on the scene treatment and rush you to the nearest hospital, no questions asked. that is the law. came back to add: the ability for hospitals to cover this sort of emergency care if you can't ultimately pay for it is in fact via insurance companies. the reason is that hospitals (and other health care providers) transfer the cost (it is called, "cost shiftin") to those who pay through insurance or are well enough off to write a check.
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.