Health care
-
How could you? You don't even know any other country? ;)
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygenpeterchen wrote: You don't even know any other country? :laugh: :laugh: I've spent time in Cana-duh, Mexico, Ireland, UK, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Peru and Italy. I didn't think that was too bad for an ignorant/arrogant American. I also work for a German owned company headquarted in the US with offices/agents in Canada, Mexico, UK, South America, Spain, Germany, UAE and China. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
peterchen wrote: You don't even know any other country? :laugh: :laugh: I've spent time in Cana-duh, Mexico, Ireland, UK, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Peru and Italy. I didn't think that was too bad for an ignorant/arrogant American. I also work for a German owned company headquarted in the US with offices/agents in Canada, Mexico, UK, South America, Spain, Germany, UAE and China. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
;)
Pandoras Gift #44: Hope. The one that keeps you on suffering.
aber.. "Wie gesagt, der Scheiss is' Therapie"
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
K(arl) wrote: Private health services are more expensive, less socially efficient Because you get better service. From algorithmic perspective, centralized management is better than distributed only if it has massive computation advantage (rough, but mostly valid generalization). The government has no such advantage because it cannot afford it unless the taxes sky-rocket. How you define social effeciency? Due you consider the effect of high taxes on unemployment? K(arl) wrote: Why would they need to restructurate, being driven by the profit, private companies have no interest in being for all. Smart regulation, dynamic taxation, etc. Government can influence bussiness behaviour. K(arl) wrote: So you are advocating to have health care related to the money you can spend on it? Health for the wealthy ones only? It exactly what will happen. How long can a system live in deficit without lowering quality of service? When it does, the rich will turn to private medicine feeling stupid for paying high taxes and getting lousy service. Good doctors will leave the public system. Life is unfair, but being rich helps a lot.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Because you get better service How can you affirm that? Have you any evidence to prove your statement? Felix Gartsman wrote: How you define social effeciency? By global health data: life expectancy, infant mortality... Felix Gartsman wrote: the rich will turn to private medicine You make a confusion there. Government-driven health care (or non-profit organizations driven health care) doesn't mean public medicine. Felix Gartsman wrote: Life is unfair, but being rich helps a lot Absolutely, but it isn't a reason to condemn the poors to damnation. Each has to pay according to his/her financial mean.
Fold With Us! Beware of people who know the answer before having understood the question.
-
K(arl) wrote: The right to live is the first right of the citizen, hence access to health care should be granted to all Buy why just health care? Isn't food more important to life than a visit to the doctor? So why shouldn't the government supply me with groceries? "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Absolutely, IMO a government shouldn't let any citizen starve to death. In a democracy, a government should represent and protect all the People, not only a cast of privileged, wealthy "über-citizens".
Fold With Us! Beware of people who know the answer before having understood the question.
-
jan larsen wrote: Do you find it uncivilized to care for children You are hardly caring for them if you do not insure they have a healthy balanced diet, now are you? They government clearly should provide three carefully prepared meals daily for each person, otherwise children will be all too likely to be victimized by the incompetence of their parents. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: They government clearly should provide three carefully prepared meals daily for each person, otherwise children will be all too likely to be victimized by the incompetence of their parents. No, the government should provide education to all the children, and learn them how to have healthy balanced diet. If later they decide to live an unhealthy way, it will be their choice. Nonetheless, it isn't a reason not to treat them if they become sick because of that. Compassion shouldn't be only a christian virtue, and a possible redemption shouldn't be denied to anyone.
Fold With Us! Beware of people who know the answer before having understood the question.
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Because you get better service How can you affirm that? Have you any evidence to prove your statement? Felix Gartsman wrote: How you define social effeciency? By global health data: life expectancy, infant mortality... Felix Gartsman wrote: the rich will turn to private medicine You make a confusion there. Government-driven health care (or non-profit organizations driven health care) doesn't mean public medicine. Felix Gartsman wrote: Life is unfair, but being rich helps a lot Absolutely, but it isn't a reason to condemn the poors to damnation. Each has to pay according to his/her financial mean.
Fold With Us! Beware of people who know the answer before having understood the question.
K(arl) wrote: Because you get better service How can you affirm that? Have you any evidence to prove your statement? Because private institutions can afford better equipment and more skilled doctors. In public hospitals you can wait long periods for procedures due lack of resources. K(arl) wrote: How you define social effeciency? By global health data: life expectancy, infant mortality... You can't account social effeciency only through health care. You need to consider more factors. As for health data, read http://www.techcentralstation.com/032105B.html[^] Infant Mortality and Longevity, for some problems with it. K(arl) wrote: Each has to pay according to his/her financial mean. Unfortunatelly, from economic perspective it cannot last forever.
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: It exactly what will happen. How long can a system live in deficit without lowering quality of service? When it does, the rich will turn to private medicine feeling stupid for paying high taxes and getting lousy service. Good doctors will leave the public system. Life is unfair, but being rich helps a lot. Felix Gartsman wrote: Due you consider the effect of high taxes on unemployment? We got a near 60% tax here in denmark, but our unemployment rates a not much higher than the US rates. Also, when the tax were historically high in the early 90's, the unemployment rates hit an all-time low. Pray tell how you think this can be if those two issues are so intimately linked? :-) I agree that there can be a long time issue when you combine tax rates and salaries to global competition. But if the US is about to compete on salaries with eg. India, then you're welcome, but I doubt that many other US american voters are interested in becoming lab rats in such a social experiment... Felix Gartsman wrote: It exactly what will happen. How long can a system live in deficit without lowering quality of service? When it does, the rich will turn to private medicine feeling stupid for paying high taxes and getting lousy service. Good doctors will leave the public system. Life is unfair, but being rich helps a lot. That's not what's happening here, and remember, we've never had private medicine in neither my or my parents life time. Private hospitals are starting up here, but they are also getting clients from the public hospitals when queues are build up, and they are actually most often manned by doctors on overtime from the public hospitals :-) I have no problem with rich people buying better service, as long as they pay their due to the common cause. And it's not as if they've wasted their tax money anyway, because the doctors treating them on the private clinics has got their education for free, and people actually get paid by the state when taking an education. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: We got a near 60% tax here in denmark, but our unemployment rates a not much higher than the US rates. Also, when the tax were historically high in the early 90's, the unemployment rates hit an all-time low. Pray tell how you think this can be if those two issues are so intimately linked? They're linked, but not necessary inversly. You also need to consider GDP, debt, etc. Denmark has small population which allows certain mechanisms that fail to work on large scale. jan larsen wrote: I agree that there can be a long time issue when you combine tax rates and salaries to global competition. But if the US is about to compete on salaries with eg. India, then you're welcome, but I doubt that many other US american voters are interested in becoming lab rats in such a social experiment... I'm not an American voter. Everybody will compete on salaries with better education in India, China and better information sharing technologies.
-
K(arl) wrote: Because you get better service How can you affirm that? Have you any evidence to prove your statement? Because private institutions can afford better equipment and more skilled doctors. In public hospitals you can wait long periods for procedures due lack of resources. K(arl) wrote: How you define social effeciency? By global health data: life expectancy, infant mortality... You can't account social effeciency only through health care. You need to consider more factors. As for health data, read http://www.techcentralstation.com/032105B.html[^] Infant Mortality and Longevity, for some problems with it. K(arl) wrote: Each has to pay according to his/her financial mean. Unfortunatelly, from economic perspective it cannot last forever.
Felix Gartsman wrote: _http://www.techcentralstation.com/032105B.html\[^\]_ techcentralstation is a hardcore economic libertarian site, which promotes the freedom for the wealthy ones to become wealthier, and for the poor ones the freedom to starve. Of course, they are dismissing the statistics they don't like as being irrelevant. The concept of good faith is totally unknown to them. Claiming that higher infant mortality occurs because "the US attempts to save most premature infants and counts the failures as infant mortality" and "In some other countries" (which ones?), "deaths of premature infants may" (conditional) "be treated for statistical purposes as incomplete pregnancies, which takes them out of their infant mortality statistics.": an affirmation without any justification. Moreover, the US census bureau doesn't count fetal deaths[^] And claiming life expectancy measure is irrelevant for now, that "In another ten or fifteen years, it may be possible to document a significant increase in life extension for people over the age of 55 in the United States compared to what is now occurring in other countries", it is pure speculation. Without mentioning that for the author, life expectancy will be relevant, once (if) it will fit his prejudices. Seeing political/societal problems on the economic aspect only is ridiculous, it is as dogmatic as marxism is, and as erroneous.
Fold With Us! Beware of people who know the answer before having understood the question.
-
jan larsen wrote: We got a near 60% tax here in denmark, but our unemployment rates a not much higher than the US rates. Also, when the tax were historically high in the early 90's, the unemployment rates hit an all-time low. Pray tell how you think this can be if those two issues are so intimately linked? They're linked, but not necessary inversly. You also need to consider GDP, debt, etc. Denmark has small population which allows certain mechanisms that fail to work on large scale. jan larsen wrote: I agree that there can be a long time issue when you combine tax rates and salaries to global competition. But if the US is about to compete on salaries with eg. India, then you're welcome, but I doubt that many other US american voters are interested in becoming lab rats in such a social experiment... I'm not an American voter. Everybody will compete on salaries with better education in India, China and better information sharing technologies.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Denmark has small population which allows certain mechanisms that fail to work on large scale. Hmmm..., I'm a programmer, I usually start a big project by splitting it up in smaller chunks, if that really was the case, then maybe that idea would have turned up sometime don't you think :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Felix Gartsman wrote: Denmark has small population which allows certain mechanisms that fail to work on large scale. Hmmm..., I'm a programmer, I usually start a big project by splitting it up in smaller chunks, if that really was the case, then maybe that idea would have turned up sometime don't you think :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: Hmmm..., I'm a programmer, I usually start a big project by splitting it up in smaller chunks, if that really was the case, then maybe that idea would have turned up sometime don't you think Not everything is splittable. Breaking 64bit keys is easy, 256 is hard and you cannot split the process to 4 times for 64bits. Some things simply don't scale.
-
jan larsen wrote: Hmmm..., I'm a programmer, I usually start a big project by splitting it up in smaller chunks, if that really was the case, then maybe that idea would have turned up sometime don't you think Not everything is splittable. Breaking 64bit keys is easy, 256 is hard and you cannot split the process to 4 times for 64bits. Some things simply don't scale.
Felix Gartsman wrote: Some things simply don't scale. No, but countries are not one of them. Consider the USSR, Yugoslavia and Checkoslovakia (could someone PLEASE correct my bad spelling :-) of that ex-country ). "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus