Health
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Insuring health in any economically sustainable way simply isn't possible. Not for private industry, not for government.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The most perfect system for providing health care to the greatest number of people is a free market system where the patient pays the doctor directly with no intermediate overhead of any kind. You cut out all middle men, insurance or government, and prices will come down. Heatlh care will be cheap enough that charitable organizations will be able to take care of the few who need help.
So paying for health care is not economically sustainable, except that if people pay their own costs some charitable organization will appear to pay the rest? I haven't heard of organizations like this; can you link to a couple?
Stan Shannon wrote:
If you want some bureuacrat deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't.
If you want some [profit-motivated business man] deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't. I prefer the bureaucrat because they're not motivated by profit.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Health insurance companies will essentially do the same thing, but if competition is allowed between them, than at the very least costs can be kept down to some extent.
Oh, so you already realized that if bureaucrats aren't making those decisions then companies are? I've already provided statistics showing that the bureaucratic Canadian system is less expensive, so it's not true that companies will keep costs down. Well, they might keep costs down but they'll also keep profits up and so total costs are higher.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The most perfect system for providing health care to the greatest number of people is a free market system where the patient pays the doctor directly with no intermediate overhead of any kind.
As Oakman said, 60% of bankruptcies are cause by medical bills and I've pointed out that in an emergency you don't have time to shop around to find the cheapest emergency room. The free market model only works for elective treatments.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
So paying for health care is not economically sustainable, except that if people pay their own costs some charitable organization will appear to pay the rest? I haven't heard of organizations like this; can you link to a couple?
Thats the way it worked in the past, quite well in fact. It is far less possible to do the same thing today because of the artificial explosion in health care costs created by the government.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If you want some [profit-motivated business man] deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't .
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he? I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I prefer the bureaucrat because they're not motivated by profit.
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government? What is the difference between this and the same guy working for a charity except that he is, in fact, living off of my dime?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Oh, so you already realized that if bureaucrats aren't making those decisions then companies are? I've already provided statistics showing that the bureaucratic Canadian system is less expensive, so it's not true that companies will keep costs down. Well, they might keep costs down but they'll also keep profits up and so total costs are higher.
The harse economic reality of the frailty of the human body is unavoidable, it will be the same regardless of what system you implement. Your system is not less expensive. It is more expensive. Any statistics that suggest otherwise are cooking the books somewhere. Why the hell can Canada no longer field an Army worthy of the name? It can't because of its growing social safty net. But you are correct that insurance company profits are profits that do not, in fact, contribute to any one's actual health care. If all healh care profits were in the medical industry alone, the overall costs would be a small fraction of what they
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Your money is simply going back to the government. And that money is taken out of productive circulation, incapable of growing wealth. Just as with any other system, there are losses that occur as a result of the process itself. The system losses money - it leaks wealth. Year by year, Canada has less wealth, and less freedom, because of that process.
Where does the money go when it leaks out? Is there a big pile of it somewhere? Do they dump it in the Great Lakes? Burn it to heat government buildings? Or maybe they pay doctors, nurses, hospital staff. Then those people go out and spend their salaries on good that other people have produced. The money that medical workers are paid is the same whether that money came from taxes or from private insurance companies.
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:
Where does the money go when it leaks out? Is there a big pile of it somewhere? Do they dump it in the Great Lakes? Burn it to heat government buildings? Or maybe they pay doctors, nurses, hospital staff. Then those people go out and spend their salaries on good that other people have produced. The money that medical workers are paid is the same whether that money came from taxes or from private insurance companies.
Sorry, but you have a completely socialistic understanding of economics. Spending money does not create wealth. If you believe that simply spending the same dollars over and over again is sufficient to sustain an economy I have one question for you: Why should any of us work at all? Why doesn't the government just put every thing we need in vending machines and than give us money to get what we want from the vending machines? Every night they could just take the money out of the vending machine and put it in our mail boxes so that we could spend it again.
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.
modified on Friday, June 5, 2009 8:18 PM
-
kmg365 wrote:
how about rationed health care system
All health care delivery systems are rationed. And nobody gets free healthcare. In Canada, rationing is done primarily by long wait-times, secondarily by gate-keeping GPs. A lot of people who need health care badly don't get it until their disease has progressed a great deal or it is just plain too late. According to Canadian derived statistics, their wait times have quadrupled since 2000. On the other hand, the quality of care is very good and you have access to it regardless of employment status or economic position. In the U.S. rationing is done by employment, secondarily by gate-keeping GPs. At least in theory, the advantage of the U.S. system is that if you are rich enough or are a highly place manager with a platinum health-care plan, you can jump to the head of the line. You can also be assured of good health care if you are an illegal or on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. In these cases, the employed middle class pay for your health care. The primary disadvantage of the American system can be seen in the fact that for the last year for which their are figures, 60% of all individuals who filed for bankruptcy did so because of medical problems their insurance didn't handle.
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:
In the U.S. rationing is done by employment, secondarily by gate-keeping GPs.
you're confusing insurance with care with HMOs, three different considerations. most, but not all employers offer health insurance - aka., group insurance. gate-keeping GPs are only a part of the HMO (health maintenance organization)model. This model was designed on the premise that if access to a general practicioner were relatively inexpensive then overall healthcare costs would be lower because you'd be maintaining health instead of curing disease. GPs associated with HMOs are paid on the basis of something called, "capitation" or $XX per enrolled life. The $XX amount is relatively low on the assumption that not all will make use of the service. the flip side of that is if you don't make regular use then you'll be treating disease after all. GPs in this scenario are in fact gate-keepers in that you need their recommendation in order to see a specialist. That can be difficult / easy depending on the GP and/or the specific HMO. Health insurance, whether employer based or individually purchased, operates differently - there is no gate-keeper (see my note below). If you're ill, then you get treatment and it is covered based on the terms of your contract. Why do I mention terms of your contract? I do because contracts differ, some conditions may be covered (most if not all legitimate health conditions are covered to some extent in every contract - see my note below). What might not be covered? The answer is, for example, conditions you think should but are not because they're largely cosmetic - breast reduction is one such example. So why do people have trouble with health insurance? because they want something for nothing. Insurance will not cover pre-existing conditions, most plans will not cover a pre-existing condition for 1 to 2 years after you buy into a plan. That is unless you're covered by the Health Insurance Portability Act, aka., HIPA. - this would take an extraordinarily long explanaiton, I'll do it if you really need it. The essense of this latter subject is, if you've gone through life thinking it more fun to buy spinners for your lime green Pontiac classic than it is to pay for health insurance, then discover you've a medical condition that is costly and try to buy insurance to cover it, you're shit out of luck as you should be. A health insurance comapany will no more issue you a contract if you're sick but never though
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So, if it's not for the poor, or even the very poor, who is it for ?
It is for poeple who can get a doctor to sign something saying the person is disabled, then he goes to that same doctor to get free narcotics which he sells on the street. I know people who do that, it is very common.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I know people who do that, it is very common.
Yes, but your circle of friends is limited to criminals and deliberate slackers.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
So paying for health care is not economically sustainable, except that if people pay their own costs some charitable organization will appear to pay the rest? I haven't heard of organizations like this; can you link to a couple?
Thats the way it worked in the past, quite well in fact. It is far less possible to do the same thing today because of the artificial explosion in health care costs created by the government.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If you want some [profit-motivated business man] deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't .
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he? I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I prefer the bureaucrat because they're not motivated by profit.
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government? What is the difference between this and the same guy working for a charity except that he is, in fact, living off of my dime?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Oh, so you already realized that if bureaucrats aren't making those decisions then companies are? I've already provided statistics showing that the bureaucratic Canadian system is less expensive, so it's not true that companies will keep costs down. Well, they might keep costs down but they'll also keep profits up and so total costs are higher.
The harse economic reality of the frailty of the human body is unavoidable, it will be the same regardless of what system you implement. Your system is not less expensive. It is more expensive. Any statistics that suggest otherwise are cooking the books somewhere. Why the hell can Canada no longer field an Army worthy of the name? It can't because of its growing social safty net. But you are correct that insurance company profits are profits that do not, in fact, contribute to any one's actual health care. If all healh care profits were in the medical industry alone, the overall costs would be a small fraction of what they
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he?
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government?
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case. When it comes to cell phones, clothes, cars and other consumer goods I trust the business man because the motive is to make a good product so it sells well and makes a profit. If the government was making cars they would just be motivated to follow the rules (EPA guidelines, etc) and they'd make awful cars.
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
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he?
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government?
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case. When it comes to cell phones, clothes, cars and other consumer goods I trust the business man because the motive is to make a good product so it sells well and makes a profit. If the government was making cars they would just be motivated to follow the rules (EPA guidelines, etc) and they'd make awful cars.
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:
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Huh? What do you mean 'not giving me the money'? What if I already have the money?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Absolutely. We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case.
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to fuck with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
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.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Huh? What do you mean 'not giving me the money'? What if I already have the money?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Absolutely. We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case.
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to fuck with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
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:
We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Yeah, but what happens if you need to stay in a hospital for three months to recover from a car accident? Could you afford to pay for that out of your own pocket? Once the bills are too expensive, you need an insurance plan, either from the government or from private companies or a mix of the two.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to f*** with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
Yup, there's jackasses working in government, but there's some good people too. I think the main thing is that the focus of government medical insurance is to treat people. The focus of private insurance companies is to make money. Neither is perfect, but I prefer the system that treats people first and worries about profit second. And somehow the Canadian system manages to do that and still cost less money per capita.
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
-
Yeah, that's one issue. Most people who work don't have that problem often. But no, the core issue is that insurance costs so much for individuals that insurance through your employer is the best way to get coverage. Reforming the system could fix or lessen the severity of those problems. There's no need to chuck the whole thing and move to an entirely difference system.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
I think the reverse is true - insurance costs too much BECAUSE it's been made part of a wage package, and employers have paid it. Example : in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference and people pay what they always did, plus what they pay in the cost of the rebate. The rebate is going away now, and prices will not drop.
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.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Yeah, but what happens if you need to stay in a hospital for three months to recover from a car accident? Could you afford to pay for that out of your own pocket? Once the bills are too expensive, you need an insurance plan, either from the government or from private companies or a mix of the two.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to f*** with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
Yup, there's jackasses working in government, but there's some good people too. I think the main thing is that the focus of government medical insurance is to treat people. The focus of private insurance companies is to make money. Neither is perfect, but I prefer the system that treats people first and worries about profit second. And somehow the Canadian system manages to do that and still cost less money per capita.
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:
Yeah, but what happens if you need to stay in a hospital for three months to recover from a car accident? Could you afford to pay for that out of your own pocket? Once the bills are too expensive, you need an insurance plan, either from the government or from private companies or a mix of the two.
I could afford it as easily as I could afford any other disaster in my life. Shit happens, get used to it. If the government is going to protect everyone from every terrible event that could possible happen in someone's life than we are all going to end up paying a lot more than we would risk paying in a purely free market system.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Yup, there's jackasses working in government, but there's some good people too. I think the main thing is that the focus of government medical insurance is to treat people. The focus of private insurance companies is to make money. Neither is perfect, but I prefer the system that treats people first and worries about profit second. And somehow the Canadian system manages to do that and still cost less money per capita.
The purpose of government health care is not to provide you with health care, the purpose is to have control over you. That and that alone.
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:
In the U.S. rationing is done by employment, secondarily by gate-keeping GPs.
you're confusing insurance with care with HMOs, three different considerations. most, but not all employers offer health insurance - aka., group insurance. gate-keeping GPs are only a part of the HMO (health maintenance organization)model. This model was designed on the premise that if access to a general practicioner were relatively inexpensive then overall healthcare costs would be lower because you'd be maintaining health instead of curing disease. GPs associated with HMOs are paid on the basis of something called, "capitation" or $XX per enrolled life. The $XX amount is relatively low on the assumption that not all will make use of the service. the flip side of that is if you don't make regular use then you'll be treating disease after all. GPs in this scenario are in fact gate-keepers in that you need their recommendation in order to see a specialist. That can be difficult / easy depending on the GP and/or the specific HMO. Health insurance, whether employer based or individually purchased, operates differently - there is no gate-keeper (see my note below). If you're ill, then you get treatment and it is covered based on the terms of your contract. Why do I mention terms of your contract? I do because contracts differ, some conditions may be covered (most if not all legitimate health conditions are covered to some extent in every contract - see my note below). What might not be covered? The answer is, for example, conditions you think should but are not because they're largely cosmetic - breast reduction is one such example. So why do people have trouble with health insurance? because they want something for nothing. Insurance will not cover pre-existing conditions, most plans will not cover a pre-existing condition for 1 to 2 years after you buy into a plan. That is unless you're covered by the Health Insurance Portability Act, aka., HIPA. - this would take an extraordinarily long explanaiton, I'll do it if you really need it. The essense of this latter subject is, if you've gone through life thinking it more fun to buy spinners for your lime green Pontiac classic than it is to pay for health insurance, then discover you've a medical condition that is costly and try to buy insurance to cover it, you're shit out of luck as you should be. A health insurance comapany will no more issue you a contract if you're sick but never though
I hope you'll remember that I have pissed off our Canadian regs more'n once by expressing a lack of respect for their "free" healthcare system, more'n once, when I say, flatly, that there is a health-care crisis in this country. I appreciate your input on the difference between straight insurance and HMOs though my experience has been that the difference is shrinking as you pointed out in your addendum. I am sure that you can indeed buy a policy that will cover any reasonable injury or illness in full and without termination because you develop a chronic illness. I know that is what we the taxpayers provide for everyone in Congress - I believe we continue providing it for them even after they leave, though I'm not positive of that. And there's not a staunch conservative in either house that doesn't avail himherself of this socialistic system. However, I believe you are assuming that the average wage in this country stretches far further than it does. There are plenty of families in this country that are strapped out - their real wages haven't gone up in 8 years, though their real costs have. They've got insurance in many cases, but it's a shithole policy, like the one my brother-in-law provides his employees but it's costs those employers an arm and a leg (my b-i-l is paying 1,000 @ month for one lady, because she's not young. He could fire her of course, and there are plenty of companies that do that. And while Cobra might cover her for 18 months, at her age, she isn't likely to get another job. So, since he's a human being, he pays - and pays - and pays. And neither she, nor he buys spinners for a GTO. The crisis is simple to define, I think: healthcare costs too fucking much. Thats the fault of outrageous malpractice suits and class action suits that benefit noone but the lawyers. It's the fault of the 20 million illegals who get good care and then waltz out of the hospital leaving you and me to be stuck with the bill. It's the fault of insurance companies that have made insurance so complicated that most doctors have at least one person on staff full-time to do nothing but argue with insurance companies. It's the fault of doctors who consider making half a mil a year chicken feed. It boils down to the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed totally out of proportion to the cost of most other things and way beyond the rate of inflation. And it has created a crisis.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing f
-
I think the reverse is true - insurance costs too much BECAUSE it's been made part of a wage package, and employers have paid it. Example : in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference and people pay what they always did, plus what they pay in the cost of the rebate. The rebate is going away now, and prices will not drop.
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:
in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference
I've watched the same thing happen in this country with higher education. The more support offered to students by the Government, the higher tuition climbs.
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:
in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference
I've watched the same thing happen in this country with higher education. The more support offered to students by the Government, the higher tuition climbs.
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
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
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 ?
Unfortunately, no. As I just pointed out, 60% of the people in the U.S. who declare bankruptcy do so because they had a medical emergency that their insurance didn't handle.
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
Sure - I was being flippant ( obviously ). The trouble is probably that most people don't have that medical emergency and so it's someone else's problem.
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.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
So paying for health care is not economically sustainable, except that if people pay their own costs some charitable organization will appear to pay the rest? I haven't heard of organizations like this; can you link to a couple?
Thats the way it worked in the past, quite well in fact. It is far less possible to do the same thing today because of the artificial explosion in health care costs created by the government.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If you want some [profit-motivated business man] deciding that you or your children should die so that some one else can live based upon some factor other than your ability to pay, than fine. I don't .
Did you write that correctly? A profit motivated business man would decide based on ability to pay, wouldn't he? I prefer to care for my own needs by my own ability, that is what freedom is. The more I am dependent upon a government bureaucrat, the less free I am.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
I prefer the bureaucrat because they're not motivated by profit.
Than what the hell is he motivated by? If he is willing to do this for free, why the hell does he need to work for the government? What is the difference between this and the same guy working for a charity except that he is, in fact, living off of my dime?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Oh, so you already realized that if bureaucrats aren't making those decisions then companies are? I've already provided statistics showing that the bureaucratic Canadian system is less expensive, so it's not true that companies will keep costs down. Well, they might keep costs down but they'll also keep profits up and so total costs are higher.
The harse economic reality of the frailty of the human body is unavoidable, it will be the same regardless of what system you implement. Your system is not less expensive. It is more expensive. Any statistics that suggest otherwise are cooking the books somewhere. Why the hell can Canada no longer field an Army worthy of the name? It can't because of its growing social safty net. But you are correct that insurance company profits are profits that do not, in fact, contribute to any one's actual health care. If all healh care profits were in the medical industry alone, the overall costs would be a small fraction of what they
Stan Shannon wrote:
bullsh*t. There is no reason at all that there could not be fair and open competition for privately owned emergency care services.
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
- F
-
I think the reverse is true - insurance costs too much BECAUSE it's been made part of a wage package, and employers have paid it. Example : in Australia, the government offered tax rebates on private health insurance. Insurance went up, all health professionals I've asked agree with me that the health funds soaked up the difference and people pay what they always did, plus what they pay in the cost of the rebate. The rebate is going away now, and prices will not drop.
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.
I hadn't considered that, but it makes sense. Hmm... Now I have crap to think about. :laugh:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
bullsh*t. There is no reason at all that there could not be fair and open competition for privately owned emergency care services.
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
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.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
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:
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
What about the thousands of other medical emergencies that us humans tend to suffer from? Could almost be a full time job just arranging cover in their likely or unlikely occurrence(s). I worry about you Stan, and your ideas.
modified on Saturday, June 6, 2009 8:22 AM
-
Any system that requires people to pay up front, is open to these sort of issues. I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
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:
I prefer our system, where students pay for their education on the tail end, when they are reaping the benefits.
Well, we may have figured out the worst of both worlds. The Diploma Factories make their money up front, but the students who have, in many cases, been subsidized by government-backed loans, can end up starting their professional careeras a couple of hundred thoudsand (US) doallrs in debt. I went to a first class private university in Boston where living hasn't ever been cheap. My entire first year's tuition was just over $1,000. Room, board, books, etc. came to just over another thousand. Obviously those were back when we were on the gold standard and inflation was what happened to balloons. That's why, now, the cost of room, board, etc. are ten times higher - to 11,000, U$. However, tuition - even though the college year has shrunk by six weeks from what it was when I went there is now thirty-frackin-seven times what it was then to $38,500.
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
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Nope, a profit-motivated business man is going to decide to pay your medical costs based on what makes the highest profit. Not giving you the money means more profit, which means denying care.
Huh? What do you mean 'not giving me the money'? What if I already have the money?
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
You know what, I totally agree. I don't want to depend on the government. I know the government wastes money and has too much bureaucracy. When it comes to medical care, I also don't want to depend on the business man because his profit comes first.
Absolutely. We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
The bureaucrat is motivated by getting paid their salary. They follow the rules so they can keep their jobs. If the rules say, "pay medical bills for car accident victims" then the bureaucrat does. The business man is motivated by profit, so if they can save money and make more profit by not paying my medical bills, then they will. That's why I trust the bureaucrat more in this case.
The bureaucrat is either not going to be motivated at all, probably will not be fired regardless of how poorly he does his job, or he is going to motivated by a political agenda which may or may not be to your disadvantage, or is simply going to be some kind of power mad jackass who likes to fuck with you. You know, pretty much the same kind of people you met at the post office.
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:
We should depend only upon the doctor. It should be a free exchange of money for services between patient and doctor.
Before Britain had its National Health Service, those who could afford medical treatments paid handsomely for it. Those who couldn't, and they were the overwhelming majority, suffered horrendous pain and injuries that occasioned their earlier than necessary deaths. Charity did help some but those it did help were just the tip of the iceberg.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
"Hello, 911? My right arm and leg have gone numb, and while I realize that time spent getting to the hospital after a stroke is time that my brain is actively infarcting but I'd still like to discuss what my pricing options are with respect to my local hospitals - ahhh, you say Northwest General has a special on tPA, that's great - but that's only if it's an ischemic stroke, won't do much for a hemorrhagic one. Do any of them have deals on CT? Ohhh, great - that sounds...? Oh! Bother! Stroke! Reach! Broca's! Area! If! Could! Email! Me! Please! Thanks!"
The arrangement could be established before the stroke.
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.