Health
-
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.
-
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.
So, when I read about people who are denied care in a hospital, having arrived by ambulance, because their insurance does not cover that hospital, and so they die on the way to the 'right' hospital, that's all just lies ?
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.
-
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
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
Yes, alcohol and tobacco are hit with special 'sin' taxes in Canada, but caffeine, sugar, salt and donuts are no
There have been some articles lately about it. With the economy in the shape its in they are looking at expanding the 'sin' tax to fatty foods, salt, sugar, and even caffeine.
-
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.
This is more ignorant BS. It doesn't work that way, anywhere in the world. Except that tobacco and alcohol SHOULD be taxed, I have no problem with that.
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.
-
This is more ignorant BS. It doesn't work that way, anywhere in the world. Except that tobacco and alcohol SHOULD be taxed, I have no problem with that.
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.
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Christian Graus wrote:</div>This is more ignorant BS. It doesn't work that way</blockquote> Pay attention moron. http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/06/tax\_sugary\_soft.html
-
So, when I read about people who are denied care in a hospital, having arrived by ambulance, because their insurance does not cover that hospital, and so they die on the way to the 'right' hospital, that's all just lies ?
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.
You have to pay for their services. It isn't a right.
-
"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.
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.
-
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
-
<blockquote class="FQ"><div class="FQA">Christian Graus wrote:</div>This is more ignorant BS. It doesn't work that way</blockquote> Pay attention moron. http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/06/tax\_sugary\_soft.html
Just because someone is talking about it, doesn't make it a guaranteed result of a government backed health care program. Hell, they will probably tax sugar either way, given how fat you all are. The point is that it's not cause and effect.
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.
-
Just because someone is talking about it, doesn't make it a guaranteed result of a government backed health care program. Hell, they will probably tax sugar either way, given how fat you all are. The point is that it's not cause and effect.
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:
Hell, they will probably tax sugar either way
Well, if they want to start another revolution then bring it on.
-
You have to pay for their services. It isn't a right.
Well, part of my 'liberal utopia', is that we like to help people on the basis of need, and we know that some of the people who we help, go on to be very productive citizens. I was on unemployment benefits for about 3 years, I paid back the amount they gave me in taxes, a long, long time ago.
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.
-
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 ?
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
-
Well, part of my 'liberal utopia', is that we like to help people on the basis of need, and we know that some of the people who we help, go on to be very productive citizens. I was on unemployment benefits for about 3 years, I paid back the amount they gave me in taxes, a long, long time ago.
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 was on unemployment benefits for about 3 years
Three years!? What a bum.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Hell, they will probably tax sugar either way
Well, if they want to start another revolution then bring it on.
ROTFL !!!! Sure, people are going to revolt over the price of soda. It's ridiculously cheap in the US to start with, and don't get me started on what you guys call a cup over there, a bucket, more like.
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.
-
ROTFL !!!! Sure, people are going to revolt over the price of soda. It's ridiculously cheap in the US to start with, and don't get me started on what you guys call a cup over there, a bucket, more like.
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.
It won't take much more to offset teh balance of tolerance and civility. It would probably be the straw that breaks the camels back. Some states are already nullifying the federal governments regulations. That is for another thread though.
-
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.
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'm glad you're not. But what socialist ideas we've put into place have been nightmares. And I'm not personally interested in any more.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
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:
why do Canadians pay $3,678 per capita (10% GDP) and people in the USA pay $6,714?
I can't answer that. I don't know much about the Canadian system or how the people use it. I do however know that our insurance costs rise as a result of various ways people find for screwing insurance companies and hospitals. My favorite example to bitch about is the fact that hospitals cannot turn people away from emergency rooms by law, but there are no restrictions on what's considered an emergency. Which has led to many people telling illegal (and legal) Mexicans that they can go to the emergency room for anything and basically get free health care. All they have to do is claim they don't have insurance and/or identification. I personally know second and third generation Mexicans who still do that, just because they can.
Daniel Ferguson wrote:
If you're in a car accident and you need to be rushed to a hospital to stop the bleeding
But non emergency health care, and the entire insurance industry is a consumer goods market. If Canadians are happy with what they've got, I'm genuinely happy for them. But I don't think it would work for us the way it does for you. And I'm sure the transition would not be fun.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
So, when I read about people who are denied care in a hospital, having arrived by ambulance, because their insurance does not cover that hospital, and so they die on the way to the 'right' hospital, that's all just lies ?
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:
that's all just lies ?
yes. by law you cannot be turned away from an emergency room.
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.
-
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[^
Insuring health in any economically sustainable way simply isn't possible. Not for private industry, not for government. The Canadian health care system is going to destroy the Canadian economy. You can count on it. There is a 100% probability that every single human being is going to die from a fatal illness or injury. The only way for government to deal with that sad fact is to deprive health care based upon age or some other social consideration other than economic status. That is the only difference between yours and a private health care system. 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. 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. But health costs will go up simply because doctors know that there is money reserved to pay them, so they demand more from the insurance companies, the insurance companies in turn demand more from their custormers. It is simply an untenable system. 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. That system worked flawlessly in the past before it was intentionally sabatauged by government meddling. In fact it works flawlessly today. All health care treatments that are not covered by insurance or by the government have fallen dramatically in price over time in the same way that all such sectors of the ecnomy do as they become more efficient and widespread.
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.