Health
-
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.
BoneSoft wrote:
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.
Sounds to me like they're cheating the system. The main problem there is that they're illegal. If health care was funded by taxes, they wouldn't be paying taxes. They can't get an insurance company though because they're illegal. It's not really a problem with the medical system though... they should be deported. Also, if there aren't rules about what is an emergency, then there should be.
BoneSoft wrote:
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.
Sure, the Canadian system might not work in the US and change isn't easy. As Oakman has pointed out, "60% of all individuals who filed for bankruptcy did so because of medical problems their insurance didn't handle," so there's obviously a problem. I'd say there's three kinds of medical 'situations': actual emergencies, necessary non-emergency treatment (ie: cancer), optional procedures (ie: plastic surgery). Emergency treatment (not just people claiming emergencies) should be paid for by taxes. Necessary treatment should be paid by some combination of tax and user fees and private insurance. Optional treatments should be paid for by people who want it, and optionally by insurance (if an insurance company wants to offer that kind of coverage).
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:
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.
That simply is not true. 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.
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.
-
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.
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:
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.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
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.
Woah, woah... that sounds like Socialism comrade! :rolleyes: Seriously though, it's great to know that lawmakers have realized the first priority in emergency medical situations is treating people and profit comes second. The free-market, for-profit model works best for elective treatments.
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:
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.
That simply is not true. 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.
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:
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
-
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.