Free Healthcare
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2013, 07:32 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
Like insurance from the government for everyone?

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 09:24 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
(30-08-2013 07:32 AM)Lightvader Wrote:  Like insurance from the government for everyone?

That's one way to implement it. There are others.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
Basically we need fixed prices, either through government insurance of some sort of more intense oversight. An MRI should always cost 10K never 20K or w/e.

We also need to control over-diagnosis/unnecessary procedures....In other words a hospital should face hefty fines when exceeding national average for (or international average) for # of C-sections for instance. Pediatricians should face fines for prescribing more ADD medication than their peers, etc.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 09:52 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
(30-08-2013 09:44 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Basically we need fixed prices, either through government insurance of some sort of more intense oversight. An MRI should always cost 10K never 20K or w/e.

We also need to control over-diagnosis/unnecessary procedures....In other words a hospital should face hefty fines when exceeding national average for (or international average) for # of C-sections for instance. Pediatricians should face fines for prescribing more ADD medication than their peers, etc.

That doesn't quite seem reasonable; roughly half of providers will inevitably exceed the 'average' procedure count...

Rather than punish statistical variation, I think you'd be plenty well served by removing non-medical incentives to prescriptions and procedures (a tragically massive conflict of interest, after all).

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 10:23 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
Wow, I knew your healthcare was fucked up but I didn't realise how fucked up it was. It's literally like you've tried to set up the worst possible system, and achieved it. Big Grin

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2013, 02:51 PM
RE: Free Healthcare
(29-08-2013 11:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(28-08-2013 02:35 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I was the guy he is referring to. My short answer: Healthcare is more efficient and more affordable without government intervention...think pre-medicare and pre-medicaide, so up until the 60's. Even the poor received basic healthcare. It also help prevent pharmaceutical lobbyists from corrupting government. This is partially why you have absurd laws against medical uses of marijuana and the like, but that's a side note. Additionally, I don't feel that anyone is entitled to the professional services of anyone else for personal problems just for existing. Healthcare for those who are unable to do so because of physical and mental deficiencies, sure. Maybe even temporary medical coverage for someone who is on welfare (which needs dramatic reformation as well). Forcing people to buy insurance they can't afford is stupid, hurts the people, and encroaches on a persons personal liberty. In what world does this make sense? Problem: You are too poor to afford healthcare. Answer: Threaten the people to buy healthcare which they cannot afford.

I'd be a little more receptive to America using a different model, but I'd still be against it. We would see something similar to what we have when the government decided to do the same thing with education at the college level. The colleges jacked up the prices and Uncle Sam covered the costs by taking more money from the taxpayers and inflating the dollar by printing money out of thin air behind closed doors with no real oversight.

I agree it's cheaper to do it like the US, privately. I assume it is cheaper anyway, private institutes are usually always more efficient than public institutes.

Yabut, the data tells a different story. And by different I mean completely the opposite. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
30-08-2013, 09:20 PM
RE: Free Healthcare
(30-08-2013 09:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-08-2013 09:44 AM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Basically we need fixed prices, either through government insurance of some sort of more intense oversight. An MRI should always cost 10K never 20K or w/e.

We also need to control over-diagnosis/unnecessary procedures....In other words a hospital should face hefty fines when exceeding national average for (or international average) for # of C-sections for instance. Pediatricians should face fines for prescribing more ADD medication than their peers, etc.

That doesn't quite seem reasonable; roughly half of providers will inevitably exceed the 'average' procedure count...

Rather than punish statistical variation, I think you'd be plenty well served by removing non-medical incentives to prescriptions and procedures (a tragically massive conflict of interest, after all).

I didn't mean that there would be no tolerances, just that overmedication and unnecessary procedures and prices are at the root of this thing. Same with the price fixing, there has to be a floating scale of some kind based on taxes, wages and other operating costs variation. I mean look at this NPR piece I just stumbled on. It's out of control.

I think the non-medical economic advantages will always be there for hospitals and the pressure from the top will always weigh on doctors.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 12:01 AM
RE: Free Healthcare
(29-08-2013 11:31 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(29-08-2013 11:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I agree it's cheaper to do it like the US, privately. I assume it is cheaper anyway, private institutes are usually always more efficient than public institutes.

However I disagree with you that people are not entitled to healthcare.
I think they are. I think healthcare is one of several (the others being education, safely/security (police, fire services, national security etc..)) things that everyone should be instantly entitled too simply because they were forced out someones vagina.
If you work barely minimum wage/slightly above minimum wage and you get cancer or something, not only is that than a huge expense that you likely can't afford but you'll have to take time off work as well as little costs like petrol.
It's safe to say, you're fucked.
But who's fault is it you got cancer? Nobodies (depending on the cancer obviously).
It's unfair
It shouldn't matter what your level of income is. It's the states duty to ensure the safety and well-being of it's citizens and leaving the poor to 'fend for themselves' is not achieving this.
Health is one of those issues that could hit anyone. Everyone has different genetics, my dad had prostate cancer a while back which means I have a higher chance of getting prostate cancer (thanks dad Dodgy ). Cancer doesn't discriminate between rich and poor for example. As such, everyone should bare the cost of healthcare for the population via income tax. The rich pay for the poor, the poor pay for the rich etc..

IMO, cost isn't the issue, the issue is entitlement and IMO, everyone should be entitled to healthcare.

Also, it doesn't matter to the professional healthcare provider where the money comes from. You're not ripping him off by making him treat poor people because at the end of the day he still gets paid the same amount.

I would agree, but I think the crux of the argument lies in the question of what method of healthcare is going to provide the highest level of healthcare at the fairest price for everyone? Everyone may be entitled to free care, but if the level of care is shit then who, if anyone, is really benefiting?

No this is stupid.
We have socialized healthcare and our healthcare is very good.
My Dad and sister have been in and out of hospital more times than I can count.
It's never costs us a dime (directly, obviously we pay for it through taxes) and they get top notch healthcare.


While we're on money. I've been thinking. We pay for healthcare via our taxes.
You and the other Yanks claim it is cheaper to do it via private means.
Yet, this is how your income tax brackets work:

10% - $0 – $8,925
15% - $8,926 – $36,250
25% - $36,251 – $87,850
28% - $87,851 – $183,250
33% - $183,251 – $398,350
35% - $398,351 – $400,000
39.6% - $400,001+

That is what you pay in income tax, you than pay for health insurance ontop of that.

Here is how our tax brackets work:

10.5% - $0 – $14,000
17.5% - $14,001 – $48,000
30% - $48,001 – $70,000
33% - Over $70,000

Pretty much the same, except we don't have to pay for healthcare ontop of that as our healthcare is included in that tax. If we get cancer or break a leg it doesn't cost us a dime, while you guys will get stuck with a hefty bill.

So please, how is it cheaper for individuals? Especially for the lower and even the middle class. Hell, how is it even more expensive for the government? The only difference between private and socialized is who pays the bill. In your case an insurance company pays the bill, in the case of socialized the government pays the bill. Either way it doesn't matter to the hospitals who pays, they get their money the same in the end. And before you complain you're paying for other people's healthcare you're doing the exact same with insurance companies! More so because insurance companies want to make a profit.

The more I think about it the less cheaper your version is.
It's not cheaper, it's that simple. In fact it's likely more expensive via an insurance company because they stand to make a profit.

PLUS, if you have an pre outstanding condition good luck getting regular insurance rates... With socialized it doesn't matter if something runs in the family or not, you're covered.

Socialized healthcare is simply put, a far fairer system.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
01-09-2013, 01:59 PM
RE: Free Healthcare
(30-08-2013 02:51 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-08-2013 11:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I agree it's cheaper to do it like the US, privately. I assume it is cheaper anyway, private institutes are usually always more efficient than public institutes.

Yabut, the data tells a different story. And by different I mean completely the opposite. Tongue

Well, your position is based on the supposition that America's healthcare system is private, and not public. This is false. America is neither. We split the difference, like we do with most things. Certain government sectors do receive 'socialized' healthcare. The military, congress, special agents, and so forth. Additionally we have programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Privatized healthcare would show much different data. Look at the data before the 60's, that is the data you want. Much closer to truly privatized healthcare. Unfortunately, when it comes to splitting the difference in healthcare, it is the absolute worst path to go on, that is what your data shows. Privitazed healthcare without intervention or at least minimal intervention should cost much less and be available to more people while increasing the standard of healthcare. Unfortunately the data for such a system is now over 50 years old, but it still reflects the guiding principle.

A good article contrasting the economic outcomes the political theory behind them can be found here http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/when_socialism_and_libertarianism_collide . Seems reasonably unbiased to me.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2013, 04:03 PM
RE: Free Healthcare
(01-09-2013 12:01 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  No this is stupid.
We have socialized healthcare and our healthcare is very good.
My Dad and sister have been in and out of hospital more times than I can count.
It's never costs us a dime (directly, obviously we pay for it through taxes) and they get top notch healthcare.

Sorry, your anecdote is contrary to plenty of others that I've read. My judgement remains suspended.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: