|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in?
No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all)
|
On October 28 2013 08:44 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:32 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 08:20 Wegandi wrote:On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not. If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology. 1. Canadians eat the same diets you eat, yet we spend way less than you 2. Poor people arent 'free' to eat what they want, they eat what they can afford and for most of them it means diets rich in sugar and fats 3. People dont 'choose' to pay more for healthcare, if your job doesnt cover your insurgence your option are (a) pay a shit ton of money to a rentier hospital (b) wait until its emergency room time with the cost picked up by everyone 1. Why is Canadian obesity so much lower than American if we eat the same things? 2. America has relatively few poor, compared to every other country, but that trend is getting worse and worse (we can argue why in other threads) 3. People do 'choose' to pay more, by choosing certain lifestyles. If you smoke, you're making a conscious choice to assume the risks and the costs of such a choice. If you drink, or if you abuse heroine, or if you eat McDonald's every day instead of cooking, etc. Then there is the technological incentives now-a-days that has overtaken physical activity leading to more obesity (in conjunction with the diet). Of course, healthcare costs are artificially raised, but that doesn't have anything to do with not being ran by Government. Everything Government manages to monopolize its costs are greater than the non-monopolized choice (e.g. market), and included in this criticism are the writs of monopoly the Government hands out to certain industries like Telecomm, Energy, etc.
1. Because diet is one of only one of many factors. Chronic stress being a very powerful one, for example. "Creative destruction" and competition are not without costs. We tend to call these things "externalities".
2. What? Compared to whom? I assume you're talking about first world nations here? Source? That trend by the way, has been seen in every other country which has embraced the nonsense that is "trickle down".
3. People don't live and make choices in a vacuum. Libertarian ideology would like this to be true, but no, the choices that individuals make are heavily shaped by their social and economic environments.
|
On October 28 2013 09:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in? No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all)
Guess what: government sponsored (or even merely subsidized) universal healthcare works better than the American system, in real life, for real, in reality, right now. This isn't a hypothetical. This isn't the Matrix. This isn't Plato's allegory of the cave. It isn't a fantasy. This is the objective world of matter and energy you and I live in today. You are the one saying we need to ignore reality and speculate on something which, even if it really could have a positive outcome, is not going to happen given the current moral and political climate in America, nor even in any conceivable near future. How about instead of going for this utopia, we go with what's actually been proven to work, for real, in real life?
|
On October 28 2013 06:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:53 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 05:29 Gorsameth wrote:On October 28 2013 05:25 Scareb wrote:On October 28 2013 03:29 RCMDVA wrote:The only people signing up right now are going to be the truly sick, and there are stories out that a huge majoirity of people who have in fact signed up are getting referred to Medicaid. That would be the worst of the worst possible outcomes for the Fed/State budgets. New York... 37,000 enrolled in Obamacare...24,000 of those referred to Medicaid. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/state/many-obamacare-enrollees-in-ny-go-to-medicaid-20131024So these aren't people buying anything. They aren't paying a portion and then getting a tax credit. They are straight up getting on Medicaid. The early on forecasts were for 50/50 enrollment... the 80/20 we've been seeing can't hold up. Sorry if I don't get it correct. But from what I am understanding from your post. The poor sick people are signing up for ACA, because they need healthcare? Isn't that the purpose of this insurance? And isn't New York one of the riches state in your union and so paying a hug amount of your unions budget? And what do they have to buy? Like a doctor they can't afford because they are poor? What he means is the system works because both healthy and sick (and more healthy then sick at that) are paying insurance to spread the costs. Yet if only sick people are signing up and healthy people are paying the fine instead the system doesn't make enough money to work, tho i would say in that instance the fine is just to low. Ah thanks! I never thought about health insurance in that way.  Health insurance is all about spreading costs. healthy and sick pay for the sick onces because on there own the sick could never afford it. Which leads to point 2 below. Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 05:53 Thomas Sowell wrote:
The real problem is the bill does nothing to actually lower the exorbitant costs of health care. Trying to force people to pay more money isn't a solution to that problem.
Eventually you run into a wall, where the people you are fining become the people who simply don't have the money to pay the fine, and the higher you set the fine the more people will fall into that category. What about the people who are too low income to afford the premiums or fines but not low income enough to qualify for medicare?
The more you look at this bill the more you see it is simply designed to force the country into a single payer system. You've got to get enough of the country miserable and angry with the existing system to finally get single payer passed. Thats not how it (should) work at all. By requiring everyone to have insurance you are spreading to cost more, because those who opt out for whatever reason now are not paying there part. More healthy people on insurance = lower costs per person. The actual cost of the medical procedure for the hospital is a totally different problem tho part of it is also insurance. Uninsured people treated by the hospital dont bring in money if they cant afford it so they have to take the money from those you can pay, but the problem is bigger then that. As for the fines. The whole point of the fine is such that it should make people get insurance. If its cheaper then the insurance its not helping since your still not spreading the cost over everyone. And yes there are people to low to afford healthcare but not poor enough to qualify for Medicare. Which is why the government spend a lot of money to cover the gap, the Medicaid expansion. However a lot of states (all of them Republican I believe) have rejected this for various reasons. Obama knew about the gap and tried to cover it only to once again be obstructed at the cost of other people.
The cost issue has little to do with spreading around the costs. It's not just that premium rates are high, healthcare spending is too high as a percent of GDP.
There're some S&A, bankruptcy, ER and preventative costs we can pick up, but the real cost savings will have to come through actually changing the way healthcare is delivered. And changing that is phenomenally difficult.
Edit: It took decades for US healthcare costs to diverge so far from our peer countries. No matter what system we put in place, it will take a long time and a lot of work for costs to fall back to where we want them.
|
On October 28 2013 08:39 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:20 Wegandi wrote:On October 28 2013 08:10 Adreme wrote:On October 28 2013 07:40 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 07:34 oneofthem wrote:
single payer system would be the ideal outcome. don't see why it's a bad thing because thats communism. and everyone knows if democrats enact it it will never be undone and a permanent majority of democrat moochers will keep voting in more mooching. I have yet to hear a coherent conservative argument against a single payer health system when empirically they are cheaper and produce better results in every developed country they've been tried. The US pays more then any other country in the world for health care by far and is the only developed country without a single payer system and does not have any better health care for it. The US has the best hospitals in the world so a minority of US citizens get amazing quality health care (I am lucky enough to live near Johns Hopkins so I fall in that minority) but overall the care the average person receives is inferior to the rest of the civilized world (I believe 32nd in health care last I checked but I could be off a few places either way). Also throwing around words like communism and moochers in a way designed to stir feelings of dislike towards something are probably not the best way to have a fact based discussion on whether something is a good idea or not. If you actually read those ranking methodologies, they're hilariously biased. They rank based on criteria such as if you have Government-ran healthcare for instance. Beyond that, they never take into account the lifestyles and its antecedent risks on the population. Of course when a majority of your population is obese, and eating terribly that healthcare costs are going to be more than for instance Japan where their diet is much more conservative. That's not to say one is better than the other, it is to say that the majority of people in America rather eat what they do and live a certain lifestyle and choose to pay more in healthcare costs. Freedom allows people to make 'bad' choices. They also don't factor quality of care into the equation. Anyone who tries to use these measurements as some form of objective 'gotcha' has never read the methodologies or thought about it for a second, or they have a vested ideological interest in the outcome, regardless of the methodology. Yes surely everyone in Norway, Sweden, Finland, the UK, Germany, Spain, France, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Denmark, etc. are all deluded and only you can see past their incorrect belief that they have access to good healthcare.
Pretty much. No one is denying that health care is top notch in the US if you are able to afford it. But it is a damn shame that such practices like fucking ordinary people with pre-existing conditions over were tolerated for so long.
And just generally special interest and benefactors like politicians established a system where the patient's ("consumer's") interest has a very low priority.
And lol why does eating good quality food that happens to be healthy mean conservative... A burger, fries and some coke is not bad for you. What's bad is having it day in and day out.
|
On October 28 2013 09:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in? No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all)
There is no libertarian environment. Unless you mean some godforsaken 3rd world country without a government to speak of.
You do realize that some of these libertarian proposals are fucking insane right? Like a few posts ago you were arguing that the baby boomer generation should just be left to die. They are going to flood your ERs if preventive and primary care is not done, which leaves you with the lose-lose choice of paying for needless expense and/or permanent loss of productivity, or actually letting them die (which is, by the way, not how civilized nations in the 21st century deal with people).
We don't know enough about human motivations and behavior to use "axioms". Really. That's the start of the problems with libertarian ideology, to assume rational optimization calculations are going on inside skulls. That's not how humans function and you cannot take a simple generalization and apply it mindlessly across every problem.
Here's also the problem with your libertarian proposals. We already know that single payer costs less. You claim that because "government always fucks up", a purely theoretical libertarian system would be even better than single payer AND the current US system. The onus is on you to prove it, not use the "government always fucks up" axiom to deny empirical data.
Reading back through each proposal point-by-point, it gets even worse. Your characterization that prior to the FDA's establishment, public safety was not a problem is, to put to bluntly, ahistorical. It's not even a matter of debate. Countless sources exist that utter quackery was all over the place (which, by the way exists today in the altmed and supplement industry that the FDA is powerless over if they do not claim the status of a drug).
On legalizing every drug. Some substances screw with the reward system, They subvert motivation, destroy lives, cost society in crime (not the crime of taking the substance, but the crime that is caused by requiring the substance, to be clear). If you're thinking that by legalizing cocaine, you're going to bring the price down to non-violent-crime-requiring levels, that ignores the fact that while drug addiction can be treated, it's a significant burden to the system. Also, that also ignores the fact that drug addiction is not socioeconomically blind.
On insurance and risk groupings. The most profitable risk grouping is that of 1. If you're going to propose lifting all restrictions on medical insurance groupings, you might as well do away with risk pooling. Insurance was unneeded for most of American history, hell, for most of world history in the same way that medical care was unneeded for most of human history, the sick just died, no fuss or hassle about it. Like... what the fuck?
I think that the stereotype of libertarians might hold a little water here. Expect a little animosity when you're "not out to diabolically kill everyone", it just "so happens" by the infinite wisdom of the market and the "choices" of individuals.
|
On October 28 2013 08:52 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:29 Sub40APM wrote:On October 28 2013 08:10 Wegandi wrote:
businesses have the innate incentive not to kill their patients and not to get sued into infinity and beyond (beyond the bad reputation said drug would cause). . And yet corporations time after time take a short term view that leaves their customers with the short end of the stick. I'm sure that Government intervention which warps incentives has nothing at all do with it...Corporations themselves being writs of Government chartering...Most libertarians are not for the legalized privileges of Corporations fyi. When we talk of the market, and business, we're talking about an environment where the enabling laws are abolished, and these privileges are gotten rid of. In other words, the owner and or shareholders are liable for actions undertaken. I mean, take for instance the sub prime mess. Without Government intervention and without the Fed these entities 1) would have never existed in the first place, but as importantly 2) would have never been incentivized to take the action they did take. I know this critique is foreign for almost every non-liberarian, but please, try and not equate current day situations with what I am talking about.
So why is Medicare more efficient and wildly more popular than private insurance? Or Veterans Insurance? Or even Medicaid?
In fact, knowing this, why don't we just have Medicare for everyone?
Oh right, because the government is evil. Gotcha. Sorry, I forgot that you can't handle the idea that Government actually can be efficient at things. It's like so far from your brain process because it conflicts with your nonsensical, unrealistic, zombie ideology. "Government bad" is essentially your argument. It must be so nice not to deal with empirical data or the real world.
Here's one source for the efficiency of government insurance. But really you can find plenty, including statistics from the CBO is you just bother to look.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/10/medicare-medicaid-far-more-cost-efficient-than-private-insurance/
|
On October 28 2013 09:20 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 09:01 Wegandi wrote:On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in? No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all) Reading back through each proposal point-by-point, it gets even worse. Your characterization that prior to the FDA's establishment, public safety was not a problem is, to put to bluntly, ahistorical. It's not even a matter of debate. Countless sources exist that utter quackery was all over the place (which, by the way exists today in the altmed and supplement industry that the FDA is powerless over if they do not claim the status of a drug). On legalizing every drug. Some substances screw with the reward system, They subvert motivation, destroy lives, cost society in crime (not the crime of taking the substance, but the crime that is caused by requiring the substance, to be clear). If you're thinking that by legalizing cocaine, you're going to bring the price down to non-violent-crime-requiring levels, that ignores the fact that while drug addiction can be treated, it's a significant burden to the system. Also, that also ignores the fact that drug addiction is not socioeconomically blind.
Legalizing all drugs and then providing public drug treatment centers would be far less costly, both in human terms and in purely monetary terms than the current drug war. Treating addiction through public health treatment centers would be far less costly than the current burden of law enforcement, victims of drug violence, high prices, and other various externalities. It doesn't really matter if it's not socioeconomically blind if you provide the public health treatment centers for everyone.
|
In upcoming story in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo reports that the U.S. National Security Agency swept up data on 60 million phone calls in Spain over the course of one month in 2012.
This latest revelation comes from documents uncovered by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The El Mundo story was written by Glenn Greenwald and Germán Aranda.
This newest surveillance news is likely to further inflame international tensions surrounding the intelligence reach of the U.S. government. It comes on the heels of another story co-written by Greenwald, this one from France's Le Monde newspaper. The Le Monde report indicated that the NSA collected 70 million French telephone records over a 30-day period.
Also this week, a separate story revealed that the U.S. may have bugged the phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel for over a decade. The NSA has denied reports that Obama was briefed on the matter as far back as 2010 by NSA Director Keith Alexander.
Source
|
I really think the root of healthcare costs is education. In the US, you spend a stupid amount of time and money to become a doctor. You go through undergrad, then med school, then residency which is a commitment of 10 or more years of your life. If you go to private universities, you're going to pay around 50K a year as well, which could work out to as much as half a million for the degree.
The result is that the US has half the number of doctors per capita when compared to other nations. They get paid much more, which can be attributed to the ridiculous amount of resources that goes into their education, or rather, the amount of resources wasted. It creates this mystique and respect for doctors, who should be respected because they save lives, not because they spent their youth and credit on a piece of paper.
I fully support liberal arts education and such, but adding on 4 years of undergrad is pretty silly for an intensive professional track, especially when compared to European educational models. You have these so-called general ed requirements and then your weed-out scientific and quant classes, which really are a test of endurance (or dedication or resourcefulness) and probably knock out a good segment of kids who would have made amazing doctors or won a Nobel, but didn't want to deal with the BS.
Of course there's the problems with bad regulation and overpricing and inefficiencies from providers and such, but I think the price tag of the doctors themselves is what really anchored everything so high in the first place. Yes we have some great doctors and research, but its all a product of a really bad, unsustainable system. It's late for me, so I'll skip my proposal for revamping higher ed.
|
On October 28 2013 13:18 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 09:20 hummingbird23 wrote:On October 28 2013 09:01 Wegandi wrote:On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in? No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all) Reading back through each proposal point-by-point, it gets even worse. Your characterization that prior to the FDA's establishment, public safety was not a problem is, to put to bluntly, ahistorical. It's not even a matter of debate. Countless sources exist that utter quackery was all over the place (which, by the way exists today in the altmed and supplement industry that the FDA is powerless over if they do not claim the status of a drug). On legalizing every drug. Some substances screw with the reward system, They subvert motivation, destroy lives, cost society in crime (not the crime of taking the substance, but the crime that is caused by requiring the substance, to be clear). If you're thinking that by legalizing cocaine, you're going to bring the price down to non-violent-crime-requiring levels, that ignores the fact that while drug addiction can be treated, it's a significant burden to the system. Also, that also ignores the fact that drug addiction is not socioeconomically blind. Legalizing all drugs and then providing public drug treatment centers would be far less costly, both in human terms and in purely monetary terms than the current drug war. Treating addiction through public health treatment centers would be far less costly than the current burden of law enforcement, victims of drug violence, high prices, and other various externalities. It doesn't really matter if it's not socioeconomically blind if you provide the public health treatment centers for everyone.
For several drugs, cocaine being the classical and best studied example, rehab doesn't get you back to pre-addiction status, it simply allows you to function mostly without the dependency. The potential for relapse is always there, and the second time around, the person doesn't need repeated doses to trigger dependency.
The drug war is fueled partly by ideology, and pays disproportionate attention and resources to enforcement. I don't know of any countries that do legalize hard drugs, but I do know countries that keep it illegal, enforce it, and provide treatment through public programs, in a balance that works much better. It doesn't help that in the US, the socioeconomic gradient is so steep, because one of the risk factors to addiction is well, being at the bottom of the social food chain*. Still, your average post rehab addict isn't going to want to have his/her drug of choice freely available, especially during stressful periods.
It's not a choice between enforcement or treatment, like the drug war is illustrating. People don't just decide one day to get addicted to this or that drug. The public systems should be for catching those that fall through the cracks and managing that dependency. Softer, less addictive drugs are another matter, but I am firmly against legalization of hard drugs for the reason that the consequences are still far too severe both for the individual and society. The fact that there are more effective harm-minimisation measures than the US is currently employing doesn't erase the fact that there is still significant harm to both.
* it isn't purely for social factors that people at the bottom have increased risks of dependency. Some of that is probably circumstance, lack of access to proper resources and increased use, but current research suggests that there is at least some biology behind the increased prevalence of gambling and drug addictions at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder.
|
On October 28 2013 09:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 08:54 KwarK wrote:
Isn't that much like a physicist explaining to you why his calculations would work out if only you could find him a frictionless vacuum to work in? No. You can't say my critique isn't valid, because the actions in today's environment do not correspond with the outcome, precisely because of the reasons laid out in the critique. That's the entire point. You can't have your cake and eat it too (saying that the libertarian proposals are invalid because right now in the non-libertarian environment things don't work like you 'say they would'). It's asinine to be honest. Every other ideological group does the same thing - propose something different than today espousing a different outcome. You don't attack their critique via saying well, the current environment X and X happens so Y and Y is wrong. You debate the merits and chains of logic they present with understanding of some base characteristics of human action and motivation. Some of these include axioms like: most people will choose less work for more reward. So if you propose a system which includes less work and more reward, and then say something like we're all going to be more wealthy and happier (e.g. Communism), well, there's a flaw in your analysis. So, my advice, try actually debating the merits of a critique instead of dismissal. (I mean, you guys DO say the same thing to 'conservatives', after-all)
Stop trying to force us agree with you.
In real life, a freed "globalized" market is more unstable than anything, in real life there are goods that can't be properly taken care of by the market (public goods, etc.), in real life, competition destroys competition, as the big eat on the weak through various meanings.
You cannot hide yourself behind a theory where firms should not exists (because why cooperating and replacing market prices by conventions since market prices are perfect ?), where the only "reasonnable" solution is to "let go" and then, when we look at the reality, tell us that reality is irrelevant to the construction of a theory.
And your definition of communism is so wrong. Communism was actually a relevant ideology as it started by a rather strong argument : the society is split into groups with differents and antagonists interests. Never did Marx actually said that the world was going to be bright and beautiful if the private property is destroyed, he insisted on the contradictions of our system and our own world (did you know The Capital subtitle is "Critic of classical economy" ?).
On the other side, everything you are saying is like denying what is and everytime that someone try to put reality back in the picture you argue that reality is irrelevant to the critic.
|
On October 28 2013 15:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
I really think the root of healthcare costs is education. In the US, you spend a stupid amount of time and money to become a doctor. You go through undergrad, then med school, then residency which is a commitment of 10 or more years of your life. If you go to private universities, you're going to pay around 50K a year as well, which could work out to as much as half a million for the degree.
The result is that the US has half the number of doctors per capita when compared to other nations. They get paid much more, which can be attributed to the ridiculous amount of resources that goes into their education, or rather, the amount of resources wasted. It creates this mystique and respect for doctors, who should be respected because they save lives, not because they spent their youth and credit on a piece of paper.
I fully support liberal arts education and such, but adding on 4 years of undergrad is pretty silly for an intensive professional track, especially when compared to European educational models. You have these so-called general ed requirements and then your weed-out scientific and quant classes, which really are a test of endurance (or dedication or resourcefulness) and probably knock out a good segment of kids who would have made amazing doctors or won a Nobel, but didn't want to deal with the BS.
Of course there's the problems with bad regulation and overpricing and inefficiencies from providers and such, but I think the price tag of the doctors themselves is what really anchored everything so high in the first place. Yes we have some great doctors and research, but its all a product of a really bad, unsustainable system. It's late for me, so I'll skip my proposal for revamping higher ed.
You don't study any less in the Netherlands to become a doctor than you just said. And our professionals get paid a lot of money as well. I don't think that's the real problem.
|
On October 28 2013 19:25 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2013 15:03 ticklishmusic wrote:
I really think the root of healthcare costs is education. In the US, you spend a stupid amount of time and money to become a doctor. You go through undergrad, then med school, then residency which is a commitment of 10 or more years of your life. If you go to private universities, you're going to pay around 50K a year as well, which could work out to as much as half a million for the degree.
The result is that the US has half the number of doctors per capita when compared to other nations. They get paid much more, which can be attributed to the ridiculous amount of resources that goes into their education, or rather, the amount of resources wasted. It creates this mystique and respect for doctors, who should be respected because they save lives, not because they spent their youth and credit on a piece of paper.
I fully support liberal arts education and such, but adding on 4 years of undergrad is pretty silly for an intensive professional track, especially when compared to European educational models. You have these so-called general ed requirements and then your weed-out scientific and quant classes, which really are a test of endurance (or dedication or resourcefulness) and probably knock out a good segment of kids who would have made amazing doctors or won a Nobel, but didn't want to deal with the BS.
Of course there's the problems with bad regulation and overpricing and inefficiencies from providers and such, but I think the price tag of the doctors themselves is what really anchored everything so high in the first place. Yes we have some great doctors and research, but its all a product of a really bad, unsustainable system. It's late for me, so I'll skip my proposal for revamping higher ed. You don't study any less in the Netherlands to become a doctor than you just said. And our professionals get paid a lot of money as well. I don't think that's the real problem.
or Austria for that matter... becoming a doctor is pretty hard here too. A levels or "Matura" at 18/19, 5-6 years of university and on top of that another 3 years as a trainee doctor in a hospital - where you are doing the bullshit work for bullshit pay for the already established doctors and some nurses because of cost cuts etc. (I know because a good friend of mine is doing that now.) On top of that around 6 months for either military service or ~ a year for mandatory social services. If you are like really good you are finished at around 28+ to start making money.
The problem, yet again in my opinion is that irrational believe that you need to pay a shitton of money for good education. Isn't there another bubble ready for bursting with the student loans?
//edit: don't get me wrong, education costs quite a lot here too. but we as a society/state said that we have a vital interest in having good and educated people here in Austria - so we subsidize heavily. I don't know the exact numbers for a place in university and how much it costs but I can assure you that it's not cheap either.
|
Time magazine had a great article about how inflated the healthcare cost in the US is titled "The bitter pill" back in february: click
It is now under subscription, but an extremely interesting read.
In other news: I would double to triple my net pay as a doctor if I worked in the US compared to Denmark due to better salary and lower taxes. And it is not because the pay in Denmark is atrocious (although it is in my opinion not proportional to the amount of responsibility and hours).
|
Problems keep mounting in the administration's attempt to sell health insurance online. A data center critical to the operation of Healthcare.gov, the federal insurance marketplace, experienced an outage over the weekend. The failure affected the Healthcare.gov data services hub, which coordinates eligibility checks, and therefore also impaired local exchanges in 14 states and Washington, D.C.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/28/5037766/healthcare-gov-data-center-fails
|
On October 28 2013 20:23 Ghostcom wrote:Time magazine had a great article about how inflated the healthcare cost in the US is titled "The bitter pill" back in february: clickIt is now under subscription, but an extremely interesting read. In other news: I would double to triple my net pay as a doctor if I worked in the US compared to Denmark due to better salary and lower taxes. And it is not because the pay in Denmark is atrocious (although it is in my opinion not proportional to the amount of responsibility and hours).
That's where cost containment will be difficult. Some people will have to take a pay cut, some get laid off and some medical procedures will have to be restricted.
The lawyers, lobbyists and political sharks are going to have a field day.
|
Republicans oppose delay on healthcare fee
Republicans in Congress don't usually fight for tax increases, especially ones that are part of President Barack Obama's health care law.
But GOP senators balked when Democrats proposed delaying a new temporary fee on everyone covered by health insurance.
So employers, insurance companies and other health plan sponsors are in line to pay $63 a person next year for everyone who has coverage. The temporary fee covers all workers, spouses and dependents covered by health insurance.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposed delaying the fee in recent budget talks with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell and other Republican senators objected; the fee was left intact. ...
Link
I'm not sure if this is a sign of both sides working together or that they're still incapable of understanding each other...
|
On October 29 2013 01:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Republicans oppose delay on healthcare fee
Republicans in Congress don't usually fight for tax increases, especially ones that are part of President Barack Obama's health care law.
But GOP senators balked when Democrats proposed delaying a new temporary fee on everyone covered by health insurance.
So employers, insurance companies and other health plan sponsors are in line to pay $63 a person next year for everyone who has coverage. The temporary fee covers all workers, spouses and dependents covered by health insurance.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proposed delaying the fee in recent budget talks with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. McConnell and other Republican senators objected; the fee was left intact. ... LinkI'm not sure if this is a sign of both sides working together or that they're still incapable of understanding each other...
Sounds like the usual "say no to anything Democratic" to me.
|
On October 28 2013 17:30 hummingbird23 wrote:
The drug war is fueled partly by ideology, and pays disproportionate attention and resources to enforcement. I don't know of any countries that do legalize hard drugs[...]
Portugal has decriminalized personal drug use for all drugs since 2001, and had good results.
In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be provided with therapy rather than prison sentences. Research commissioned by the Cato Institute and led by Glenn Greenwald found that in the five years after the start of decriminalisation, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled.[31] However, Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, College Park, suggests that the heroin usage rates and related deaths may have been due to the cyclical nature of drug epidemics, but conceded that "decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise."[32]
Latin America
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
