| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7890 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote: Now we just need interfaith and comparative religion classes! But Danglar, the point for UH are very well argumented in the last five pages. Stop saying that people who think that socialized medicine is better are religious, it works very well in all developped countries except the US. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1542 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: Stop saying that people who think that socialized medicine is better are religious, it works very well in all developped countries except the US. Most of the first-world doesn't have socialized medicine. (Cuba does, and despite them being a poor country they have better healthcare than the USA.) Referring to single-payer or expanded Medicaid as "socialized medicine" was a talking point of the GOP to curry favor against reform. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
The only way to make this happen is to force the rich people to pay more for the same amount of benefits as the poor ones, which makes the "insurance" into what it really is in countries with universal healthcare (even though it's still stupidly called insurance and even has standalone insurance companies which are just a waste of money in the system) - a tax. Unless you put all your taxes for collection by a private, somehow "competing" companies, there is not much reason to do so with the healthcare tax, ergo the whole idea of "free insurance market" is silly. Again, this all holds if you actually want the poor to receive expensive treatment. The whole thing doesn't even lend itself to insurance logic very well in the big picture - provided the current extension of lifespan and the high probability of encountering a serious health issue along the way, I'd wager that most people will accumulate some pretty hefty healthcare costs during their lives, so their accumulated premiums have to be high enough for that to occur and still make profit. It doesn't really make much sense to insure yourself against something that is very likely to happen, in such a case, it might be more efficient to just save the money privately. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:07 Danglars wrote: Now we just need interfaith and comparative religion classes! I would settle for people to take civics 101, low level economic theory and a class on the history of police and fire services in the US going back to the early 1800s. It would cure us of this irrational need to apply the free market to shit that doesn’t function in a market. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
And then, once you've done that, it makes sense to give everyone some free basic primary care (regular checkups and such), since if you're on the hook for ER expenses anyways, it literally saves money to ensure good preventive measures are in place. and at that point switching to fully nationalized almost just makes sense anyways. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:08 Doodsmack wrote: He got thrown out when the Ukraine stuff went public, which was shortly after his daughter received a blackmail attempt. So make of that what you will. "Thrown out" but living in Trump tower = lol | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 22 2017 18:13 opisska wrote: To be fair, universal healthcare has its issues as well. In Czech Republic, we have the real and true universal healthcare where essentially everything is free and everyone is mandated to pay "insurance", which is actually a tax (is in percents of income). This really means that all people have access to healthcare, but the system is tragically underfunded and it kinda seems to be on a course to a terrible crash, because the underpaid doctors are getting increasingly pissed, a lot of them leave for the West and we are quite short on manpower nowadays. It's still better in my eyes than the US "die if you're poor and sick" system, but the problem is that it just requires even more money than we are already putting in and it's hard to convince the healthier part of the electorate to vouch for that. I would have no problems personally with increasing taxation just to fund healthcare, but this is a view that might be skewed by the fact that I have a serious condition myself. Speaking of which, there is another problem with universal healthcare: the case of expensive diseases. There are 17 thousand people with MS in the country and only like a half of them are getting the disease-modifying drugs, because those are quite expensive. Now there is talk about a next generation of drugs that might be much more efficient, but I am wondering how many people are gonna get those at 100k Euro per year ... definitely not everyone, by pure math seeing how much money is there now for the disease. And I am talking about MS, a rather common thing, where public opinion has pushed hard so that at least someone gets the treatment (I luckily do) - the fact that a vice-premier has it might have helped - but for much more rare diseases, the situation is even worse, people are just not getting treatments because they are too costly. Yes, the biggest fault of a UHC system is that it is constrained by the ability of the government to pay for it. Compared to the problems with the US system, though, that is almost trivial. As for expensive treatments: I would simply echo Kwark's argument of rationing. Spend money at its most effective first, then move on to matters of secondary importance. Vaccines before experimental $100k treatments for MS. And of course there should be a private option for people who can indeed afford such treatments out of pocket. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:28 LegalLord wrote: Yes, the biggest fault of a UHC system is that it is constrained by the ability of the government to pay for it. Compared to the problems with the US system, though, that is almost trivial. As for expensive treatments: I would simply echo Kwark's argument of rationing. Spend money at its most effective first, then move on to matters of secondary importance. Vaccines before experimental $100k treatments for MS. And of course there should be a private option for people who can indeed afford such treatments out of pocket. Just to be clear, these are not experimental, they are just expensive. That's actually another issue, that a lot of the research is done by private companies that - fairly - want their money back, but let's not go to deep into that. I do agree that life-saving medicine should have absolute priority, but I also think that the expensive stuff should be as available as possible. It's honestly also an investment: if I can walk for 15 extra years, that's 15 years I can work and produce money and the state doesn't have to pay for all the care that comes along with the disability. I am a little sad seeing what some public money are wasted on, and then seeing all the people who suffer from insufficient treatment. Again, you have my full disclosure that my view on this are influenced by my personal situation. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15690 Posts
On March 23 2017 00:58 Danglars wrote: What part of "the next time we have a new plan or another passing current event brings it up" did you not understand? I wasn't born yesterday. You can show you're reformed in this exact thread as time passes or PM me if you don't want to search through thread for the last time I did dissertation. You and others have turned me off to the idea that you want a debate so let's give it a couple weeks and return. How about reading what I wrote? You can't even get the vague accusations down to the poster. A rational man would presume you apply the same standard of comprehension to all you read. I'll chime in and hope that I haven't been discouraging enough to be denied a response: The one issue that I see as a big blind spot for individualized, private insurance is what has been mentioned earlier in this thread: poor people who on average can not afford the medical expenses they incur. It is impossible for these people to still end up profitable for insurance companies while still receiving complete care. What do we do about these people? How do these people get access to complete medical care when they are plain and simply not profitable for insurers? I have the unfortunate experience of knowing a few people like this. Complete idiots basically throughout their entire lives who seem incapable of ever being remotely successful. We all know a couple, I'm sure. I could list 1000 things they did wrong in life to get them where they are, but at the end of the day, they ain't gonna improve. Despite that, I would still want these people to have complete health coverage that they can afford. How do we prevent these people from not being good enough for complete health coverage? If we can assume that at the end of the day, these people aren't ever going to get their lives together enough to pay $100/month instead of $50/month, what do we do? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:28 LegalLord wrote: Yes, the biggest fault of a UHC system is that it is constrained by the ability of the government to pay for it. Compared to the problems with the US system, though, that is almost trivial. As for expensive treatments: I would simply echo Kwark's argument of rationing. Spend money at its most effective first, then move on to matters of secondary importance. Vaccines before experimental $100k treatments for MS. And of course there should be a private option for people who can indeed afford such treatments out of pocket. The problem with Healthcare isn't a notion of rationing but a notion of the money going to the wrong things. you have people who might be sick paying for tech advances that might save them when they get sick. Medical tech should be funded at a level that the nation can afford given out like the defense industry. I admit thats not the best example but it would be a lot easier to argue academic merits rather then defense merits. America being a beacon of medical tech should be leveraged throughout the world and we shouldn't be allowing other nations to simply produce generic copies of our drugs. But that would open a pandoras box of international law and IP issues that I'd rather not get into. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:41 Sermokala wrote: The problem with Healthcare isn't a notion of rationing but a notion of the money going to the wrong things. you have people who might be sick paying for tech advances that might save them when they get sick. Medical tech should be funded at a level that the nation can afford given out like the defense industry. I admit thats not the best example but it would be a lot easier to argue academic merits rather then defense merits. America being a beacon of medical tech should be leveraged throughout the world and we shouldn't be allowing other nations to simply produce generic copies of our drugs. But that would open a pandoras box of international law and IP issues that I'd rather not get into. re: your 2nd paragraph; that was probably one of the goals of stuff like TTIP/TPP; generally one of the purposes of trade treaties for the US is to get stronger protection for our IPs (of which we have a lot). but i'm not sure that it was a goal for those specific treaties. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On March 22 2017 22:57 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I'm trying to figure out what at all someone was thinking about this. anyone with a third of a brain can count out tanks and self propelled artillery due to the roads. Strikers and Humvee's are out due to their appearance as police riot repose vehicles and their commercial applications. Large trucks are the same problems and are just ugly. I don't know how heavy bridge layers are or APC's but I imagine they might do damage to roads as well. Patriot launchers would be cool but I don't think that they are mobile and then the weight issue. Ignoreing the obvious image issues of an american military parade what exactly do you think these people were thinking that they were going to get? | ||
Falling
Canada11355 Posts
On March 22 2017 20:32 farvacola wrote: Intentional or not, many of the social studies curriculum choices made by conservative state boards of education feed directly into the sort of stupidity that allows folks like Trump to hand wave at Lincoln's party without addressing the rather complicated history that followed. That this forum is relatively free of "haha, Democrats are the historic racists, vote Republican for eternity" is a credit to the quality of the posts; the same can not be said for my Facebook feed sadly lol. Anecdotally speaking, I'm not at all surprised to see that my high school produced a large number of Trump voters who put their lack of basic civics knowledge on display time and time again. After all, all but one of my school's social studies teachers was an athletic coach mostly disinterested in actually teaching. And come on Acro, I know you know that many Americans live and die by their party, as myopic as that is. It's a silly argument as one could easily say don't vote Republican because they are Prohibitionists; they will ban your alcohol. (Although, granted it was a little more bipartisan than all that.) Historical positions are interesting historically but don't have much relevance to the present unless there is a clear line of continuity. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13957 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:44 zlefin wrote: re: your 2nd paragraph; that was probably one of the goals of stuff like TTIP/TPP; generally one of the purposes of trade treaties for the US is to get stronger protection for our IPs (of which we have a lot). but i'm not sure that it was a goal for those specific treaties. Yeah and those horror shows were an example of the issue with international IP protection. The WTO may be a toothless joke most of the time but it does what little it can pretty well. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:46 Sermokala wrote: I'm trying to figure out what at all someone was thinking about this. anyone with a third of a brain can count out tanks and self propelled artillery due to the roads. Strikers and Humvee's are out due to their appearance as police riot repose vehicles and their commercial applications. Large trucks are the same problems and are just ugly. I don't know how heavy bridge layers are or APC's but I imagine they might do damage to roads as well. Patriot launchers would be cool but I don't think that they are mobile and then the weight issue. Ignoreing the obvious image issues of an american military parade what exactly do you think these people were thinking that they were going to get? Airplanes! Fighter jets towing the American flag, and bombers with a payload of freedom. Kind of obvious that he's trying to copy Red Square military parades, in all seriousness. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On March 23 2017 01:41 Sermokala wrote: The problem with Healthcare isn't a notion of rationing but a notion of the money going to the wrong things. you have people who might be sick paying for tech advances that might save them when they get sick. Medical tech should be funded at a level that the nation can afford given out like the defense industry. I admit thats not the best example but it would be a lot easier to argue academic merits rather then defense merits. America being a beacon of medical tech should be leveraged throughout the world and we shouldn't be allowing other nations to simply produce generic copies of our drugs. But that would open a pandoras box of international law and IP issues that I'd rather not get into. That actually sounds like a Pandora's box worth opening. If the US's healthcare has to be shitty to subsidize better healthcare in the rest of the world, perhaps it's time for an arrangement to be opened up that makes other nations contribute more strongly to drugs that help them. Mind you, proliferation of life-saving inexpensive treatments is probably far more important to general well-being, if not the future of medicine, than expensive high-end treatments. Medicine is a field where preventative treatment massively reduces the overall cost of treatment. As I argued before, I am quite sure if we had a scenario where all low-level treatments are done for free but for anything that can't really be afforded you just die, then we would probably be healthier overall than with the status quo. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On March 23 2017 02:01 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/844594031892086784 Part of me hopes it will pass just so that everyone will be able to experience just how bad this plan is rather than complain about how it would have worked if only.... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said Wednesday he hopes the GOP will pull the American Health Care Act from consideration ahead of an expected vote on the bill's passage tomorrow. “My hope is they will pull the bill today sometime and that when they pull the bill, we’ll have a serious conversation with conservatives at the table,” he said during an appearance on Fox Business. “And we’ll come to an agreement. We want to come to an agreement, and that agreement is for complete repeal.” President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have been pushing the bill aggressively, as holdouts from moderate and conservative wings of the party threaten the bill’s passage. A vote on the bill is expected to occur Thursday. Paul blasted Ryan and the rest of the Republican leadership for proposing a bill which maintains some aspects of Obamacare. “That’s not what we ran on, that’s not what we voted for,” he said. “If there is a fault to be had, it’s in the leadership putting forward something that is not what we ran on.” The Kentucky senator said grassroots conservatives do not like the bill, which he called “Obamacare-lite.” “I think there is a little tone deafness up here, they’re not realizing,” he said. “I saw go home and listen to people on both sides of the equation. Nobody likes the bill.” Paul added there is no rush to pass the bill. “There’s not a rush to do it in one day,” he said. “I think we could have a week, a couple of weeks of discussion. The most important thing is conservatives should have a seat at the table.” Source | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Clem vs goblin
ByuN vs SHIN
Online Event
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Zoun vs Bunny
herO vs Solar
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Dewalt
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
