|
On June 22 2011 14:58 dogabutila wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 10:50 TheFrankOne wrote:On June 22 2011 10:35 Tremendous wrote:On June 22 2011 10:31 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 10:27 Tremendous wrote:I feel like there are some misunderstandings as to what a socialized healthcare system actualy means and what the governments role in it is. The governments DOES NOT run the hospitals, they also have no say direct say in the treatment of patients. The government provides FUNDING and oversight. They dont have gestapo-ish stormtroopers walking the halls telling the doctors who they can treat and who that cant treat. The idea that the cost of a universal healthcare system is much higher then a privatized system is also untrue. In fact, most EU countries with a universal healthcare system spend less pr. capita on healthcare than the US, because the systems end up simpler because you cut out a lot of the buracracy the costs go down signeficantly. fx. Take the Danish system http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_13261279Universal healthcare isnt a scary communist buggyman or an enormous cashsink. i also imagine the insurance that hospitals have to pay outside of the US is much cheaper due to the significantly (assumption, correct me if i'm wrong) lower amount of lawsuits (as well as the lack of lawsuits themselves, let alone the insurance) Indeed. When doctors dont have to worry about the cost of the treatments then they will provide the best possible help they can. Also, as they dont feel obligated to "cut corners" for the insurance companies there are a lot less problems with people getting poor treatment. I think he was talking about torts and tort reform, which I think should be put into some perspective. Tort reform would create savings of about .2% in healthcare costs. Torts themselves represent about 2% of healthcare spending. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-Tort_Reform.pdf (source) The per capita cost difference of US compared to most OECD nations is about 1/3 give or take 10% per country. So malpractice lawsuits just doesn't come near to covering that gap . Edit: @lastchance, not all states allow you to sue the at-fault driver or his insurance in a car accident. Tort reform would save more then that. While the actual costs of lawsuits and such only equate directly to 2% of healthcare costs the insurance costs for doctors also get jacked up higher because of them. They pass these costs down you know. All around cheaper end use is better in every way.
No it would not. It is not some sort of magic bullet or even a highly effective cost reduction method. I posted a CBO analyses of costs and you just go "no." You have no basis for your claim. That 2% of costs includes insurance that doctors have because of torts and the .2% savings also includes effects of reducing malpractice insurance.
|
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line?How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself?
where do you draw the line? are you for real? "how is it fair to force paying for problems of other?" it's fair in a sense that YOU can be that "other". you don't pay for other, you pay for yourself, your family, friends, loved ones. and when worse comes to worse, because all paid some amount, YOU or someone YOURS gets the help without financial breakdown later on.
is this really such a hard concept for people in the states (the ones living the famous dream at least) to understand? helping someone other than yourself is not the worst thing in the world, if that someone can be you.
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None.
no. its not paying for others, if everyone did it. its also not true that u dont need it if u work. some people work and still can get into situations where they are helpless. are u even human? how on earth can u deny a person right to get medical care no matter how much he possibly fucked up in life. its not your problem? jesus fucking christ, how do you people sleep at night?
edit: i just saw that it was you who wrote this (i even referenced it in my post on previous page)
On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire.
so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
|
On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote:
This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
|
Right since your post contained no information other than "private fire fighters used to exist and they do now on a micro scale to specifically protect rich peoples homes from wildfires" I will give some historical context for private fire fighters.
Now imagine a house was burning down but had no insurance. The fire fighters would show up and wait for the house next to it to catch on fire, unless of course it also had no insurance, then no one shows up and whatever is on fire burns to the ground.
Or if they were just private fire fighters they would go to the house and whoever got there first would put it out and get paid. Yay! this seems like a better system, doesn't it? Well if two companies got there at the same time, things would often devolve into a brawl, while the house still burned! Public firefighters are far more effective t han private schemes ever were.
|
At times like these I'm so glad that Norway has free healthcare available to all. It might not be the most effective in the world, but at least people usually get the help they need.
|
i don't know if it's OK to say this:
but maybe the problem with our healthcare is that people who can pay use up most of the resources in healthcare. The problem is not that we have a lack of physicians in healthcare, just whatever we have is going to be used up mostly by people of higher influence. The reason why doctors in the past were so well off was because the rich had them in their payroll. The doctors have less time to check out cost-efficient medicine, when most of their time is spent studying how to the most perfect cure of a disease for the rich, who don't care about cost-effectiveness.
|
I have to give this guy some credit, it’s a genius move. There's no better way to get mainstream media attention and public sympathy than to martyr yourself for some leftist cause.
|
Glad it's free in Norway lol.
Hopefully this will not happen again. Atleast not often.
|
On June 22 2011 12:56 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? True. And hey, while we're at it, why should you pay for someone else's kids to go to school? And why the FUCK are you paying for the fire service to save other people's lives? I mean, it's not like it's your life. And on top of that you're paying for those lazy unemployed bastards to not starve to death. I walked past a library earlier. I looked inside, that shit was FULL OF BIG ASS BOOKS. All out of your bank account. Did they even ask you? Actually now I think about there's a whole shitload of things that YOU, yes you specifically you, are paying for, for other people. Those selfish cunts. You should kick off. Why can't they all just pay for it themselves? Why do we even have a government? This is bullshit.
yeah seriously, not sure why the rest of these people are bums and cant get good jobs. i pay for my school, so should everyone else.
|
On June 23 2011 01:12 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:46 Kevan wrote:
This is another reason why I wouldn't ever want to live in the US. What could be more important than healthcare for those who need it? i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about. and we are talking about human life. how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
Oh, yes, that probably explains why it's impossible to reform Medicare. Because Americans hate giving out healthcare for free.
|
On June 23 2011 00:43 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:34 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 21:17 mcc wrote:
Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US. nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything Single, right? Age doesn't matter since you're probably pool in some risk group along with fellow employees. 48/month is after 80% employer coverage, right? Full premium price would then be 240 per month? As for per capital spending, they're meaningless unless prices are mainly market driven. If you have any market manipulation or subsidization, the raw numbers are beyond distorted.
unmarried, if i were married with my girlfriend it'd be $60/month for the both of us
i don't know what amount the employer covers - it doesn't matter much to me, i get my insurance and that's all i need to know 
On June 23 2011 00:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:34 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 21:17 mcc wrote:On June 22 2011 17:55 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 17:42 Mootland wrote:On June 22 2011 17:36 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On June 22 2011 17:34 Mootland wrote:
You guys fight over these things okay? I'm just gonna enjoy my "free" healthcare in Finland, okay?
Oh and by the way, I think there are numerous researches about the current U.S. healthcare system and most of those researches have come into a conclusion that the current system is over 10 times more expensive for the states and the nation than what a nationwide tax money ran public healthcare would cost for the country, yet for some reason you Americans still hold on to that broken system of yours, maybe you should start voting for the right people in your elections, it would seem that the current ones are too greedy and can't think of the good of the nation, only the good of their pockets and wallets. you seem to have something out for americans, tell us how you really feel?  Nothing against you really, it just amazes and somewhat amuses me that nothing is done about the situation while the general opinion seems to be that it must be changed, and my comment on the politics is correct in my opinion, Obama had huge troubles getting the recent changes through the senate did he not? i have no idea.. i don't really know much about politics unless it involves me... i pay $48/month for 100% coverage with a $10 copay for anything (dental, medical, vision) and i am happy with that... Are you a student or something ? Otherwise I highly doubt 48/month is 100% coverage(what do you mean by that anyway), what is your cap, in general wtf ? Average premiums for employer-provided insurance seems to be around 4000 annually. And I highly doubt even those are without caps and a lot of small print. With 48/month it would be actually as cheap as minimum wage workers pay here for insurance, and our spending per capita is 4-5 times lower than US. nope, full time employee for time warner cable - 48/month is 100% coverage as long as i go to preferred providers for blue cross/blue shield (which are everywhere) - there isn't a cap, and $10 copay for almost everything Even considering the correction by TanGeng it still seems you have rather exceptionally good plan. Good for you, bad for those who don't.
those who don't should go for jobs with at least decent healthcare - one might say that that's a good idea until those positions are filled, but i feel it's an irrelevant point to say that because jobs are open in large part due to people not working (such as the man the OP is about) and any further solution, unless involving handing things out for free, would likely also not be put to use by the people who should be using it
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Fire service always existed in one way or another. It's a matter of circumstances. In the rural villages, you could count on your neighbor to help you in times of fire. When a firebell rang, everyone got up and helped each other. There was no such thing as fire insurance.
On June 23 2011 01:12 TheFrankOne wrote:
Right since your post contained no information other than "private fire fighters used to exist and they do now on a micro scale to specifically protect rich peoples homes from wildfires" I will give some historical context for private fire fighters.
Now imagine a house was burning down but had no insurance. The fire fighters would show up and wait for the house next to it to catch on fire, unless of course it also had no insurance, then no one shows up and whatever is on fire burns to the ground.
Right, let's assume the worst of everyone. I suppose public firefighters will show up and watch a house burn down if taxes or fees aren't paid:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/10/firefighters-watch-home-burn-down-because-owner-hadnt-paid-75-city-fee/1
It's also contradicted by history when London firefighters protected every house, whether or not they paid, because of the propensity of fires to spread. The private fire service in cities isn't one of watching a house burn down, but rather a free-rider problem of people not buying fire insurance. In cities it makes sense to cover neighborhood by neighborhood because of the densities.
In rural areas, private fire companies could generate a great measure of goodwill by fighting the fires of non-insured houses near insured houses when they aren't needed elsewhere. That goodwill is valuable to private companies - unlike that public fire house that watched the house burn down to make an example of the owner.
On June 23 2011 01:12 TheFrankOne wrote:
Well if two companies got there at the same time, things would often devolve into a brawl, while the house still burned!
So the fire teams fight and the owner doesn't pay either team. Seems like an impossible stupid scenario. Sounds completely made up. Or an arrangement that everyone would abandon after the first mishap. Is that a wide spread problem??? IRL example please?
The point of bringing up private fire fighting services is to contradict the total lack of imagination by people who can't conceive of a proper way police, firefighting, education, and other services might be provided entirely privately.
Whether or not it's better depends on the circumstances. When you have public officials refusing to provide firefighting service, you just might want to consider private solutions. It's the same situation as when the public health care system refuses to foot the bill for treatment and drugs.
|
United States43421 Posts
Leaving fires to burn is simply massively wasteful. The cost of putting out fires is always going to be less than the cost of replacing what is burned in the fire. If some guy doesn't pay his fire insurance and his house burns down then you've saved a few bucks in tax money because you didn't have to pay to put it out but he's lost hundreds of thousands in property and possessions. Destruction is wasteful. The guy who is going to take the biggest hit is the guy who is now homeless obviously but society as a whole will have gotten poorer, resources which could have been spent charitably or invested or even put back into the economy by buying shit will now be tied up replacing an entirely preventable loss.
One of the issues with capitalism dealing with these issues is that not everyone makes completely optimal decisions, a lot of people assume things won't happen to them or they get fucked by insurers/employers etc. However these people are still a part of society, just because you may make better decisions does not mean you are disconnected from the results of theirs. Long term, everyone wins if less shit is destroyed in fires and private coverage would be tied to the threat of letting things burn.
|
By the way, why do people say you can't put a price on life? Every day we put a price on life. When I drive into work to make money, there is a higher chance that I will die from a car accident than if I had just stayed at home.
|
United States5079 Posts
so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
The worst thing is, you really think that since you believe your opinion to be correct, people should be banned (in other words, shut up, no speech for you) just for disagreeing.
Who is really the unethical person here?
i think this is the fundamental concept that many americans fail to grasp. it's a society where the capitalistic "you want it you earn it" mantra goes so deep into mentality of the people, that they cant accept anything being "given out" for "free", even if its human life they are talking about.
and we are talking about human life.
how the fuck do you put a price tag on that?
I think this is a fundamental problem that many foreigners fail to grasp. They talk about America and what they say is so ridiculously inaccurate, their mentality that America is some "survival of the fittest" cowboy society and this mentality is so deep, that they cannot accept that Americans give out more in charity than anyone else around and have a deep concern for human life.
And we are talking about fellow human beings.
How does it feel to dehumanize other people just because you know absolutely nothing about them other than they are "capitalist" and you *know* what a "capitalist" is?
You and almost every other person in this thread criticizing America has shown that they know little if anything about how life in the US actually is.
I simply do not recognize the country you are talking about and I live here. And I am certainly not rich. I'm about as poor as you can get in America. Wanna guess how much I live on a month? Don't tell me how being poor in America is, I know.
By the way, I don't think "you want it you earn it" is something to look down upon, unless you're lazy of course.
|
On June 23 2011 01:58 cyanide66 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 12:56 The KY wrote:On June 22 2011 12:24 cyanide66 wrote:
why should i have to pay for someone else's health care? True. And hey, while we're at it, why should you pay for someone else's kids to go to school? And why the FUCK are you paying for the fire service to save other people's lives? I mean, it's not like it's your life. And on top of that you're paying for those lazy unemployed bastards to not starve to death. I walked past a library earlier. I looked inside, that shit was FULL OF BIG ASS BOOKS. All out of your bank account. Did they even ask you? Actually now I think about there's a whole shitload of things that YOU, yes you specifically you, are paying for, for other people. Those selfish cunts. You should kick off. Why can't they all just pay for it themselves? Why do we even have a government? This is bullshit. yeah seriously, not sure why the rest of these people are bums and cant get good jobs. i pay for my school, so should everyone else.
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On June 23 2011 01:05 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Actually, yes. The principal of the issue is the same. There is no "moral" problem for society to deal with. Besides, why are we legislating morality? Should we also require everybody take bible classes and outlaw abortion and teach creationism in school? If you think it fair to force others to pay for the problems of others, where do you draw the line?How do you decide? Or is it only okay to make people pay for others when you are making people richer then you pay for yourself? where do you draw the line? are you for real? "how is it fair to force paying for problems of other?" it's fair in a sense that YOU can be that "other". you don't pay for other, you pay for yourself, your family, friends, loved ones. and when worse comes to worse, because all paid some amount, YOU or someone YOURS gets the help without financial breakdown later on. is this really such a hard concept for people in the states (the ones living the famous dream at least) to understand? helping someone other than yourself is not the worst thing in the world, if that someone can be you.
Should do? Yes
Have to do? No
Being generous, charitable, and having that moral compulsion to help is to be admired.
Teaching people that they are entitled to such generosity is not.
On June 23 2011 01:05 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Paying for insurance is paying for healthcare for others. Sometimes people don't want or need it. Yes, did you read what I wrote? In real life, people can decide they do not need or want insurance. It's pathetic how people want the government to hand everything to them so they don't have to be responsible for themselves. Everybody would give up all the freedom they had if it only meant they did not have to work. There are really no advantages to a mandatory health insurance plan. None. no. its not paying for others, if everyone did it. its also not true that u dont need it if u work. some people work and still can get into situations where they are helpless. are u even human? how on earth can u deny a person right to get medical care no matter how much he possibly fucked up in life. its not your problem? jesus fucking christ, how do you people sleep at night? edit: i just saw that it was you who wrote this (i even referenced it in my post on previous page)
Public health care system deny people all the time. It's called economic reality. Some treatments are un-affordable.
In the private system, affordability is everybody's problem. In the public system, it's truly not your fucking problem. You always pay your taxes and your mandatory fees. Then some bureaucrat decides for everyone and you either get it or you don't from the public system.
Then, there is something called charity. People give to worthy causes all the time. It's a better bet on supporting people who really ended up in trouble through little fault of their own.
On June 23 2011 01:05 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 00:11 dogabutila wrote:
Yes. I think that it is entirely fair that people should take care of their own personal problems. I would not think it is fair if my neighbor gets a flat tire because he was driving over glass and I have to buy him a new tire. so not wanting to pay for other person flat tire = letting human life end. i hope you get banned because you are a horrible, horrible person. worst thing is, you probably have rich parents or at least comfortable background, that gives you confidence to make such unethical claims. shame that people like you make americans look bad.
If you are a good neighbor, you should care for a neighbor's misfortune. If your neighbor is an odious character, it'd be more excusable to not care. Again, it's a question of should or must.
Giving neighbors the choice to help also allows them to assess whether or not the person was unfortunate or unwise. Compassion for neighbors doing something irresponsible akin to driving over glass repeatedly is misplaced.
|
Well said Kwark. Let's also not forget that in keeping with your analogy, preventative care would lessen the cost of healthcare per person by a huge margin. The industry would lose it's profit margin because less people are getting sick and requiring expensive treatment. The real argument is whether something like healthcare should even be profit-motivated in the first place, since it creates incentive to let people suffer if they don't possess money. This is money that could be spent on other areas in the economy, which I like since people get to have more things and suffer less. It's easy to see why there's such a large fight being put up by our insurance companies with so much at stake.
Domovoi: I think people are speaking to the ethics, not the pragmatism. Of course a human life has a value attached to it, even for a gov't program it needs to be done in order to estimate budget requirements. I think the implied idea is that it is unethical to tell someone that they are not valuable enough to stay alive or to not suffer. Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Edit: DeepElem, I suggest you read Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. It explains the chronic condition in the American psyche that the poor hate themselves for being poor because we live in a country where it is shameful to not have money. We think that the poor are in the minority when in reality they are in the majority. I don't know how you get your healthcare, if you're so poor and don't know anybody who can take care of you. Maybe you just don't need it yet... The mentality of working for your money is fantastic, obviously, but turning that into a physical punishment (which is what denial of healthcare is) upon failure is morally reprehensible IMO.
|
United States5079 Posts
Man I hope your trolling right now, because that's a fucking dumb thing to say. Straight up.
Obviously your education can't have been worth the money if you don't understand why not everyone, in fact most people, can't afford it.
No I think what you said was dumber. If you don't understand that *most* people already can afford it because they uh kind of already have it, don't tell people what is dumb to say. So much ignorance. 80% = most by any kind of definition.
Sometimes I think the wealthiest in America forget that they would have nothing if not for the rest of us who have worked so hard to provide them with the country that has given them the opportunity to become so wealthy. It ain't possible without the taxpayers. The least we deserve as thanks is not to die in the streets or put ourselves in prison.
Funniest thing I've heard, the rich are dependent on people paying taxes.
Sorry, the rich are dependent on people being consumers. Consumers are dependent on the rich to put out cheap products.
Both sides need each other, and it isn't a rich vs. poor issue. Not everything is about class, the greatest thing about America is that despite best efforts of people to convince us otherwise, we are not a society of class division and envy the way Europe is and the way Canada has deluded itself into thinking. Class. What a foreign notion.
|
By the by, the original point I was making with the fire service analogy is that publicly funded services are common and no one (sane) is complaining about having to pay to save people from fires, or pay for people to have access to their right to an education.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
