• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:36
CEST 11:36
KST 18:36
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy5uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event14Serral wins EWC 202549Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple5SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments5[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy Lambo Talks: The Future of SC2 and more... uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo) ByuN vs TaeJa Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch Global Tourney for College Students in September
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather
Brood War
General
New season has just come in ladder ASL20 Pre-season Tier List ranking! BSL Polish World Championship 2025 20-21 September BW General Discussion ASL Season 20 Ro24 Groups
Tourneys
KCM 2025 Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI Bitcoin discussion thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Gaming After Dark: Poor Slee…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 514 users

US government shutdown - Page 101

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 99 100 101 102 103 111 Next
HunterX11
Profile Joined March 2009
United States1048 Posts
October 14 2013 22:17 GMT
#2001
On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?


To be fair, there is one other alternative: eliminate bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prisons. in fact the 13th Amendment still allows slavery for convicts.
Try using both Irradiate and Defensive Matrix on an Overlord. It looks pretty neat.
Kaitlin
Profile Joined December 2010
United States2958 Posts
October 14 2013 23:38 GMT
#2002
On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?


How is this different from people not being able to afford the insurance or the deductible ?
Severedevil
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States4839 Posts
October 14 2013 23:49 GMT
#2003
On October 15 2013 07:17 HunterX11 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?


To be fair, there is one other alternative: eliminate bankruptcy and bring back debtors' prisons. in fact the 13th Amendment still allows slavery for convicts.

I doubt that would net more money than it cost.
My strategy is to fork people.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
October 15 2013 00:10 GMT
#2004
On October 15 2013 08:38 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?


How is this different from people not being able to afford the insurance or the deductible ?

If you are talking about ACA, then it is unclear if that is better or worse. But in standard public single payer system noone is unable to afford insurance as insurance is calculated based on your income and those that do not have income are subsidized by state/rest of the people.
Supamang
Profile Joined June 2010
United States2298 Posts
October 15 2013 03:04 GMT
#2005
Not sure if this was posted yet but apparently the GOP changed a rule in the House. I believe House Resolution 368 now prevents anyone except the Majority Leader from bringing up a resolution for voting.



Forget about what party you're in. Forget about the ACA/Obamacare. Isn't this pretty anti-Democracy? Theyre effectively taking power away from the majority and giving it to just a select few
DarkPlasmaBall
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States44368 Posts
October 15 2013 03:08 GMT
#2006
On October 15 2013 12:04 Supamang wrote:
Not sure if this was posted yet but apparently the GOP changed a rule in the House. I believe House Resolution 368 now prevents anyone except the Majority Leader from bringing up a resolution for voting.

+ Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jd-iaYLO1A


Forget about what party you're in. Forget about the ACA/Obamacare. Isn't this pretty anti-Democracy? Theyre effectively taking power away from the majority and giving it to just a select few


Yeah, the past 4-5 pages lol

But yes. Yes it is anti-democratic... it's far more dictatorial.
"There is nothing more satisfying than looking at a crowd of people and helping them get what I love." ~Day[9] Daily #100
BreAKerTV
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
Taiwan1658 Posts
October 15 2013 03:21 GMT
#2007
So, what is the overall situation looking like right now? Is this going to go on for another week?
Retired caster / streamer "BingeHD". Digital Nomad.
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-15 03:58:34
October 15 2013 03:57 GMT
#2008
On October 15 2013 06:33 semantics wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:27 Djzapz wrote:
On October 15 2013 06:02 Kaitlin wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.

Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.

Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.

Outside of that the problems with US healthcare is the A la carte pricing and the fact that alot of the industry in the US due to no import restrictions makes it so there are about 3-5 real medical suppliers depending on item; that ofc don't really want to compete with each other. Smaller businesses are near impossible to occur due to the heavy and necessary regulations on the medical industry part of it is the insurance blocks of hospitals vs insurance companies trying to negotiate.

Eh micronesia actually got to the relevant part that i was going to go on about which is the amount of ER patients and the fact that hospitals are legally obligated(as they should be imo) to not turn away people in critical condition. Then hospitals lose money on patents that don't have insurance and just show up to ER and incur bills they can't pay, it's just as dysfunctional.

I was not in critical condition as far as they knew. I had some problems, saw a bunch of doctors, my problem was narrowed down to my heart so I was referred to a cardiologist, at which point the government had paid thousands of dollars in consults and tests. Eventually my problem was figured out and the cardiologist thought it was potentially lethal, and a cardiothoracic took care of it. As it turns out, I was definitely going to die from it at some point.

If I had been brought to a US hospital as I was dying, I'm sure they would have helped out. But no, I was seemingly fine with minor symptoms, which happened to be symptoms of an important condition that could have otherwise been detected too late to be fixed.

It's harder to get tests in the US when the doctors, in my cases, felt like they were taking shots in the dark for a while. Anyway that's how my mother explains it to me.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
FabledIntegral
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
United States9232 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-15 04:44:41
October 15 2013 04:41 GMT
#2009
On October 15 2013 06:27 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:02 Kaitlin wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.

Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.

Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.


If you read the quote, we are taking about situations you can prevent or at least budget for. Open heart surgery is not one of these scenarios, which is why it's not relevant to what was being discussed. Those *are* the incidences that insurance / healthcare would be good for.

On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?



As stated above and directly in the part you quoted from me, I was referring to things that are easily preventable, not "freak" incidences or emergencies. We were on the subject of birth control --> every day living expenses being mandatory covered in the plan.
D10
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Brazil3409 Posts
October 15 2013 06:19 GMT
#2010
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.
" We are not humans having spiritual experiences. - We are spirits having human experiences." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
I_Love_Bacon
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States5765 Posts
October 15 2013 08:33 GMT
#2011
There was a time in America when business owners, politicians, and just your everyday working man could do things for what they legitimately thought were the greater good. Morals mattered and while capitalism was good; it wasn't the be-all-end-all. Even though it was decades before my time, I like to think I'd have enjoyed living in that era. This is all just so ridiculous.
" i havent been playin sc2 but i woke up w/ a boner and i really had to pee... and my crisis management and micro was really something to behold. it inspired me to play some games today" -Liquid'Tyler
Belisarius
Profile Joined November 2010
Australia6231 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-15 13:21:36
October 15 2013 13:07 GMT
#2012
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
October 15 2013 13:27 GMT
#2013
On October 15 2013 13:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:27 Djzapz wrote:
On October 15 2013 06:02 Kaitlin wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


Is this a trick question ? Maybe the person requiring the services should pay for them. Oh, wait. That's personal responsibility. We can't have that.

Open heart surgery that my parents couldn't possibly have afforded in the US saved my life when I was a child. In the US, they would have let me die, but my Canadian citizenship and the health insurance that comes with it saved my life.

Personal responsibility is great for most things, but healthcare has gotten so expensive that people die if you fuck around too much with a broken morality code taken from the middle ages.


If you read the quote, we are taking about situations you can prevent or at least budget for. Open heart surgery is not one of these scenarios, which is why it's not relevant to what was being discussed. Those *are* the incidences that insurance / healthcare would be good for.

Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 06:50 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 05:41 FabledIntegral wrote:
On October 14 2013 19:25 Talin wrote:
On October 14 2013 08:34 FabledIntegral wrote:
Completely different from what I see healthcare as, helping things beyond our control, such as a medical condition or freak accident.


Who is going to pay for health problems that were under our control and we had the ability to prevent it? Which actually makes up the majority of health problems people ordinarily encounter. They still have to be paid for.


The individual person. If they were under their control and failed to prevent, it's their loss, even if it results in financial ruin.

For example, if you don't buy property insurance for your house, and it burns down, you should be stuck at a loss. That is what the insurance is for. No one will be there to bail you out, even if it results in you being homeless.

This approach is actually costing you money already. Unless you are willing to deny emergency care completely to people who cannot pay, your system results in more expense for everyone compared to mandatory public "insurance". So is the notion of personal responsibility worth so much to you, that you are willing to pay more ?



As stated above and directly in the part you quoted from me, I was referring to things that are easily preventable, not "freak" incidences or emergencies. We were on the subject of birth control --> every day living expenses being mandatory covered in the plan.

Those easily preventable things, if left alone, cause emergencies in the end. And if someone has to pay out of pocket, especially if it is big relative expense for him, he will ignore the symptoms to save money.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
October 15 2013 13:33 GMT
#2014
On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.

It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.

Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-15 13:52:39
October 15 2013 13:51 GMT
#2015
On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.

It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.

Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.

Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:

[image loading]

Something is very wrong with US healthcare.
This is not Warcraft in space!
Adila
Profile Joined April 2010
United States874 Posts
October 15 2013 14:12 GMT
#2016
On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.

It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.

Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.

Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:

[image loading]

Something is very wrong with US healthcare.


That's what we Americans like to call "American Exceptionalism".

Anyway, what are the odds of the House rejecting the Senate compromise? I'm pretty sure the TP will reject it but will Boehner risk his speakership to bring it to the floor and depend on the Dems to pass it?
Saryph
Profile Joined April 2010
United States1955 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-10-15 14:15:21
October 15 2013 14:13 GMT
#2017
Part of the problem is that our own lawmakers screw things up constantly.

Look at Medicare Part D (a part of Medicare used for subsidizing prescription drugs), they passed a law that forbid negotiating over the price of drugs. The VA on the other hand is allowed to negotiate prices with drug makers, and pays between 40% and 58% less than Medicare Part D does.

Edit: About the shutdown itself:

GOP Rep Outlines Boehner's Counter Offer
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) on Tuesday outlined the proposal that House Republicans are likely to put forward to avert default and end the government shutdown.

Dent told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that, like the proposal being ironed out in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) initiative will fund the government until Jan. 15, 2014 and raise the debt limit until Feb. 7 or 8 of next year.

But unlike the Senate framework, the House would include a two-year delay of the medical device tax. Dent said that the House will also look to strike the so-called reinsurance tax under the Affordable Care Act and include a variation of Sen. David Vitter's (R-LA) amendment by requiring members of Congress and the White House to obtain coverage through Obamacare's health exchanges.

Dent said Boehner, who detailed the proposal during a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, will unveil the outline "as early as today."


Source
Gorsameth
Profile Joined April 2010
Netherlands21698 Posts
October 15 2013 14:15 GMT
#2018
On October 15 2013 23:12 Adila wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:
On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.

It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.

Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.

Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:

Something is very wrong with US healthcare.


That's what we Americans like to call "American Exceptionalism".

Anyway, what are the odds of the House rejecting the Senate compromise? I'm pretty sure the TP will reject it but will Boehner risk his speakership to bring it to the floor and depend on the Dems to pass it?

Its no longer up to Boehner. Only the House Majority Leader can put a bill up for vote because of a law change on oct 1st
It ignores such insignificant forces as time, entropy, and death
Sermokala
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
United States13955 Posts
October 15 2013 14:36 GMT
#2019
Its not a law change its a rule change. This is a very important distinction and I would very much like it if you would stop fear mongering about how the USA is now somehow a dictatorship, they can ignore the rule if they want to or use it if they do want to. Procedural change on who introduces bills is not something that makes america a dictatorship. Republicans still have to get elected in a year

If it ever became one it was when Andrew Jackson showed that you can ignore the other 2 branches (SCOTUS on the trail of tears congress on the national bank) when you control the military and the public opinion.

Back when "politics worked" they would have small continuing resolutions for a few days so that they could negotiate while the people didn't suffer. Democrats don't want the shutdown to be suspended because they think Americans suffering helps them more then it hurts them.
A wise man will say that he knows nothing. We're gona party like its 2752 Hail Dark Brandon
Unentschieden
Profile Joined August 2007
Germany1471 Posts
October 15 2013 14:39 GMT
#2020
On October 15 2013 22:51 Alex1Sun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On October 15 2013 22:33 mcc wrote:
On October 15 2013 22:07 Belisarius wrote:
On October 15 2013 15:19 D10 wrote:
Health care for all is a possibility, 99% of the worlds most dire health problems only lack an early diagnosis, if we were able to increase the ammount of effective doctors in and outside hospitals and allow everyone to be exposed to quality health care, we would save billions and billions of dollars in later care.

The financial gain is just too big to be ignored, its not time to be ideological, its a time to realize that you are throwing money down the drain for no purpose if you dont support health care for all.


This is highly, highly debatable in a developed nation where most of the truly cheap and easy solutions have already been implemented. And please note that I say this as someone who has benefited from my country's generous healthcare system and who fully supports it. However, I support it because I see it as morally right, not because I think it makes a profit.

The reason is really pretty simple, and it's the fact that even in a perfect healthcare system, everyone will one day get old and die, and the process of getting old and dying is extremely expensive. Saving someone at 25 does not free you from having to save them again at 60, and 70, and then pay for their death at 80.

Simply considering savings, the perspective where "preventative treatment X saved us paying for person Y to go to ER and die" isn't sufficient, because they will still die at some point. And when they do, they're probably going to need some ER time. So, you pay for that either way, you just pay for it when they're 80 instead of when they're 25, on top of whatever they needed in the first place. You also open yourself to a whole stack of other costs across their life and old age, like pensions and extended palliative care. It's terrifying, but allowing people to die, even in ER, is pretty cheap compared to keeping them alive.

If you're seriously trying to get a profit from healthcare, you need to get value back from the individual's extra years of life which is greater than what you put in. For some people - young, middle class, good job, short-term acute condition - this is quite achievable, but for a very large number this is absolutely not. The harsh truth is that lots and lots of sick people are just not profitable investments. This is especially true for the low socio-economic groups that the ACA makes a big deal of. Lots of people cost money when they're sick, maybe even cost money when they're healthy, cost money when they're old and ultimately still cost money when they die.

I want to be clear, again, that I'm not advocating against healthcare. I am incredibly glad my country has it. But as proponents, we need to be very careful that our case holds water. The argument that healthcare saves money in the long run is far from straightforward.

It might not be straightforward, but there is a lot of strong, if not completely direct, evidence. The fact that other nations reach healthcare parameters similar or better than US with less money is a fact. It might be explained by some special circumstances, but more likely explanation is that whatever the other countries are doing is just better and more efficient economically.

Also the fact that single payer system decouples health-insurance from employers. Employers do not have to care about health insurance and employees can pick employers based on more important (work-related) parameters rather than healthcare possibly saves a lot of money.

Exactly! I still can't wrap my head around this graph:

[image loading]

Something is very wrong with US healthcare.


Think about it this way: How could it be even more expensive? The (previous?) US system would have made sense if ER was denied to nonpayers - but no one wanted to carry the moral implications (for good reason!).
It maximised usage of the ER simply because many have no other healthcare access. Obviously since these people have to be in mortal danger to be even looked at it´s also the most expensive point of treatment.
Prev 1 99 100 101 102 103 111 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 1h 24m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
SC2Nice 53
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 14554
Bisu 805
Jaedong 683
ggaemo 373
actioN 296
Larva 214
Zeus 89
sorry 56
Backho 37
Sharp 35
[ Show more ]
NaDa 27
scan(afreeca) 24
Rush 23
yabsab 22
Aegong 22
Mini 21
soO 14
SilentControl 14
ajuk12(nOOB) 12
Bale 11
Noble 10
IntoTheRainbow 5
Hm[arnc] 4
Dota 2
XaKoH 333
XcaliburYe276
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1323
shoxiejesuss754
allub236
x6flipin0
Other Games
gofns6524
summit1g6386
FrodaN4310
singsing1213
ceh9569
Happy370
Pyrionflax207
Fuzer 141
SortOf57
Mew2King47
rGuardiaN33
QueenE6
ZerO(Twitch)2
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick608
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 25
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta32
• LUISG 19
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 7
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1h 24m
The PondCast
1d
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 1h
Replay Cast
1d 14h
LiuLi Cup
2 days
Online Event
3 days
SC Evo League
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
CSO Contender
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Summer Champion…
4 days
SC Evo League
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
5 days
RotterdaM Event
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

StarCon 2025 Philadelphia
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
ASL Season 20
CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.