On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
why should smokers be given treatment? maybe just because of the practical concerns of deciding how much smoking disqualifies you and if smoking was actual the cause and stuff. but on principal.. why on earth do they deserve any help for something they brought on themselves?
On November 02 2008 10:35 The Storyteller wrote: You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
On November 02 2008 10:35 The Storyteller wrote: You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
wat
ie You have to make a choice with what you spend your money on. "Universal healthcare" implies that everyone can be treated for everything. In reality, you have to choose.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
no shit it happens "everywhere" but it doesnt HAVE to happen here. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. Thats absolutely fucking ridiculous, no doctor who ever has taken their oath seriously would do something like that.
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
no shit it happens "everywhere" but it doesnt HAVE to happen here. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. Thats absolutely fucking ridiculous, no doctor who ever has taken their oath seriously would do something like that.
Okay, we'll agree to disagree then. But can I just point out that even in Britain, where the healthcare IS free, there are still people who die of dreadful illnesses because neither they nor the state can afford treatment.
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
when costs are out of control, you need government involvement, and what you speak of is ridiculous, you act as if healthcare is some sort of allowance, its not like a person goes out and buys a brain tumor and then decides they want something else then asks the government for an advance so they can pay for their broken leg.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
Um, yes... It may sound cruel but it happens everywhere, everyday.
no shit it happens "everywhere" but it doesnt HAVE to happen here. We should hold ourselves to higher standards. Thats absolutely fucking ridiculous, no doctor who ever has taken their oath seriously would do something like that.
You are so not living up to your nickname of "Sadist" =D
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
Basically I want you to explain this more and say how accurate it is.
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
when costs are out of control, you need government involvement, and what you speak of is ridiculous, you act as if healthcare is some sort of allowance, its not like a person goes out and buys a brain tumor and then decides they want something else then asks the government for an advance so they can pay for their broken leg.
In Zimbabwe costs are out of control. The solution is not to give more government subsidies, the solution is to change the economic system to one like America's so that prices come down and the poor can buy food. I'm not saying that government intervention is bad. We have government involvement too. It's just a different kind of government involvement.
I won't argue the choice issue anymore, though. I do understand where you're coming from, I just think it can't work.
I don't think it's possible to provide full universal healthcare like what senators have, but I still think it's possible to provide a "free" low level of care.
The costs of simple things like broken bones is astronomical.
america is in a very different situation they spend an awful amount of money on research which is supplemented by high health care costs so americans pay for brazillians and everyone else's health care
there are ridiculously advantaged and expensive medical techniques now, it just simply isnt possible to have full universal health care
On November 02 2008 12:31 iloveBankai wrote: america is in a very different situation they spend an awful amount of money on research which is supplemented by high health care costs so americans pay for brazillians and everyone else's health care
yes, probably overlooked quite a bit. Alongside the fact that we spend a lot more on defense than most countries as well.
On November 02 2008 11:20 Jibba wrote: What is the free minimum your government provides? I thought it's substantially higher than what we receive.
If by that you mean the amount below which you get free healthcare, there isn't any. You always have to pay, unless you are in such a wretched state that you approach your MP and beg for help.
It's hard to tell exactly how much the government subsidies are, because they vary from treatment to treatment. Fertility treatments at government hospitals, for example, are more heavily subsidised because we want more kids.
But basically if you look at healthcare cost as a percentage of GDP it's really low.
I hasten to add that I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, I'm just saying that good healthcare doesn't need huge government, which was what Savio was worried about.
Basically I want you to explain this more and say how accurate it is.
It is fairly accurate, but I think the article is too biased in its favour. The two cornerstones of our healthcare are basic subsidies and medisave.
Basic subsidies work in the public hospitals and clinics where waiting time is crazy and conditions are not very comfortable. By not very comfortable I mean 12 people to a ward and no air-conditioning even though the temperature is 33 degrees Celcius (and these are old, sick people we're talking about!). These are heavily, heavily subsidised, but because our population is now wealthier, many people do not opt for these.
That's something I feel the article was unfair about - if our population was not so wealthy and more people had to use the 80% subsidised healthcare, the system would jam up and the government would be paying a lot more than it is now.
You can get the same operations done and recuperate in more comfortable conditions, but subsidies would be lower. So if you opt for the 6 people to a ward with airconditioning, the subsidies drop to... I dunno, 40% or something.
Of course, if you can afford it, you can go for private healthcare and forego the subsidies altogether.
So, no matter what, you still have to pay for your healthcare. Where does the money come from?
The bulk of it comes from Medisave. You have to contribute I think 4% of your pay to a Medisave fund. This fund is topped up by employer contributions (I think 1 dollar for every 3 you put in). This can't be used to see a GP with the flu, it's supposed to be for operatiosn and stuff.
Because it's YOUR money, you decide what you want to spend it on. So even if you are a smoker and you get lung cancer, you can still use it and still stay in a subsidised ward. Nobody will fault you for that. But by that same token, when the money's gone, it's gone.
Medisave is not enough to cover healthcare - even with heavy subsidies, some operations are very expensive, especially for lower income families. The main benefit of Medisave is that you can use it to buy health insurance, and the health insuarance then covers a lot of the medical bills.
So the way it works is that Medisave is more a fund to pay insurance premiums which in effect increases our spending power on healthcare.
If you lose your job, your existing Medisave fund stays with you, it just doesn't grow through contributions.
As you can see, another big thing the article has ignored is that if you don't work, you don't get Medisave, which means you are so screwed if something happens to you. This only works because our employment rate is very high, and most people have families who will step in to help out with healthcare. Most people, even if they are currently unemployed, will have enough money in their Medisave set aside to tide them over till they find a new one.
And finally, as our population ages, it will be interesting to see how our system copes. That's another thing the article conveniently ignores. There are going to be problems for sure.
There are other things that contribute to healthcare like an open economy, national service, preventive care and so on, but I think the main two things are the subsidised very very basic healthcare and the Medisave.
EPT
