EPT
Democracy implies you aren't taking away other people's right to vote or advocate their position. The second people no longer have the right to vote is the second it ceases to be democratic.
[Q] US health System - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Chef
10810 Posts
Democracy implies you aren't taking away other people's right to vote or advocate their position. The second people no longer have the right to vote is the second it ceases to be democratic. | ||
|
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.pnhp.org/images/cartoons/hightower_cartoon.gif) "Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered. The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do. Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards. A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing." | ||
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
It is this difference in perspective, among other things, that makes public healthcare far more efficient. It's like a comparison between a fire brigade whose job it is to put out as many fires as possible and one whose job it is to minimise fire damage. Only one of them puts a fire alarm in every home. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
The result of this is that the money is spent far more efficiently. Rather than spent $50,000 on an expensive course of experimental drugs for one cancer patient that money will be spent treating a dozen people of more easily cured diseases. Sure it sucks if you're the guy who is deemed too expensive to have your life saved but ultimately far more lives are saved by this system. Medicine has exponentially diminishing return. Put 1,000,000 into public healthcare and you'll save X lives. Put 2,000,000 and you'll save 1.5X lives. Put 4,000,000 in and you'll save 2X lives. The private system is hugely inefficient in terms of money spent for lives saved before you even begin to consider all the additional bureaucracy. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
However the majority of the middle class will get the same level of care and the lower class who are both the cheapest to treat and the most in need of it get a far higher standard of care. Just looking at the pros and cons the number of people who lose out in a public system is insignificant compared to the gains. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On May 16 2009 09:41 Aegraen wrote: Democracy by nature can be Totalitarian. The 51% majority votes to take the rights away from the 49% minority...how is that not Totalitarian? People confuse Democracy and Republicanism so much. This eschewed vision of Democracy is good, needs to be dispelled. Every citizen is guaruanteed certain basic rights which cannot be taken away from him under any circumstances. So the scenario you just created is preety much impossible, unless there is a transition to a different system going on. Besides, your reply does not really counter the statement I made and that is that high taxes does not (necesarilly) mean a totalitarian state and that some totalitarian states even had low taxes. PS: Are you too lazy to budget for your own healthcare, which would be of much higher quality when privatized? Competition breeds improvements; the other way creates and instigates stagnation. No one wants to be responsible for finances any more...Everyone wants government to live their lives for them. Ugh....can we have responsible, hard-working people stand up against this...please... First of all, there is no guaruantee that the healthcare provided by a private system would be "much better", particularly if you are not amongst the wealthiest. Infact, since the health institution I am visiting is primarily concerned with making profit, they will cut spending whenever possible...including during my treatment. Second, any "responsible, hard-working" person knows that life is expensive. As such, when the situation occurs when you or your loved one needs medical treatment, you might not have the funds to afford it when needed since such emergencies are not something you can exactly plan ahead. With public healthcare, this is not as much of a problem since you are guaruanteed treatment in the majority of cases. And third, a public healthcare system does not mean that I am not responsible for my own finances. If not anything else, I still have to pay the actual taxes that guaruantee me things such as healthcare. However, it does save me of worrying whether or not I will get treated in case I get sick and considering how many worries one already has his entire life, one can only count that as a plus. Competition does breed improvement, but only with certain limitations and only in certain areas. If there are no limitations, then competition becomes a destructive rather then a productive force. If it is directed in the wrong area, then it is counter-productive since it does not further it`s intended goal. Ultimately, a health institution should not be viewed as a company (something a private system does). It is not there to make money, it is there to provide healthcare. If profit is overemphasised, then the healthcare itself will inevitably suffer. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 16 2009 10:20 VegeTerran wrote: Taken From www.pnhp.org (Physicians for a National Health Program) "Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private. Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 45.7 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered. The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars. Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do. Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care. Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards. A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing." You didn't read anything I wrote. We don't have 47 million 'uninsured'. Secondly, do you know what Hillary Care is? Do you know what Tom Daschle eschews and is Obama's plan? Thirdly, with a single payer there is no competition. The government dictates what it will do. I am astonished at how much faith people put into governments.....Where is the faith in yourself? Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Immunization is up to the parents. Oh, yes the comprehensive coverage that has dentists walking out of Britain because they don't get paid after X amount of people and their flooded with people...Who is going to work for free? Or, waiting from one to three years in Canada for specialized treatment. What about Britain not being able to treat certain cancers so they have to fly to the US to get treatment...Or, what about rationing care because the cost:benefit analysis shows that your life isn't worth that much money and the government stiffs you and lets you die for the 'greater good'. Most of the healthcare costs in the US come from the government with their stupid programs. Foisting artificial price boosts, they then rail against the price of healthcare, promising they will fix it, when they broke it in the first place by tinkering around and playing the oh 'moral saviour' with Medicare and Medicaid, and the countless other programs such as SCHIP. The way to recoup this 'wasted' money is to get the government the hell out of the way and let the citizens do what they do best. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7300 Posts
I personally have problems with the health insurance system in the United States (and apparently in the UK if what Kwark says is true) I have vitiligo and treatment is by and large not paid for by average-below average insurance policies. Do you know how shitty that is going through highschool (nobody ever said shit to me, it just leads to self image problems) knowing that you could possibly have your skin taken care of but some higher up deemed it only a cosmetic problem and completely ignores the psychological effects it can have on you? My dad ended up getting better insurance after my senior year of highschool due to his factory going bankrupt and finding a different job. I got treatment....but the process is long and while there is major improvement I wont be getting anymore treatment anytime soon due to his insurance policy changing AGAIN. This idea about "expensive" treatments not being paid for is complete bullshit. Some people are lucky and may not have to deal with problems like that.....but dont forget about those that do. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
On May 16 2009 11:10 Aegraen wrote: You didn't read anything I wrote. We don't have 47 million 'uninsured'. Secondly, do you know what Hillary Care is? Do you know what Tom Daschle eschews and is Obama's plan? Thirdly, with a single payer there is no competition. The government dictates what it will do. I am astonished at how much faith people put into governments.....Where is the faith in yourself? Secondly, we have one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world, and we rank as one of the highest in life expectancy. Immunization is up to the parents. Oh, yes the comprehensive coverage that has dentists walking out of Britain because they don't get paid after X amount of people and their flooded with people...Who is going to work for free? Or, waiting from one to three years in Canada for specialized treatment. What about Britain not being able to treat certain cancers so they have to fly to the US to get treatment...Or, what about rationing care because the cost:benefit analysis shows that your life isn't worth that much money and the government stiffs you and lets you die for the 'greater good'. Most of the healthcare costs in the US come from the government with their stupid programs. Foisting artificial price boosts, they then rail against the price of healthcare, promising they will fix it, when they broke it in the first place by tinkering around and playing the oh 'moral saviour' with Medicare and Medicaid, and the countless other programs such as SCHIP. The way to recoup this 'wasted' money is to get the government the hell out of the way and let the citizens do what they do best. Public system doesn't ask people to work for free any more than private does. No idea where you'd get that idea but doctors are paid just as well here as anywhere else. I don't understand how you can criticise rationing care for the maximum number of lives saved. It's utterly arbitrary. Having more money doesn't give you any more right to life and when the same money that saves one life can be used to save many it should be used to save many. This isn't very complicated. Life = Good. Care to address any of the reasons I wrote in favour of the public system, such as investment in public health rather than simply paying the costs that result for example? If you read any other posts in this topic you could find a number of good posts that you have just ignored. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7300 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 16 2009 11:37 Kwark wrote: Public system doesn't ask people to work for free any more than private does. No idea where you'd get that idea but doctors are paid just as well here as anywhere else. I don't understand how you can criticise rationing care for the maximum number of lives saved. It's utterly arbitrary. Having more money doesn't give you any more right to life and when the same money that saves one life can be used to save many it should be used to save many. This isn't very complicated. Life = Good. Care to address any of the reasons I wrote in favour of the public system, such as investment in public health rather than simply paying the costs that result for example? If you read any other posts in this topic you could find a number of good posts that you have just ignored. Because it goes against everything that Freedom and Liberty stands for. I'm going to be quite frank with you here. I don't give a shit what stats you have, if it any way impedes with my Freedom and Liberty, then it will not happen. Simple as that. There's not even a point to argue with you, because in the end I choose my Freedoms and Liberties and free will over your cost:benefit analysis bullcrap. If I want to live to 105 then I will damn well live to 105 (or at least try). You see, I have a healthy disdain for everything that is government (History is rife with examples of horrible governments, rarely, if any with governments that uphold your natural law rights). You Europeans have not come to this point as us Americans have. Thank Jebus (Love the simpsons) for my founders and their unequivocal enlightenment about human nature, philosophy, and government roles and the empowerment and natural law rights of the individual! | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:04 Aegraen wrote: Because it goes against everything that Freedom and Liberty stands for. I'm going to be quite frank with you here. I don't give a shit what stats you have, if it any way impedes with my Freedom and Liberty, then it will not happen. Simple as that. There's not even a point to argue with you, because in the end I choose my Freedoms and Liberties and free will over your cost:benefit analysis bullcrap. If I want to live to 105 then I will damn well live to 105 (or at least try). You see, I have a health disdain for everything that is government. You Europeans have not come to this point as us Americans have. Thank Jebus (Love the simpsons) for my founders and their unequivocal enlightenment about human nature, philosophy, and government roles and the empowerment and natural law rights of the individual! Glad you could share your "enlightenment" with us. It is definitely an interesting, if somewhat quaint, world view. Although a basic look at history would show that, rather than being more advanced as you suppose, you're 120 years behind European civilisation. It's called liberalism, we tried it, the society it led to was pretty crap, we moved on. Still, it is pretty cute that you think it's so great. Good luck with that. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:12 Kwark wrote: Glad you could share your "enlightenment" with us. It is definitely an interesting, if somewhat quaint, world view. Although a basic look at history would show that, rather than being more advanced as you suppose, you're 120 years behind European civilisation. It's called liberalism, we tried it, the society it led to was pretty crap, we moved on. Still, it is pretty cute that you think it's so great. Good luck with that. Oh yes, you know about 150 years of being a true republic living by the Constitution turned out pretty crappy. Last I checked we took on and wiped out both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan and become the lone world economic superpower after the war. Turned out pretty crappy. Really....what society was like American? I would love to hear this. Where is your true constitutional republics at (Tip: you never had any)? Most of Europe was still a monarchy, or some form of oligarchy (Wait, I believe it all was) 120 years ago, we can drag that even further back if you want. Because you had a few classical liberals such as Edmund Burke, John Locke, and a few others does not make your society even remotely close to what America has. The individual is what created America, and as we can see, it didn't turn out so bad. We would be in far, far, far, better shape if the new age 'liberals' didn't meddle in the affairs of the populace (See Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, throw Bush Jr. in there). Europe is declining. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me within 5 years that britains are actually a minority in....Britain. You don't even realize it, but you've basically been invaded and taken over without a fight. So what kind of advanced society do you have...with Shar'ia Law being practiced, a 7th century system of laws that allows stoning a woman to death for adultery. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
I don't even know where to begin with that. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
Y/N? | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 16 2009 12:27 Kwark wrote: Poor people = Lazy, drug addicts. Y/N? Some. More are of the irresponsible, bad decision making types. Not my fault; I should not get punished for making the right, responsible choices in life. What a backasswards belief system. Reward the irresponsible; punish the responsible. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
Y/N? | ||
|
bellweather
United States404 Posts
(1 to Aegraen) life expectancy is lower in the US compared with those Eurozone nations that have socialized healthcare, (2 to Aegraen) your definition of "freedom and liberty" is pretty loose, there are no allusions to a citizen's "right" to such things, just as we don't have a "right" to exempt ourselves from paying taxes or any sort of social program for that matter, (3 to Kwark) your stats are extremely biased; the bureaucratic cost of most, if not all, "universal" healthcare schemes in the US would be huge. The fact that we have private healthcare providers insures the competitive need to drive these costs down, whereas with a single entity that incentive would not exist. It's pretty obvious that there doesn't exist any consistent manner in which we can weigh the benefits of healthcare provisions for those in the lower socioeconomic rung against the cost of running such a program. One can blow platitudes about the "value of human life," the right to choose, benefits of competition, etc out of their asses, but in the end most people with a strong view point just will not change their minds. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43367 Posts
Absolute belief in cultural and moral superiority over the unenlightened - check Unregulated free market - check No form of social security, pensions, healthcare etc - check Belief that you deserved your position in society - check Belief that you were the pinacle of civilisation - check Belief that the poor were to blame for being poor and therefore deserved their exploitation - check | ||
| ||
