| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
If nationalised healthcare is bad, say why it's bad. Don't just say that it's intervention and unconstitutional. On a slightly related note, we have a third party in the UK which has never gotten elected but regularly gets 20% or so of the vote. Their manifesto generally says they'll lower taxes and increase spending and it'll work out, just vote for them and you'll see. Ron Paul reminds me a bit of that with the vague ideas of how everything will work and no real coherent explanation. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 18 2009 07:57 Kwark wrote: Tell me if I'm wrong but didn't that Ron Paul thing say in one sentence that healthcare providers would be freed to compete like any other service provider and then in the next that doctors who feel a personal responsibility towards their fellow citizens would help out the needy? You can't make it a highly competitive business while relying on the charity of the businessmen to fill in the gaps in the service. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. Medical care is not like every other business. Pro bono work is the moral responsiblity of medical practitioners, and it has worked in America in the past. Please read the Ron Paul quote, you would have answered this yourself. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
The costs of curing someone are less than the costs of treating the symptoms of a condition for years on end. Lower class people without insurance will have trouble paying for the treatment they need immediately and will instead spend far more money with worse results managing the symptoms over a long period of time. Medicine has a diminishing return on investment, the improvement in healthcare is not proportionate to the increase in cost. To put that in context. Public takes X money and treats everyone with Y quality of health care. Private will take X money, treat half the people with only 1.5Y quality. Better for the people being treated but far less cost efficient. Sick people are bad for society in general. Poor people who are ill with a contagious virus ignore it and infect those around them, perpetuating the problem. While that may not bother you, eventually one of those people getting paid so little he can't afford to take a sick day will be the guy coughing over your food. To use a crude analogy, you may not like your toilet on a personal level, you may not think it deserves your investment, but you still buy products to keep it hygenic because if you don't it'll be worse for you. Public health challenges can be met with a co-ordinated, universal approach in a public system. From pandemics to obesity, public can invest (for example) in anti-smoking ads which pay for themselves and more in lower healthcare costs. The economics of healthcare change when the objective is to make a healthy society rather than to treat a lot of patients. 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. On a related note, it's actually advantageous for a private hospital for there to be a surplus of sick people, it increases demand and therefore prices. Basic economics. Whereas a public system is given a set amount of money and told to spend it as best they can on the sick people that year which means if there's anything it can do to save itself money it will. While one profits from a sick society the other does not. I'm not suggesting that private hospitals deliberately make people ill but equally they don't attempt to reduce the healthcare costs of society as a whole. Avoidable money spent on healthcare is ultimately money wasted and is bad for everyone in society. You might think that if someone chooses burn their money that doesn't effect you but it does, its money not spent on goods or invested or put into a house. Having people without insurance burning money away treating symptoms of a condition they can't afford to cure and dying while still capable of work is a net loss for society which in turn means its a net loss for every member of society. It's an indirect loss but a 45 year old man dying of a curable condition still leaves society 20 years of productive labour worse off. You're a member of a society, whether you like it or not. When society loses out, you personally lose out. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:07 Kwark wrote: You can't just say it's widened beyond what the founding fathers envisioned and therefore it's bad. The constitution is an old document and cannot be expected to provide a guideline for how to govern a modern society. Let's try and keep this conversation cohesive. I was pointing out a strawman fallacy. They want to prop up conservatives as people who believe that government has evil intentions. This is false. If nationalised healthcare is bad, say why it's bad. Don't just say that it's intervention and unconstitutional. I did. Stop with the goddamn strawman fallacies, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't call something as intrinsically bad just because it doesn't match a piece of paper. I gave substantive reasons as to why government intervention has driven up everyday healthcare costs. The implementations pay no mind to the malicious incentives they create, thus the problem. I won't respond to you anymore until you engage what I've already written! | ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:09 HeadBangaa wrote: Medical care is not like every other business. Pro bono work is the moral responsiblity of medical practitioners, and it has worked in America in the past. Please read the Ron Paul quote, you would have answered this yourself. Why is it their medical responsibility? Either it's run as a business or it's not. If it's run as a business then the hospital which devotes some of its time to charity will have to charge more per paying patient than the hospital that does not. That cost reaches the consumer and the charitable hospital loses its customers. Unless of course the government mandated a set amount of charitable work they had to do :p | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:16 HeadBangaa wrote: Let's try and keep this conversation cohesive. I was pointing out a strawman fallacy. They want to prop up conservatives as people who believe that government has evil intentions. This is false. I did. Stop with the goddamn strawman fallacies, I'm not an idiot. I wouldn't call something as intrinsically bad just because it doesn't match a piece of paper. I gave substantive reasons as to why government intervention has driven up everyday healthcare costs. The implementations pay no mind to the malicious incentives they create, thus the problem. I won't respond to you anymore until you engage what I've already written! What you've already written does nothing to address me, it simply points out the flaws in the current system where private and public mix poorly to create a bureaucratic nightmare of inefficiency. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:16 Kwark wrote: Why is it their medical responsibility? Either it's run as a business or it's not. If it's run as a business then the hospital which devotes some of its time to charity will have to charge more per paying patient than the hospital that does not. That cost reaches the consumer and the charitable hospital loses its customers. Unless of course the government mandated a set amount of charitable work they had to do :p That's not true, again. Just wrong. No argument needed, you got your facts wrong. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43373 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:18 HeadBangaa wrote: I simply disagree with your collectivist mindset. It is un-American. Then just say that and leave the topic alone, rather than trying to engage in a rational debate. | ||
|
VegeTerran
Sweden214 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:00 HeadBangaa wrote: Hipster: "I live in Georgia and a lot of people there are ultra-rightwing, you, know, Ron Paul Libertarians. I mean.. uhh umm, they're extremely cynical." Chomsky: "They think the government is the enemy, that's understandable... like some alien force from Mars that is stealing their money." Ridiculous, I can't believe I'm even responding to it. This is not the viewpoint of conservatives like myself, or Ron Paul. This is a strawman fallacy. Ron Paul's politics simply point out that the scope of government has widened beyond what the constitution allows, and that the consequences are a snowball effect of taxation and more intervention. And after sitting through the drivel and fallacies, he does not refute anything I put forward from the Ron Paul camp. I doubt you even watched the video and you just dumped a google result on me. This was what i had in mind (got it mixed up): "Here my summary of Mr. Paul's positions: - He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts)." Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea. "- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)" Chomsky: Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded -- like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,....? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise. "- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it)." Chomsky Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've already mentioned. There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power -- itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources. "- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it)." Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view. "I really can't find differences between your positions and his." Chomsky: There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based -- the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we're at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?). "So I have these questions: 1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of "Libertarianism"? " Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion -- on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding. "2) Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?" Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously. "3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?" Chomsky: No. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:18 Kwark wrote: What you've already written does nothing to address me, it simply points out the flaws in the current system where private and public mix poorly to create a bureaucratic nightmare of inefficiency. Ughh I don't agree with your summary. If your just going to gloss over it all, why even bother. I'm out of this thread. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
dybydx
Canada1764 Posts
my grandma is retired right now and is entitled to 4 doc appointments per month at no cost. drugs are also very very cheap. possibly because most medicine R&D (and hence patents) are done by the state and mass produced at dirt cheap prices. docs in china are respected people but they dont make 5x the salary of their assistant. | ||
|
Cup.-D
Canada23 Posts
Change is scary. We all know what we have now. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:24 mahnini wrote: america has it's fair share of free clinics i believe except if you can afford otherwise you would probably avoid them because they are shitholes (hearsay). i wouldn't be caught dead in one (get it??? LOL!) zing!, nice i lol'd for realz | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:33 dybydx wrote: docs in china are respected people but they dont make 5x the salary of their assistant. They also dont have 400,000 dollars in student debt. | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
On May 18 2009 08:21 HeadBangaa wrote: Ughh I don't agree with your summary. If your just going to gloss over it all, why even bother. I'm out of this thread. he asks what so bad about national healthcare, you answer that prices are driven up by goverment intervention in a private system. it's like whining that oranges are too sour when discussing what's bad about apples. go and look at the national healthcare systems, that produce better results for less, and then tell us what's so bad about them. not bringing up problems in the US healthcare system, that isn't a national one. | ||
|
Aegraen
United States1225 Posts
On May 18 2009 11:19 jeppew wrote: he asks what so bad about national healthcare, you answer that prices are driven up by goverment intervention in a private system. it's like whining that oranges are too sour when discussing what's bad about apples. go and look at the national healthcare systems, that produce better results for less, and then tell us what's so bad about them. not bringing up problems in the US healthcare system, that isn't a national one. What everyone fails to take into account is the philosophical aspects of the roles of government. Just because something 'may' be more efficient doesn't make it better. Headbangaaa and myself have all ready pointed out that the government is what created the increasingly exorbinant prices for health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid paying only 60% of the fees, leaving the hospital to recoup the other 40% from those not under Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, by nationalizing the entirety of the health system, does not drive down costs. In fact, it would put an ever increasing burden on the government who all ready now 'backs your home mortgages, car, and other asinine things the government has no legal/legitimate role in' The US Constitution, more than anything is a philosophically inspired document. I would rather live free and poor, than restrained and have money. Freedom is priceless. You want to only argue stats, which I showed you were used deceitfully, yet you don't account for the philosophical nature of Government and that of human nature. Your healthcare system is so great in Europe and other socialist countries, yet, you are hovering around 1% to under 1% GDP growth a year, and most see no growth. You don't realize the staggering burdens placed on your businesses. You must read a Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. I would also advise you to read Ayn Rands: Atlas Shrugged. On top of this, economical servitude (slavery), is inherently immoral and unjustified. Why should I have to work to pay for others? Why should I become a slave to the government forfeiting over half my work? Do I not work for myself? Approaching the philosophical nature, with the means to build on the principle foundation to improve the system is what needs to be done. This means, cutting all governmental intervention. There was a case of a doctor (This was on Glenn Beck), who was charging 79$ a month for unlimited care and the government shut him down. Yes, all bow down to governmental bureacrocy. Lest I remind you of the NRA in the 30's who stifled all growth and was one reason for causing the Great Depression to last even longer. PS: In before the CIA Worldfact book 1.3% GDP growth in America. Need I remind everyone here, that the US now spends nearly as much as britain accounting for (last I checked) 43% of GDP spending. In every regard, we are all ready socialist. Put two and two together, with what everyone all ready knew, and socialism does not create wealth, it merely siphons what wealth there is off until everyone becomes poor. Well, at least then everyone is equal right? Thats what it is all about afterall. | ||
|
jeppew
Sweden471 Posts
On May 18 2009 11:53 Aegraen wrote: What everyone fails to take into account is the philosophical aspects of the roles of government. Just because something 'may' be more efficient doesn't make it better. don't add "may"s wherever you want because you disagree, it's statistically proven more effeicent, wether that is your defenition of better is another thing. Headbangaaa and myself have all ready pointed out that the government is what created the increasingly exorbinant prices for health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid paying only 60% of the fees, leaving the hospital to recoup the other 40% from those not under Medicare and Medicaid. Secondly, by nationalizing the entirety of the health system, does not drive down costs. In fact, it would put an ever increasing burden on the government who all ready now 'backs your home mortgages, car, and other asinine things the government has no legal/legitimate role in' and yet all national healthcare systems are cheaper, all of them. The US Constitution, more than anything is a philosophically inspired document. I would rather live free and poor, than restrained and have money. Freedom is priceless. You want to only argue stats, which I showed you were used deceitfully, yet you don't account for the philosophical nature of Government and that of human nature. are you talking about when you responded to the "47 million" uninsured by claming that most of them do not count? Your healthcare system is so great in Europe and other socialist countries, yet, you are hovering around 1% to under 1% GDP growth a year, and most see no growth. You don't realize the staggering burdens placed on your businesses. You must read a Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. I would also advise you to read Ayn Rands: Atlas Shrugged. On top of this, economical servitude (slavery), is inherently immoral and unjustified. Why should I have to work to pay for others? Why should I become a slave to the government forfeiting over half my work? Do I not work for myself? Approaching the philosophical nature, with the means to build on the principle foundation to improve the system is what needs to be done. yeah when because your health is in the hands of your employer that's the polar opposite of slavery. edit: lol This means, cutting all governmental intervention. There was a case of a doctor (This was on Glenn Beck), who was charging 79$ a month for unlimited care and the government shut him down. Yes, all bow down to governmental bureacrocy. Lest I remind you of the NRA in the 30's who stifled all growth and was one reason for causing the Great Depression to last even longer. PS: In before the CIA Worldfact book 1.3% GDP growth in America. Need I remind everyone here, that the US now spends nearly as much as britain accounting for (last I checked) 43% of GDP spending. In every regard, we are all ready socialist. Put two and two together, with what everyone all ready knew, and socialism does not create wealth, it merely siphons what wealth there is off until everyone becomes poor. Well, at least then everyone is equal right? Thats what it is all about afterall. according to the US department of commerce USA's GDP growth of 2009 Q1 was negative 6.1%, but maybe this is just me using statistics deceitfully. edit: removed unnesecary remark. | ||
|
Durak
Canada3685 Posts
I was throwing up all night and I thought I had food poisoning. In the morning I called an advisory nurse so she could possibly diagnose what I had without leaving my house. After I described how I'd been over the night she said I should go to ER. At the hospital I let the receptionist know the severity of my illness. I didn't think it was anything bad so I got put pretty low in priority. After an hour or so I got to see a doctor that attempted to diagnose what I had. After answering some questions and the like I was put of morphine. An hour or so later a surgion came in and told me I most likely had appendicitis and asked me if they should take it out. I said absolutely. I was operated on in the next hour. Overall, it took me like half a day to find out I had appendicitis and to get the fucker out. It didn't cost me or my family anything. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  42809Sea  4202Rain 2243Jaedong  2079Horang2 1385Mini 745Soma 723firebathero 588Stork 489GuemChi 483[ Show more ] League of Legends Other Games Grubby3582 Liquid`RaSZi2872 singsing2371 Gorgc2335 B2W.Neo717 Happy375 crisheroes351 Hui .311 mouzStarbuck168 ArmadaUGS89 Mew2King53 ZerO(Twitch)24 |
|
IPSL
Dewalt vs Bonyth
OSC
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Patches Events
PiGosaur Cup
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
