| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
Fun fact: Japan has been stagnating for 20 years. Maybe there's a reason for it? The United States is very diverse. I'm sure if you took each state separately you would have major differences. Other countries are not nearly as diverse. It depends. Plenty of European countries such as France have dramatic regional and national diversity.Just some comments. Man, some of you guys are persistent. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 17 2009 11:46 triangle wrote: It isn't HC. There are a variety of problems, but HC plays a small role. Aging pop may make it seem larger, but Japanese HC system actually works pretty well. It depends. Plenty of European countries such as France have dramatic regional and national diversity. Just some comments. Man, some of you guys are persistent. if all you can do is nitpick at a few of my remarks and generalizing without evidence then I sincerely doubt you have the right to call anybody "persistent." I never said that the Japanese HC system is not doing well. I am saying that the fact that Japan has lots of regulations and has low profits as a result is a reason for economic stagnation. Secondly, France is not nearly as different regionally as the United States. Alsace-Lorraine and Marseilles are not as socially and economically different as LA and Orange County. | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
1. I said, "just some comments". I wasn't writing any full rebuttal, I was nitpicking. 2. I never said that the Japanese HC system is not doing well. I am saying that the fact that Japan has lots of regulations and has low profits as a result is a reason for economic stagnation. + Show Spoiler + The alternative to this system where the US pays for the rest of the world's health care is a system where, like the EU countries, the US government negotiates in bulk against the insurance/biotech/pharmaceutical companies. But that would dry up all their potential profits and you would be looking at a virtual stagnation of private industry medical advancement...which would mean that the US government would have to also pick up the tab for all medical research. Yes... Like in Japan (Warning: video) where they have heavy regulation of their health care to force costs down. How do the companies adapt and avoid? They find ways to make their equipment more effecient and cost-effective. Guess what? Even with heavy regulation, providers of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals are still profitable. They're just not obscenely profitable. Fun fact: Japan has been stagnating for 20 years. Maybe there's a reason for it? everything else has been addressed in other posts. generalizing without evidence When I responded to: Fun fact: Japan has been stagnating for 20 years. Maybe there's a reason for it? andThe United States is very diverse. I'm sure if you took each state separately you would have major differences. Other countries are not nearly as diverse. Extensive evidence there. and regarding The United States is very diverse. I'm sure if you took each state separately you would have major differences. Other countries are not nearly as diverse.  Regardless, I was more objecting to the notion a lot of Americans have, that other nations are homogeneous when they aren't at all. 3. I sincerely doubt you have the right to call anybody "persistent." This is what annoyed me. I have the right to say whatever I damn please within site rules, just as you have the right to ignore me. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 17 2009 11:46 triangle wrote: It isn't HC. There are a variety of problems, but HC plays a small role. Aging pop may make it seem larger, but Japanese HC system actually works pretty well. It depends. Plenty of European countries such as France have dramatic regional and national diversity. Just some comments. Man, some of you guys are persistent. In the choice between staying at a US hospital or a Japanese hospital, I would choose the US one every single time. Half of my family is still in Japan and their doctors make completely asinine decisions because they're allowed to waste resources. France is still tiny compared to the US. EDIT: I don't mean to say that Japan's stagnation is due to national health care and the massive agning population. I just mean to say that Japan's health care implementation is ridiculous, and would fail most places. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 16 2009 23:56 TanGeng wrote: People are definitely willing to pay a premium of added safety provided they can quantify the risks. Investors, heads of households, merchants, etc all prefer lower risk propositions. Humans are generally like this. The problem with health insurance is not people unwilling to pay for risk, but rather non-uniform risk crammed into uniform risk business model. The presence of the uninsured is because some people figure that they are over paying for their own risk profile, while other people are severely underpaying. They're willing to pay once there's media attention drawn to the matter. Seatbelts, air bags, etc. are evidence of this. Their introduction and acceptance was a very long process. Very generally, convenience > safety > liberty. | ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
That said, I know 0 about the specifics of the Japanese system other than it is relatively more privatized than many other developed nations HC systems. Also, aren't Japanese people the healthiest people in the world or something (although that could easily be due to other factors)? | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I think macro comparisons usually general statistics like life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. are extremely flawed and useless in any rigorous sense. You really need micro examinations of each country/system with solid quantitative and qualitative data, and so far I've yet to see a good one on any system. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10716 Posts
Public-Healthcare-Systems tend to be cheaper and more more effective than the US *thing*. So, is there any reasonable (!, no SOCIALISM!!! BULLSHIT) argument to be against it? | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
On July 17 2009 17:35 Velr wrote: Simple question: Public-Healthcare-Systems tend to be cheaper and more more effective than the US *thing*. So, is there any reasonable (!, no SOCIALISM!!! BULLSHIT) argument to be against it? I think most people agree that the "US thing" is an absolute mess. The primary debate is to shift it now more towards a system managed and run by the government, or a system with a truer free market mechanism (read: not oligopolistic). | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
Source As for the elasticity of demand of health care, this article indicates that the academic consensus is that health care is relatively inelastic. I didn't look closely at the source material, but a lot of the material Rand puts out seems to be peer reviewed. But also note that the study was targetted at looking elasticity of demand by primarily military personnel, which may understandably be more inelastic than in the general population. Either way though, I personally think that the demand for health care is more inelastic than I would like. A substantial portion of this inelasticity though is because of pure ignorance by the average american. Some other people have pointed out the ER problem, but I think that is merely a symptom of the larger issue of consumers not being aware of alternatives. A number of Americans take the mentality of, "if I think I have a problem, I should go to the doctor." This unnecessarily burdens the health care system because a lot of symptoms the patients experience are trivial and don't even need diagnosis by a doctor. The solution to this may be more investment in preventive care so that patients are actually aware of not only general well being, but alternatives to going to the ER every time they feel muscle pain. Yes, government run preventive care programs will be market inefficient, but in my books, the "social equality" provided and the reduction of demand inelasticity may be worth the investment. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 17 2009 12:26 triangle wrote: ????? 1. I said, "just some comments". I wasn't writing any full rebuttal, I was nitpicking. 2. + Show Spoiler + The alternative to this system where the US pays for the rest of the world's health care is a system where, like the EU countries, the US government negotiates in bulk against the insurance/biotech/pharmaceutical companies. But that would dry up all their potential profits and you would be looking at a virtual stagnation of private industry medical advancement...which would mean that the US government would have to also pick up the tab for all medical research. Yes... Like in Japan (Warning: video) where they have heavy regulation of their health care to force costs down. How do the companies adapt and avoid? They find ways to make their equipment more effecient and cost-effective. Guess what? Even with heavy regulation, providers of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals are still profitable. They're just not obscenely profitable. Fun fact: Japan has been stagnating for 20 years. Maybe there's a reason for it? everything else has been addressed in other posts. When I responded to: and Extensive evidence there. This is what annoyed me. I have the right to say whatever I damn please within site rules, just as you have the right to ignore me. and regarding While it's true that the US has a higher Gini coefficient than most countries, that does not necessarily point to regional differences in income. Unfortunately, I can't find French data on this Regardless, I was more objecting to the notion a lot of Americans have, that other nations are homogeneous when they aren't at all. 3. This is what annoyed me. I have the right to say whatever I damn please within site rules, just as you have the right to ignore me. sorry I was slightly drunk at the time and completely misinterpreted your post. Everything you say here is true. But as far as I can see, there aren't any studies involving the two different points as it is. If somebody can rebut me by evidence, that would please me. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On July 17 2009 17:49 gchan wrote: I think most people agree that the "US thing" is an absolute mess. The primary debate is to shift it now more towards a system managed and run by the government, or a system with a truer free market mechanism (read: not oligopolistic). Won't free market always turn oligopolistic and eventually monopolistic? Despite being a "free market," to sustain efficiency, it'll still need to be managed by the gov't. =/ Although, I'm guessing that's included in you're truer free market scenario? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 17 2009 22:39 ghrur wrote: Won't free market always turn oligopolistic and eventually monopolistic? Despite being a "free market," to sustain efficiency, it'll still need to be managed by the gov't. =/ Although, I'm guessing that's included in you're truer free market scenario? no, it doesn't? The only way oligopolistic and monopolistic organizations come about is due to government regulations that allow larger organizations to crush smaller ones, thereby negating smaller organizations advantages (i.e. less bureaucracy) and allowing for a few large corporations to seize control. If government regulations were cut back, smaller organizations be on equal footing in different ways. Free-Market, non Oligopolic, idea: Strengths of Big Businesses: Lots of Capital Big Brand Name Lots of Marketing Power Lots of Products for shipment everywhere Strengths of Small Businesses: Very good quality Small bureaucratic costs More favorable for novel ideas and inventions Independent of external pressures (stockholders, et. al) | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 17 2009 17:35 Velr wrote: Simple question: Public-Healthcare-Systems tend to be cheaper and more more effective than the US *thing*. So, is there any reasonable (!, no SOCIALISM!!! BULLSHIT) argument to be against it? I don't think anyone other than Aegrean would disagree with that, in this thread anyhow. Finally getting the time to go through the replies from the last two pages, I pretty much take a position that Caller took, now to trim through that. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On July 17 2009 22:53 Ecael wrote: I don't think anyone other than Aegrean would disagree with that, in this thread anyhow. There is an argument to be against it because a far more better solution lies in the opposite direction. By implementing a public system, it will become far more difficult to implement the other, much better alternative. | ||
|
Ecael
United States6703 Posts
On July 17 2009 22:57 Caller wrote: There is an argument to be against it because a far more better solution lies in the opposite direction. By implementing a public system, it will become far more difficult to implement the other, much better alternative. Well, from how I look at it, either the government or a private solution is better than the current system. As it is panning out, the private solution is simply not gathering the kind of traction that it needs. There would be a loss of opportunity cost, probably, but at least we will be facing a gain from the current position. Or 'ideally', a free-market system is preferable. But under the constraints we face and the direction things are moving, a government approach is much more likely to occur. I can live with it, I just don't think it is that great of an idea. If we want to make a nitpick and suggest that Velr is wrong in not including a proper free market solution as more effective, then sure, that's fine too. I'd like to chirp in a bit more on Caller's post two pages ago. Syntax wrote You do realise that there's a world outside of the US? A world with universities, many of which are funded primarily through government. What do you think they do? And seriously, do you honestly think that research conducted by universities is driven by the motive for profit? Even if it were made impossible for them to profit on such discoveries, you think their research would dry up? Caller brought up the lack of major discoveries other than LHC, I don't quite agree with that. European academic institutions turn out fine results, just not as high profiled. While I don't think their research activities would dry up upon the ability to profit off them being removed (ignoring the question of how you can do that, Academic institutions win simply by having a greater name value), I don't think that is the way one go about encouraging research either. What do I think government funded universities do? I think they try to stay out of a deficit and build up as much name value as they can. The latter will keep them out of the red, and the former is necessary. Academic institutions have largely been nice enough up until this point to not openly push their position, but even if just in America, we see hints of things changing. If you would like, I can bring up how school choosing work in China and Japan (that thread about teaching in Korea should more than tell us about their default position) and we can further examine whether schools have an incentive to push research. Strawman. It doesn't have to be perfect to be a massive improvement. Never said it wouldn't be, but what can we do that's worse than the current system? Congratulations on showing that you have no idea what a scientific theory is. The discoveries of both Jenner and Fleming had very real and very tangible direct applications, the results of which you still enjoy today. So application based means that things won't have tangible direct applications? Well, that's something. If I only knew what issue is at hand here, I'd respond, but honestly we seem to be saying the same thing. Jenner's work is a kicker to something greater, that doesn't mean the original discovery itself is much more tham empiricism. Okay, it's clear that you've never participated in real university research so please refrain from talking about it like you actually have an informed opinion. Plenty of university research is devoted to applications. What we don't see are university manufacturing the applications but that's simply because they're not set up to run the production facilities. Private companies step in to actually produce the end product but the vast majority of the research is covered by the universities. This is because private companies will tend to direct their research towards targets that are sure to yield profitable products. In a lot of cases, you will see the university produce the proof-of-concept and then private company leap on the opportunity after that since the product is already known to work. Research into areas which are far more murky, particularly those with very little chance for success (which is most research, since most of it tends to end with failure) does not encourage much investment since the possibility for profit is extremely small. We see this in practice with the corporations since they spend far more on marketing than they do on R&D. Given this information, do you seriously think R&D is such a top priority for them? If Academia drew support for a particular project from a private company, what does that make the research? We can't help but find that Private corporations will focus on either low risk or particularly high return research. Now, I suppose, the biggest question would be where the proof of concept falls as far as the terms argued go, in fact, I think this whole part might well be nothing more than a clash of definitions. About Marketing vs R&D, why not take a look at other industries and check out their R&D? I never said that R&D is a top priority for them either, but what does that matter. Without the marketing, things simply don't sell, it is a problem faced by every industry. Will you have the government step in on that as well? The science part + diagram Now empiricism isn't science, doctors are witch doctors waving a stick at you. I suppose I could've worded it better, "this is science, this is not theoretical knowledge that we use to develop the field, this is based on applications", would that make you happier? How does bringing in the scientific theory even matter here. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On July 17 2009 17:35 Velr wrote: Simple question: Public-Healthcare-Systems tend to be cheaper and more more effective than the US *thing*. So, is there any reasonable (!, no SOCIALISM!!! BULLSHIT) argument to be against it? I would disagree that Public-healthcare-systems would be cheaper AND more effective than the US *thing*. Part of what makes US care so expensive is accessibility amenities. No long lines, parking access, transportation services, etc. that are ancillary to core medical care, but important nonetheless. In the US, the public system tends to leech off of the private system in that Medicare and Medicaid schedules grossly understate the actual value of the care provided. I've had some doctors say that they're being paid less than 50 cents on the dollar for the care they provide. The doctors either have to work out of altruism or they can shift the cost into the private system or they can stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients. Vis-a-vis the private system, Medicare and Medicaid has historically been better at controlling cost, but it doesn't appear to be sustainable. And if the US applies the Medicare and Medicaid system of controlling costs across the entire market, we might see wholesale revolts by medical care professionals. An uniform pricing model would also remove all incentive for providing any accessibility amenities. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10513 Posts
Some of his rant in text form Americans have a better survival rate for 13 of the 16 most common cancers than Europe. Take prostate cancer: 91.9 percent of men live through it, versus 73.7 percent in France and just 51.1 percent in Britain. Or that every year Britain's National Health Service cancels about 100,000 operations. Think of it this way: When you're counting on a procedure that means life or death, you don't want to have some bureaucratic bonehead who's only counting dollars and cents. And you certainly don't want to be standing in a long line, like the one million Brits currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital and another 200,000 just hoping to get on a waiting list. We get annoyed when it takes 45 minutes to see the doctor — at least we get to see one! And are we really going to listen to and follow in the footsteps of Europe, the place that when it gets a little hotter than usual — like it did in August of 2003 — they have 37,000 people die? Statistics show it's even worse in Canada, where 800,000 of their 33 million citizens are on waiting lists for more than 18 weeks — which is twice as long as doctors consider "clinically reasonable." Put it in perspective. That's like having every single person in Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle — over 7 million Americans — who would be on waiting lists. Why is this happening in Canada? Simple: doctor shortages. Apparently Canadian medical school graduates don't want to make 42 percent of what ours do, so they just work in America. What else is coming to America? How about tens of thousands of patients a year, including Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. If that socialized medicine is so good then why did he have his 2006 heart surgery at America's Cleveland Clinic, instead of staying at home? Before we trash our current system and in New York state heap nearly a 60 percent tax on the "rich" to pay for health care, shouldn't we ask ourselves who's going to be left to innovate? | ||
|
Starparty
Sweden1963 Posts
On July 14 2009 07:28 Aegraen wrote: Very. Anyways, this isn't the topic for such a discussion. Then why did you even answer it with such a ridiculously subjective answer. | ||
| ||
StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
