|
On July 15 2009 01:43 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 01:37 BisuBoi wrote:
God, hearing Republican talking points gives me a headache. The problem with them isn't even the position, it's that they're literally just stock arguments that nobody would come up with on their own. They get it by memorizing the talking points they get from their opinion leaders, then parroting it every chance they get.
Yeah, it MUST be government impediment that's the root of all evil. In fact, people would be better off with no government. Anarchy is the best form of gov't because then the free market would take care of everything and life would be perfect... The invisible hand. That should be our President.
I think it's pretty ridiculous that anyone would think a medical system without government regulation and oversight would be anything worth participating in. Even crazier is the notion that government paying for the patients would increase healthcare costs. Health care costs are high because of insurance for practitioners and because of the ridiculous amount of paperwork needed to validate claims with insurance companies. Most all of the problems in the health care industry are caused by the insurance industry. You could make the argument that insurance is high because of how the legal system handles malpractice cases but it's retarded to say programs that hardly everyone in the US even participates in are the reason the entire health care system is broken. That's just it, the healthcare system isn't broken. The overwhelming majority are happy with their healthcare. You don't tear down an institution and replace it when it's working and certainly not in the way that Congress intends to do so. Geeze, have you even read Tom Daschle's book? Anyways, I don't feel like arguing anymore, I'm going to watch some Crusoe. I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc. Man that VA is just so great.
Typical. If I don't agree with you, I must be for universal health care. I'm neither demo nor repub, but I sure as hell am not repub because the one characteristic about repubs that I can't stand is that they usually think in very simplistic us or them mentalities. Life doesn't consist of this or that outcomes you know.
And who the heck are you talking to when you say the overwhelming majority are happy? Most of the people I know take it like they do taxes. A miserable expense that must be paid but they sure as hell would lower it if they could.
|
The MSG stuff is mostly a conspiracy. There have been many attempts to proof that it's bad to eat but those have mostly been totally unsuccessful. There's only stuff saying it can theoretically destroy neural cells, it's bad for mice and the very long term daily intensive usage that's uncertain. The whole MSG thing is based on anecdotal evidence turned into internet-hoax together with some scientists actively trying to prove it's bad. Even people that claimed to have MSG-intolerance didn't show any response to MSG in double-blinded tests.
It's really a minor issue when people consciously eat stuff that's much more unhealthy with much more certainty while there is no dispute.
In the end a lot of stuff is going to be poisonous or Carcinogenic when the concentration and dosage is high enough..
Also, all those things aren't different labelings of MSG. It's just that MSG is in a lot of stuff. And since its the molecule responsible for umami when you are going to have some substance to increase taste, it does so because it's high on MSG.
You aren't going to find food without MSG. Sure, non-processed food, without added sugar, fat, flavors and all the other stuff they always put into that stuff because otherwise Americans/people won't buy it, is always bad.
Now one can discuss about banning or taxing unhealthy food. Or informing them better. But in the end that's just the government telling the people how to live.
Maybe the government can restrict how corporations currently dictate to people how they should live.
|
On July 15 2009 01:43 Aegraen wrote:
I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc.
Right, because insurance companies don't do this.
|
I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc.
Isn't this an argument in favour of market run health care since that is the only system where you always get this 'advantage'? I mean, in Europe this is one of the arguments used against publicly funded universal health care.
|
On July 15 2009 03:59 Diomedes wrote:Show nested quote +I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc. Isn't this an argument in favour of market run health care since that is the only system where you always get this 'advantage'? I mean, in Europe this is one of the arguments used against publicly funded universal health care.
Except that government run programs are always more inefficient than privately run ones. It's a trade off between equility/fairness and efficiency.
|
On July 15 2009 03:40 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 01:43 Aegraen wrote:
I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc. Right, because insurance companies don't do this.
QFT
And let's not even begin about capitation plans.
|
Anyone who thinks the healthcare system in America isn't broken is incredibly naive and ignorant. (or maybe just stupid?)
Also, I've received "socialized healthcare" from England, Canada and Italy.. yes healthcare is free in these countries even to tourists and it was just as good if not better than any healthcare i've ever received here. I have family who live in Italy, friends in England, everyone i've spoken to are perfectly happy with the healthcare they receive. As much as the republicans and big insurance companies would like to make you believe that socialized medicine doesn't work, it actually works perfectly fine. I mean the republicans would have you believe that socialized medicine means people will be stuck in long lines, dying, waiting to receive healthcare but that's so far from reality. The sad part is people actually belive this silly propoganda, it's all scare tactics in order to protect the big profits of the private insurance companies. God all you have to do is wake up to reality in order to see this, it's obvious people are NOT dropping dead everywhere in Europe & Canada due to poor healthcare. You very rarely hear about people protesting the healthcare system in these countries, or trying to overhaul it because it's broken (and I KNOW becuse i've been and lived in these countires, I don't just READ or HEAR about this shit from Rush Limbaugh and fox news). I'm really sick of this issue, I'm sorry but healthcare is a right not a privelage... I understand why people who are somehow affiliated with the private insurance companies would oppose this, but if you have no affiliation to the insurance companies yet you still oppose universal healthcare, then I'm sorry but your a complete fucking moron with no grip on reality..
|
United States44077 Posts
On July 15 2009 04:22 stk01001 wrote:
Anyone who thinks the healthcare system in America isn't broken is incredibly naive and ignorant. (or maybe just stupid?)
Also, I've received "socialized healthcare" from England, Canada and Italy.. yes healthcare is free in these countries even to tourists and it was just as good if not better than any healthcare i've ever received here. I have family who live in Italy, friends in England, everyone i've spoken to are perfectly happy with the healthcare they receive. As much as the republicans and big insurance companies would like to make you believe that socialized medicine doesn't work, it actually works perfectly fine. I mean the republicans would have you believe that socialized medicine means people will be stuck in long lines, dying, waiting to receive healthcare but that's so far from reality. The sad part is people actually belive this silly propoganda, it's all scare tactics in order to protect the big profits of the private insurance companies. God all you have to do is wake up to reality in order to see this, it's obvious people are NOT dropping dead everywhere in Europe & Canada due to poor healthcare. You never hear about people protesting the healthcare system in these countries, or trying to overhaul it because it's broken (and I KNOW becuse i've been and lived in these countires, I don't just READ or HEAR about this shit from Rush Limbaugh and fox news). I'm really sick of this issue, I'm sorry but healthcare is a right not a privelage... I understand why people who are somehow affiliated with the private insurance companies would oppose this, but if you have no affiliation to the insurance companies yet you still oppose universal healthcare, then I'm sorry but your a complete fucking moron with no grip on reality..
The rich have reasons to oppose it too. Higher rates of taxation on them for free healthcare they won't even use because if you pay enough private will be better so they pay twice. But yeah, it works well.
|
|
|
On July 15 2009 04:01 gchan wrote:
Except that government run programs are always more inefficient than privately run ones. It's a trade off between equility/fairness and efficiency.
No they aren't. I wouldn't disagree if you said that "Except that a perfect government run program is always less efficient than a perfect private one."
US system is the most expensive in the world with like 15% of GDP compared to 11% of GDP for like Germany or something.
Also, US is no.72 in terms of performance. It has terrible quality and the highest cost. Dominica, Colombia, Chile, Costa Rica, etc are all better. And infancy mortality in the US is already close to third world level for minorities. It won't take much more and it's as bad as Gaza Strip.
Facts are that the US corporate health system is much worse than some of the worst western government run health care systems.
And with all the resources and potential the US has they should have an easy time to be in the top 3.
|
I don't know, the US suffers from one particular problem that we don't see in European countries in terms of its size. A more suitable comparison would probably be China or Russia, considering they are some of the few countries that can really match US in terms of both population and size. However, those tow differ from the US in too many ways for us to form a proper comparison either. I personally don't think that even with all the resources and potential that the US dumps at the field we should be in the top 3, the culture that has built up until this point as a result of the current system and the legal entanglement that comes with it is going to be difficult to fix. It will take decades before anything shows proper outside of drastic changes on the system.
In short though, "Facts are that the US corporate health system is much worse than some of the worst western government run health care systems.", even if comparisons between the two are really lacking in many ways.
|
On July 15 2009 04:28 citi.zen wrote:
The real problem are demographics & costs.
This. European countries don't have the vast expanses of the Midwest. Doctors don't want to go to the Midwest because there is no money to be made, the weather is terrible, and there is no health care support. Sure, Europe has areas that are more rural than others, but nowhere near the degree it is in the US. There are many areas in the Midwest where, literally, the closest doctor is hours of drive away. If you want to see a specialist, you have to go the only city in the state--which is 5+ hours away. It's not cost effective to provide coverage to all these areas.
For costs, Europeans always tout that it's a feasible model, etc etc etc. Problem is we are picking up YOUR tab of the health costs. Your governments negotiate in bulk with insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, biotech companies to get below market rates which make it affordable over there. Where do you think these companies make up the lost revenue from EU markets? We pay for it. It's one of the primary reasons why our coverage is so much more expensive than you. If you don't believe me, take a look at the financials of the largest transnational pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies in the world. They all have a disclosure separating out US/international revenues and costs, and the US pays 3-10 times more than the rest of the world combined. This is particularly disturbing considering that almost all the technology is produced in the US and Singapore, which should mean we pay less than everybody else (logistically).
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. If you think this is a good idea, look at history in the last 30 years. Governmental research is useful as a theoretical backbone (as in first developing the idea for a technology), but by and large, it's the private industry that makes the theoritical technology useful/applicable. And this is excluding the fact that with reduced US profits, the non-developed countries would suffer by a lack of investment from these transnational corporations.
People need to understand that cheaper health care, as in health care below private market rate, is NOT free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. What you save, somebody else pays. And honestly, I have no problems with a privatized US system that will pay for development of new technology and pays for health care for the rest of the world. Americans will lose out, but everybody else would benefit.
|
Its such an irony, eventually everyone will have free healthcare and will be breaking patents while you guys drown in your own health system and do all the research for us =D
|
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. If you think this is a good idea, look at history in the last 30 years. Governmental research is useful as a theoretical backbone (as in first developing the idea for a technology), but by and large, it's the private industry that makes the theoritical technology useful/applicable. And this is excluding the fact that with reduced US profits, the non-developed countries would suffer by a lack of investment from these transnational corporations.
People need to understand that cheaper health care, as in health care below private market rate, is NOT free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. What you save, somebody else pays. And honestly, I have no problems with a privatized US system that will pay for development of new technology and pays for health care for the rest of the world. Americans will lose out, but everybody else would benefit. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I suggest you go look at the financial reports from a few large pharma companies. They aren't going belly-up anytime soon.
|
Yeah our health system is absolutely awful. Anyone who thinks it doesnt need to be touched is not very bright imho. Just look at the numbers, we are supposed to be a cutting edge country, not one lagging behind the rest.
|
United States44077 Posts
On July 15 2009 04:50 gchan wrote:
For costs, Europeans always tout that it's a feasible model, etc etc etc. Problem is we are picking up YOUR tab of the health costs. Your governments negotiate in bulk with insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, biotech companies to get below market rates which make it affordable over there. Where do you think these companies make up the lost revenue from EU markets? We pay for it.
This is very illogical.
Firstly, if the EU market offered so little they were making a loss they'd not sell to them. They must make a profit off selling or they wouldn't choose to do it.
Secondly, companies don't say "we're gonna make X dollars this year so if we can't sell our product expensively in one place we have to sell it for more or just not sell it at all in the other place". That'd be really fucking stupid. You spend more on the same products because you're buying as an individual whereas we're buying wholesale, if you all offered the same prices we pay and refused to go any higher they'd still accept it because at the end of the day the company wants to make a profit. But as an individual there is no leverage. If an individual offered a low price that still gave the company a profit they'd refuse him so he'd just not get the product to set an example to the rest because it's better to lose one customer than have all of the other customers demand the cheaper price. That's your problem. You're letting cartels fuck you up the ass and we're not and then you're whining about how that's a problem with our system.
Basically you've just made another argument for why public is better. Cheaper treatments because of buying wholesale. Well done.
|
Kwark, economy of scale, why do you think dumping exists. It is theoretically possible for you to accomplish economy of scale and sell at a loss in one area and still be profitable overall due to high revenue from one segment of the market. I am not saying that what the pharma companies are doing fall under dumping, but his argument is perfectly fine. As for the individual vs wholesale argument, um, huh? US healthcare system doesn't quite follow the "individual", in fact, those are the ones without insurance at all. The employer based solution doesn't give a lot of leverage, but certainly not what you are suggesting. Bargaining collectively as a government only potentially increases leverage, personally, I think it just gives additional baggage given the strength of lobbying here. The companies don't have to not sell, they can simply cut their losses and drop on R&D, which is more of what gchan is suggesting.
|
On July 15 2009 04:01 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 03:59 Diomedes wrote:I'm sure you'll enjoy the central planning and dileanation of healthcare and who gets what, who doesn't, what procedures your doctor can perform, how much he'll get paid, etc. Isn't this an argument in favour of market run health care since that is the only system where you always get this 'advantage'? I mean, in Europe this is one of the arguments used against publicly funded universal health care. Except that government run programs are always more inefficient than privately run ones. It's a trade off between equility/fairness and efficiency.
...
which is why the private companies are complaining because the government is going to be able to offer cheaper healthcare than they can
On July 15 2009 04:50 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2009 04:28 citi.zen wrote:
The real problem are demographics & costs. This. European countries don't have the vast expanses of the Midwest. Doctors don't want to go to the Midwest because there is no money to be made, the weather is terrible, and there is no health care support. Sure, Europe has areas that are more rural than others, but nowhere near the degree it is in the US. There are many areas in the Midwest where, literally, the closest doctor is hours of drive away. If you want to see a specialist, you have to go the only city in the state--which is 5+ hours away. It's not cost effective to provide coverage to all these areas.
....
And Canada doesnt have this problem.
|
is the op one of those naive ron paul idiots
|
lol at people saying government run programs are always more inefficient, occasioanlly that is true. but idiots jesus christ, i want to pay a homeless man to shit on you while you sleep. Private ones are also cold and BUISNESS minded, private companies do as little as possible, they often fucking suck balls.
but hey on paper, for the government, it can look GREAT!
idiots i want to cut you ya down with a katana
jesus christ i hate yall
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
