EPTI hope so. Moltke's been getting less impressive recently.
I get the feeling that you and I broadly believe the same thing Savio, with a few basic assumptions differing.
Healthcare Reform in the US - Page 23
| Forum Index > General Forum |
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
I hope so. Moltke's been getting less impressive recently. I get the feeling that you and I broadly believe the same thing Savio, with a few basic assumptions differing. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote: If you put the constitution above human rights you are crazy. "Human rights" need to be well defined and enforced, which is precisely what the constitution tried to do. Read about it here. People should be able to afford medical care. Prices have inflated to a completely unreasonable level. Again, all sounds good at a high level, but the devil's in the details. You say "people should afford medical care". Ok, but how much of it? Who pays the bill? Who is NOT getting that doctor that same day? Who decides who is worth saving and when? You cannot conjure things out of thin air just because you declare something to be a "human right". | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
Ultimately it is a governing body and the vote of the people that decide how those issues are dealt with and keep those decisions "fair". | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:40 ShaperofDreams wrote: It is the governments job to intervene when something in society is unreasonable and inefficient (aka, govern) /facepalm | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 19 2009 13:57 ShaperofDreams wrote: edit: so I'm about done with this thread I don't have time to sit here arguing with someone who I know won't change. lol, then you shouldn't be debating on TL at all. We are not here to change anyone. We are here cause we love a good fight. | ||
|
ShaperofDreams
Canada2492 Posts
On August 19 2009 14:25 Savio wrote: lol, then you shouldn't be debating on TL at all. We are not here to change anyone. We are here cause we love a good fight. My sig is funny when read aloud right after reading yours  P | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 19 2009 14:12 Kwark wrote: I hope so. Moltke's been getting less impressive recently. I get the feeling that you and I broadly believe the same thing Savio, with a few basic assumptions differing. agreed. Mainly I think the best systems are (in order): 1. A REAL free-market, individual-focused insurance system 2. Single payer gov't program 3. The mess we have now and you believe: 1. Single payer gov't program (with a private sector for rich, willing people since there is no way to stop the rich from getting better x than the poor anyway) 2. The free market system 3. The mess we have now Either way, we're all for reform. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Why should it be? It's the logical conclusion of the first part. People who dislike simplistic abstraction generally demand either more complex modelling or experience. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
On August 19 2009 14:19 ShaperofDreams wrote: Those questions have been and are answered in many successful examples of Healthcare. As I mentioned before, if I need a doctor for anything serious, I will stay in the US. Selfish and very honest assessment, not some hypothetical or abstract statistic. As a young person, I also place very high value on R&D and would hate to see the pace of innovation slow down. The current system can be improved a lot, but it also has many good parts to it, which I wouldn't want to wreck. Also, many of our current problems (distortionary tax laws which make it 2x as expensive to buy health care on your own vs. through employer, for example), bad state regulation (no inter-state competition allowed in many states, etc.), long wait times for new drugs to be approved (a huge problem if you are sick, need those drugs but the FDA won't let you have them), and much of the cost of the current system (the tort system, legislated things which must be / cannot be done in insurance markets) are the result of poor government decisions, either as a result of incompetence, corruption, or interest group pressures. It seems odd to argue in favor of turning over the entire system to this bureaucracy. To me anyway, as someone who lives & pays taxes here. Ultimately it is a governing body and the vote of the people that decide how those issues are dealt with and keep those decisions "fair". The details of HOW "the people" reach "decisions" are very important. This goes back to our previous comment about the constitution. You first need the rules of interaction in place, that is is far from a meaningless / dated document. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On August 19 2009 14:13 citi.zen wrote: "Human rights" need to be well defined and enforced, which is precisely what the constitution tried to do. Read about it here. Not all rights "need" to be well defined. Enumerating every right retained by the people is simply not possible and the ninth amendment can be seen as an admission of this. | ||
|
citi.zen
2509 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On August 20 2009 01:30 citi.zen wrote: Really cool "live" chart with the US population. Note in the 2nd graph how much more a person over 65 spends on health care too. We need to focus sharply on costs, rather than get distracted by abstract and over-idealistic plans. I wonder if all our spending on seniors over 65 has anything to do with Medicare? | ||
|
0cz3c
United States564 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
I wonder if all our spending on seniors over 65 has anything to do with Medicare? Probably has more to do with the fact that old people need more medical services. Derp.And to satisfy Moltke's desire for first hand ancedotes, my local paper just printed a letter to the editor on the subject: "In response to "Doctors call for competition" and many other articles in Canadian and American newspapers crticizing our current health-care system, I would like to share an experience I had this week. I woke up in the middle of the night on Monday wish a fever, extreme nausea, and dizziness, and decided to go to the Jewish General Hospital after three hours straight of vomiting. Despite the busyness of the emergency room, I was treated quickly and humanely, and during my ordeal experienced only care and concern for my well-being. In fact, the staff didn't want me to leave until I had been well hydrated and felt good enough to go. I'd like to thank the staff of the emergency ward for their kindness and professionalism when I needed them. Our system needs more support, but it works. Jeffery Katz Notre Dame de Grace" | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Either way, how do you prevent billion dollar companies from lobbying their way into government? You don't. Pharma companies are one of the biggest reasons that there has been so little movement in the states on the issue for such a long time. Now that manufacturing (especially auto) is starting to realize how much added costs they're shouldering with the current insurance system, the political will to bring this front and center has emerged again. People will harp on about liberty and freedom all they want, but at the end of the day most policy shifts like this are about big players and their Benjamins, and this shift is no different. Chomsky writes and discusses this issue a lot, feel free to look up his take on the issue. Its a bit radical in its presentation, but some of his core points are near undisputable. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 21 2009 05:08 D10 wrote: Either way, how do you prevent billion dollar companies from lobbying their way into government? Theyr interests all promote inneficiency and lead you to be right when arguing that govt cant work, because it isnt even trying to. The best solution is to get rid of the government or at least make it incapable of doing so in most economic realms. Second to that, the solution is to make a monarchy or adopt a political system that is rather immune to protectionist interests. Singapore is a good example-it is essentially an oligarchy that cares only about making sure that Singapore is stable and that they remain in power. They have very little input on economic affairs-a laissez fairesque system-and voila, Singapore is one of the strongest economic powers in the world. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
The singapore model works because they have effective government interaction with the economy, not ZERO government interaction with the economy. They interact with the private sector by BEING 60% of it. The point about democracy falling short in this area, by contrast, is accurate, though; too many bungled bills and lobbying to keep what should be a lean system running properly. The evolutionary method of improvement is keeping government working properly. The revolutionary method is changing government forms. I quite prefer the first because of the lack of civil wars and such. In singapore the ruling party also has pseudo control of pretty much all the labour in the country, and keeps wages for their citizens down. The gini coefficient in singapore is also higher than pretty much all of the western world, and its actually rising at a fairly steady rate. They also have heavy tariffs on companies that use cheaper foreign labour. I'm not exactly sure Singapore matches up with the philosophical bearing you've had in other threads, but I could be wrong. Its model somewhat matches up with the chomsky assertion that socialist/capitalist hybrids like the USSR as it was coming to an end were far faster growing than the most capitalist societies of the day. He likened the cold war to a war to keep the economic benefits of socialism hidden in a dark box, in the interests of those who benefitted from it out west. I wouldn't go quite that far, but the effectiveness of state level protectionism and investments in manufacturing, R&D, education and increasing production in high growth markets seems to have paid off. Edit: The more I look at the singapore model's relevance to the US health care system, the more a private government owned option operating on an even tax field looks like the best solution. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On August 21 2009 11:28 L wrote: You recognize the Singapore's government owns 60% worth of their GDP producing industries, right? You recognize that among other things, Singapore's competitive advantages stem from forward looking government expenditures in education and aggressive development in high growth fields. Is this a better model than bailing out industries which are likely to fail? Yes. The singapore model works because they have effective government interaction with the economy, not ZERO government interaction with the economy. They interact with the private sector by BEING 60% of it. The point about democracy falling short in this area, by contrast, is accurate, though; too many bungled bills and lobbying to keep what should be a lean system running properly. The evolutionary method of improvement is keeping government working properly. The revolutionary method is changing government forms. I quite prefer the first because of the lack of civil wars and such. In singapore the ruling party also has pseudo control of pretty much all the labour in the country, and keeps wages for their citizens down. The gini coefficient in singapore is also higher than pretty much all of the western world, and its actually rising at a fairly steady rate. They also have heavy tariffs on companies that use cheaper foreign labour. I'm not exactly sure Singapore matches up with the philosophical bearing you've had in other threads, but I could be wrong. Its model somewhat matches up with the chomsky assertion that socialist/capitalist hybrids like the USSR as it was coming to an end were far faster growing than the most capitalist societies of the day. He likened the cold war to a war to keep the economic benefits of socialism hidden in a dark box, in the interests of those who benefitted from it out west. I wouldn't go quite that far, but the effectiveness of state level protectionism and investments in manufacturing, R&D, education and increasing production in high growth markets seems to have paid off. Edit: The more I look at the singapore model's relevance to the US health care system, the more a private government owned option operating on an even tax field looks like the best solution. I didn't mean zero government interaction as in they didn't own it. I meant that there are no lobbying groups, per se, that actively seek to disefranchise smaller competitors at the expense of a greater good. And another thing about Singapore's government is that it essentially has a firm grip on power: thus, they look towards the long term, rather the short-term, which plagues Western democracies today. Politicians seek to do short term benefits at a long term expense in order to help themselves get reelected-whereas Singapore, on the other hand, does not have that problem. The reason I like Singapore is because it's not socialist per se-it's orientation is more along the lines of 1950's and 60's Taiwan-which was pseudo-fascism that led into free-market conditions (although with rather stringent civil rights), which I can see Singapore heading in the direction of as well. I like the economic model as an effective way to catch up to systems that have already been highly developed, although it sacrifices alternative methods of doing things as well as creativity and the arts, a course that other methods may preserve. For instance, the current Russian government has a fairly high amount of economic control in R&D. As a result of the Westernization and other adaptations, however, the Russians are abandoning some alternative pursuits that they had when East and West were separated-for instance, phage therapy, the Russian answer to antibiotics, was replaced with antibiotics primarily-which is disappointing, especially because the West is now looking into phage therapy as a novel method of curing disease. As a libertarian-monarchist, my goal is essentially something along what I think Singapore might end up being 50 or so years down the road, when economic control eventually becomes more private and not government-owned/zaibatsuesque. Right now it's still too fascist for me to consider it an ideal government, but the road it's proceeding along is better than the road that I feel Europe is going on. | ||
| ||
