Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 18:48:58


Post by: Frazzled


This is why many in the US do not favor a UK style plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?_r=1


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:09:37


Post by: reds8n


It is hard to see how the nation as a whole can remain competitive if in 15 years we are spending nearly a third of what we earn on health care, while other industrialized nations are spending far less but achieving health outcomes as good as, or better than, ours.


with a national health service akin to that of the UK.

Catron asked whether we really deserve a health care system in which “soulless bureaucrats arbitrarily put a dollar value on our lives.


. You already are living in a situation like that.

He estimated that those who had no health insurance received 20 percent less care and had a death rate 37 percent higher than those with health insurance. This difference held up even when those without health insurance were compared with those without automobile insurance, and with those on Medicaid — groups with whom they share some characteristics that might affect treatment. The lack of insurance seems to be what caused the greater number of deaths.


and then we get..

there is little evidence to suggest that extending health insurance to all Americans would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States. That doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t; we simply don’t know if it would.


hmmm.

last year the Gallup organization did ask Canadians and Brits, and people in many different countries, if they have confidence in “health care or medical systems” in their country. In Canada, 73 percent answered this question affirmatively. Coincidentally, an identical percentage of Britons gave the same answer. In the United States, despite spending much more, per person, on health care, the figure was only 56 percent.




I don't see how this article is supposed to argue against "socialist" docterin'.

It's entire premise is built upon some notion that americans won't stand by and let some random person asign a value to medication/similar... even though this is already what happens...? Prices currently being just magically assigned by love pixes and never ever set at a level to make a profit for their manufacturers.

Yes America, don't let a Govt. appointed bodt make informed decisions, let your access to healthcare be decided by the stockmarket and those trustworthy insurance brokers, that's clearly much fairer.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:11:26


Post by: Frazzled


No one denied my father any medicine when he had kidney cancer.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:15:41


Post by: reds8n


Not quite. Your father was free to pay for the meds.

Just like, in the Uk for example, you could still pay for that drug if you could afford it.

If the treatment for your Pa had cost.. oohh..... $4,000,000 would he have got the meds still... or, suddenly, would he have been "denied" it ?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:19:36


Post by: Frazzled


I can't answer an outlandish hypothetical but can say the stuff they tried was more than several salaries worth.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:25:14


Post by: reds8n


Yes. And, believe it or not, the treatment you'll get for *seriousillnessofyourchoice* on the NHS is also likely to be several salaries for the average person.

... and..?

So.... sometimes there are drugs that the NHS can't afford and you can't get with them.... and there's treatments that are too expensive or not covered by the current American healthcare system for a lot of people too. NO WAI !

I don't see how this is an argument.

If your Pa-- whom I'm assuming is better/not at risk aymore, best wishes to him whatever-- hadn't had a (work based ?) insurance coverage would he have still got the treatment ? Or would he *gasp* have been "denied" it then ?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:28:21


Post by: Frazzled


Medicare actually, which is being cut under current proposals to fund this plan.

I should be clear. I'm not saying the current system is great, but I am saying this is one of the things people are afraid of.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:34:55


Post by: reds8n


But that's what already happens now though ?

All it should mean-- if it works/ed anyway -- is that less people are "denied" access to certain drugs.

I'm not claiming our system is perfect, won't ever be, is ran by humans after all, and we're looking at long term issues like every other nation, especially to do with long term care for the elderly and costs for that and population %s and so forth.

I just find it astonishing that when someone even talks about looking into a different model than the current one, they are immediately shouted down as "socialists" or some such, rather than realists who are acknowledging a problem.

Besides, your drug companies are so wealthy and entrenched in DC they can keep this from happening for years !

EDIT : gotta go anyway, sorry.

..can we lose the extra G in the title please ?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:37:56


Post by: SilverMK2


Free healthcare for all where some treatments are rationed or inferior treatments are given instead is better than healthcare where unless you have the cash (or are plain lucky) you don't get treated.

I work for the NHS and whilst it is far from perfect, it is far better than nothing. The things that are currently wrong with the NHS could be solved simply by cutting out about 90% of its management.

Most of the clinical staff are fantastic, despite how they have to work.

It is a shame that clinical and admin staff alike are chained by upper levels of management and their will to work is sapped on a daily basis because of their actions (or generally inaction).

I would not feel comfortable living in America knowing that if my circumstances changed, I may not be able to be treated if I became ill.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:42:46


Post by: Frazzled



Free healthcare for all where some treatments are rationed or inferior treatments are given instead is better than healthcare where unless you have the cash (or are plain lucky) you don't get treated.



But thats not how it currently is in the US. If you're working full time legally you pretty much have insurance. If you're not you have medicaid.
Its interesting to note the intiial studies reflected several million people would LOSE coverage under the current proposals.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:43:21


Post by: drakedeming


“No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.



Guess I think it should be rationed


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:45:45


Post by: Redbeard


I think people are looking at this from the wrong side of the equation.

We tend to think, "healthcare is universally expensive, how can we afford it" and then expect either employers, insurance, or the government to foot the bill on our behalf.

The reforms that will go the furthers to correcting this are those that don't seek to figure out the second part of that statement, they're the ones that seek to address the first part.

Healthcare is expensive. Why? Where does this money go? It doesn't matter nearly as much where the money come from (taxes, corporations, your own pocket) if the amount that goes there can be controlled.

Most dollars spent on "healthcare" aren't spent on anything of the sort. Most dollars spent on healthcare go to line the pockets of insurance companies, lawyers, and pharmacutical conglomerates.

The article linked above indicates that some drugs cost $40,000/year. Holy crap, that's more than the average person makes in a year.

What reforms we need to see are those that make a town doctor able to practice medicine at a reasonable price again. Where the doc doesn't need to charge $1000/hour to be able to pay his insurance premiums.

Cap malpractice awards. It's called "practicing medicine" - you should know going in that the doctor's job isn't perfect, and that he's going to do his best to help you. When he makes a mistake, we should accept that he's human, rather than viewing it as a personal lottery.

Get insurance companies out of the drug industry. Drug companies are reporting "record profits" year after year. They're obviously price gouging, and they're able to do so because insurance companies foot the bill for most of the drugs. If insurance will pay for a drug that costs $3000/month, companies will charge $3000/month for it. If insurance companies stop agreeing to the outlandish prices for the drugs, the drug companies will have no choice but to lower the price to something people can afford (or not sell anything).

But the insurance companies don't care about that, because they pass the bill for this on to everyone else (just like the government would do) in the form of premiums, and so we all foot the bill for outrageous pharmaceutical greed.

I really don't think that getting the government involved paying the established medical prices will help at all. The problem in the medical industry isn't who should be paying, it's how much is being paid to satisfy the greed of relatively few.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:49:30


Post by: SilverMK2


Frazzled wrote:But thats not how it currently is in the US. If you're working full time legally you pretty much have insurance. If you're not you have medicaid.
Its interesting to note the intiial studies reflected several million people would LOSE coverage under the current proposals.


I don't know all that much about healthcare in the USA. I do know that a lot of companies include healthcare plans within their wage and benefits packets though. Would that be due to the relative expense of health cover in the USA do you think?

Although would you not agree that a lower wage which includes private health cover is already tantamount to paying increased taxes in order to fund... dun dun dah... public heath care? In addition to the portion of your taxed wage which goes to fund Medicaid (which I assume is state funded health care for those who cannot afford medical cover?).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:55:13


Post by: Frazzled


Healthcare plans are considered as a basic part of a full time employment package. If you're working a full time non contract job, you're going to get some sort of health insurance option.

A problem though is that not all options are created equal. People worry that any sort of public "solution" would create a poor care system or one similar to a poor health care plan.

An additional problem is that, and this is only referencing the US, most of our government entities absolutely suck at everything and cost gobs to do it. It may be UK countries have better government entities and can therefore put more faith in that. Ours are just this side of banana republic (ok sometimes straight banana republic).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:58:18


Post by: SilverMK2


Redbeard wrote:Costs of medications


Although drug companies etc make a lot of profit, they also have huge expendatures (excluding legal costs). Only a tiny fraction of their products will make it through to market, for every drug which they sell, there will be 100 or even 1000 others which have failed at some point in their development cycle.

In the medical devices field, the individual components may not cost much, but because so few (relatively) are required, the price that must be charged in order to keep a company afloat is often massive. For example, custom made footwear for people with diabetes and who are at risk of amputation can cost upwards of £500, simply because there are (relatively) so few orders for such specification shoes that the company must charge such high prices in order to keep going.

Whilst drugs companies make huge profits (and admittedly sink lots of that into lawers and management pay cheques), a lot of what they make goes back into creating new products.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:58:40


Post by: drakedeming


Frazzled wrote:
A problem though is that not all options are created equal. People worry that any sort of public "solution" would create a poor care system or one similar to a poor health care plan.


Don't we already have a poor health care system?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 19:59:49


Post by: Frazzled


Thats highly debatable.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:01:12


Post by: drakedeming


46.6 uninsured Americans is a pretty good sign


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:04:31


Post by: Mick A


I think you need to compare the cost of medicines between countries. For example how much would a common item like an inhaler for someone with asthma cost in the states? Over here in the Uk you get them in a prescription for just over £7.
Mind you the NHS here is turning more towards the US style and being run like a business. I have been working in the NHS as a care worker for adults with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour for eight years now but the part of the Trust I work for has made a 'business' decision to close the seven homes in it. There supposed reason is that the NHS cant supply the proper care needed for the 20+ residents even though they have all shown a great in improvement in their quality of life and behaviours over the last few years. What it really comes down to is they are trying to save money so they are auctioning the residents off to the lowest bidder...
The stupid thing is they still have to find work in the NHS for the 90+ staff though.
Mick


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:06:22


Post by: drakedeming


It would cost all types of different amounts depending on the insurer and lack of insurance.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:06:56


Post by: Frazzled


Thats a stat figure.

Really look at it and you're talking about 8mm - 12mm. Current plans are relfecting the impact of the loss of several mm who are currently insured as a result of the plan.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:07:27


Post by: Mick A


Makes you wonder what the actual cost of the inhaler is...
Mick


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:08:37


Post by: drakedeming


Regardless we still have people in our country with no insurance.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:09:56


Post by: SilverMK2


Although I think America has a relatively good idea when it comes to running its hospitals to make sure they keep the costs down and the number of treatments up, I do not particualry think it would suffer overmuch if it adpoted a national health service to cover the costs of treatment for all Americans (with the option of private treatment for those who want to pay for it, as there is that option in other countries with a national health service) by simply "taking" the shortfall in wages that are currently taken up by employers contributions to health plans to pay for the USHS (United States Health Service.. trade marked to me by the way... don't steal it!).

If you think about it, most people will pay a broadly uniform proportion of their wage towards health plans and since I don't imagine that suddenly more people will become ill, the books should more or less balance anyway.

Though I do get your point about useless government type bodies... we have them running the NHS (and most other state run institutions, and a good few private ones too).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:13:08


Post by: drakedeming


SilverMK2 wrote:Although I think America has a relatively good idea when it comes to running its hospitals to make sure they keep the costs down and the number of treatments up, I do not particualry think it would suffer overmuch if it adpoted a national health service to cover the costs of treatment for all Americans (with the option of private treatment for those who want to pay for it, as there is that option in other countries with a national health service) by simply "taking" the shortfall in wages that are currently taken up by employers contributions to health plans to pay for the USHS (United States Health Service.. trade marked to me by the way... don't steal it!).

If you think about it, most people will pay a broadly uniform proportion of their wage towards health plans and since I don't imagine that suddenly more people will become ill, the books should more or less balance anyway.

Though I do get your point about useless government type bodies... we have them running the NHS (and most other state run institutions, and a good few private ones too).



Even though I use my company health care and it costs me very little but my company a lot I am all in favor of universal because even if they raise my taxes my company will refund the 13k that they pay per year on average on each employee. I am sure my taxes will not go up that much and if they do big deal, everyone pays them so it will even out in the long run.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:17:13


Post by: Frazzled



I am sure my taxes will not go up that much and if they do big deal, everyone pays them so it will even out in the long run.

I agree. I take at full faith and credit the statement that taxes or fees will not be raised at all to cover this.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:22:58


Post by: Kilkrazy


It's a bit of a straw man argument. Obviously healthcare is rationed because resources are never as much as would satisfy all demand. Someone has to make rationing decisions.

In the USA the rationing is done by the individual's ability to pay. Rich people can get whatever treatment they want. People on good insurance plans are probably OK. The rest of the population make do with what they can get.

The USA's problem is that insured healthcare is becoming too expensive for many companies or middle-income individuals to afford. Do you want your life to be decided by a soulless bureaucrat in the government, or a soulless bureaucrat in an insurance company? At least you can vote on the government.

It should be noted that in the UK, the NHS in no way prevents people from using private healthcare. If you are rich, you can buy your own Taligent or whatever cancer drugs you want. If they are not licensed for use in the UK you can go to the USA and buy them.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:24:04


Post by: Keyasa


I trained for 2 days in a hospital as a health care assistant in England and I was let loose on the hospital wards. Sure, it wasn't handing out drugs but they barely showed me how to help a patient with walking difficulties how to safely get to the toilet. I left after 2 months because I was so distraught with the situation. The people who worked there were lovely, but completely over-worked, stressed-out and very tired with zero time to spend showing me how to do things in the correct manner.

Every year we pump more and more money into the NHS but where the feth does it all go?? Hospitals are labelled a success nowadays if they have the time to clean the toilets out, wipe down the surfaces, and keep killer hospital-generated super-viruses under control!

The NHS is a noble idea that needs something, just something, to sort it out.

I wish the Health Minister would stand up in prime ministers question-time and rip his suit off, exposing his superman outfit, kick the PM in the gut, uppercut David Cameron in the face, and just SORT OUT THE MESS!


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:26:10


Post by: reds8n


ha, I must get 7-8 emails a week offering me "cheap online medication" from America.

I forward them all to the NIgerian finance minister who...


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:31:53


Post by: Kilkrazy


Keyasa wrote:I trained for 2 days in a hospital as a health care assistant in England and I was let loose on the hospital wards. Sure, it wasn't handing out drugs but they barely showed me how to help a patient with walking difficulties how to safely get to the toilet. I left after 2 months because I was so distraught with the situation. The people who worked there were lovely, but completely over-worked, stressed-out and very tired with zero time to spend showing me how to do things in the correct manner.

Every year we pump more and more money into the NHS but where the feth does it all go?? Hospitals are labelled a success nowadays if they have the time to clean the toilets out, wipe down the surfaces, and keep killer hospital-generated super-viruses under control!

The NHS is a noble idea that needs something, just something, to sort it out.

I wish the Health Minister would stand up in prime ministers question-time and rip his suit off, exposing his superman outfit, kick the PM in the gut, uppercut David Cameron in the face, and just SORT OUT THE MESS!


A lot of the money went into my daughter. She contracted Osteomyelitis in the femur. I had to take her to Kingston A&E at 3 in the morning. Within an hour she had been seen by two doctors, provisionally diagnosed, put on antibiotics, blood taken for tests, admitted to the childrens ward and the consultant consulted. Over the next 10 days she had an X-Ray, a gamma camera scan, and an MRI scan, plus blood tests and bacterial cultures to determine the best treatment. A whole bunch of anti-biotics of two different types were given. Everything came right and her leg was saved.

My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:35:18


Post by: Redbeard


SilverMK2 wrote:Although drug companies etc make a lot of profit, they also have huge expendatures (excluding legal costs). Only a tiny fraction of their products will make it through to market, for every drug which they sell, there will be 100 or even 1000 others which have failed at some point in their development cycle.


I'm an engineer. I fully understand R&D costs. When you post "record profits" for ten years in a row, then you're exploiting that excuse. You know, if they said "record revenues" I'd be okay with that. That shows that whatever they're charging, they're reinvesting in the next generation of drugs. That's part of the business model. But that's not it, it's record profits. Repeatedly. That means that they're not really spending that money on R&D, they're banking it. And if they can bank record amounts year after year, that means they're gouging people, and they're getting away with it because it's not (usually) the individuals who pay for the drugs, it's insurance companies, who then bury that fee in their premiums.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:44:57


Post by: SilverMK2


Redbeard wrote:I'm an engineer. I fully understand R&D costs. When you post "record profits" for ten years in a row, then you're exploiting that excuse. You know, if they said "record revenues" I'd be okay with that. That shows that whatever they're charging, they're reinvesting in the next generation of drugs. That's part of the business model. But that's not it, it's record profits. Repeatedly. That means that they're not really spending that money on R&D, they're banking it. And if they can bank record amounts year after year, that means they're gouging people, and they're getting away with it because it's not (usually) the individuals who pay for the drugs, it's insurance companies, who then bury that fee in their premiums.


I'm an engineer too, and I understand that in order to create the next generation of anything requires large start up capital. You can't predict when and where you will need that capital and it is not always obvious when and where you will need to spend it.

As you say, revenue and profit are two distinctly different things, however, having a stockpile of ready cash (or being able to prove that you are good for the cash if you need to borrow) means you can quickly invest in the next magic bullet. Though I also agree that there is profit and then there is grabbing and grasping hand over fist.

What has made it this way is there being only a handful of companies in the business, meaning that they can charge near whatever they want for anything they make. It is also not helped by drugs companies continually "updating" their drugs, meaning that a small change here and there in the chemical makeup of a drug means that they can get a new patent and stop people manufacturing a "generic" brand medicine which does all that the original model did at a fraction of the cost.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 20:47:26


Post by: halonachos


Well the thing is, in america you can get taken care of regardless of insurance or not. Homeless people and illegal immigrants are given hospital care despite lack of insurance. The end result is the hospital footing the bill and charging those with insurance more for care. As to drug costs, that goes along with the R&D and how its expensive to research and yadda, yadda. Unfortunately, the same pharmaceutical companies supplying the U.S also supply Canada and other countries with nationalised health care. This increases demand and unless drugs become easy to make the supply is either going to stay the same or decrease, raising costs.

I mean like making jewelry you have to find the metal and precious gems, refine them, and then fashion them into a ring. Drugs have to be researched, and made often to low yield supplies. This then increases price of the drugs.

The other issue is the quality of care given by the doctors, on average american doctors spend more time with patients than their nationalised counterparts.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 22:54:58


Post by: Keyasa


Kilkrazy wrote:
Keyasa wrote:Stuff



A lot of the money went into my daughter. She contracted Osteomyelitis in the femur. I had to take her to Kingston A&E at 3 in the morning. Within an hour she had been seen by two doctors, provisionally diagnosed, put on antibiotics, blood taken for tests, admitted to the childrens ward and the consultant consulted. Over the next 10 days she had an X-Ray, a gamma camera scan, and an MRI scan, plus blood tests and bacterial cultures to determine the best treatment. A whole bunch of anti-biotics of two different types were given. Everything came right and her leg was saved.

My anecdotal evidence trumps your anecdotal evidence.


Don't get me wrong, the NHS saved my cousin from bowel cancer, saved me from a branch in the eye (crawling into a bush to retrieve a ball), saved my brother when his appendix popped (he turned green for a week. Very strange after effect) and so on ad infinitum. But when dear old ladies can be left on trollies in the corridor to die because no one has the time to see them and make sure they have a drink of water?? Come on, there's something amiss. It's the system that is not perfect, not the people who work within. I have ultimate respect for everything that they do (a damn sight more respect than I have for most aspects of this great nation).

Also, your story about your daughter shows the NHS in it's best light, doing what it should do, treating people without prejudice of money, creed or standing. Exactly what I experienced with my bro, cous and my eye (I was a bit young at the time). This is the UK at it's best. Hope she made a full and healthy recovery!



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 23:16:03


Post by: Shamfrit


The idea of of the NHS was always to provide both a minimum level fo care required to stay alive, and to provide emergency care for unavoidable circumstances, such as accidents, or contracting X condition or Y.

What the NHS has never provisioned for, or will never provision for, is obesity related illnesses, smoking, drinking and drug related conditions and accidents. It was never made to cope with the raising levels, the change in the global climate has put a massive strain on the system and although it's doing everything it can to make people self aware, it's our fault as a nation that the NHS is over stretched, as much as it is the government's for malmanagement.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/15 23:53:38


Post by: Tyras


drakedeming wrote:46.6 uninsured Americans is a pretty good sign


That number is inflated. It includes illegal aliens, and those that are in transitions between one sytemt to the other (most companies have a thirty day period when you start before your insurance kicks in) . It also includes those that in fact do have insureance, but Kennedy and his crew deem as bing underinsured.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 05:28:49


Post by: halonachos


Another issue is this, you can give a national healthcare program, like medicaid or medicare, but there's nothing that forces a doctor to accept said insurance. So you could make a new government insurance programbut if no doctor accepts it then the program is a total bust.

The current plan is just spending money to get what we already have.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 07:53:48


Post by: Kilkrazy


halonachos wrote:Another issue is this, you can give a national healthcare program, like medicaid or medicare, but there's nothing that forces a doctor to accept said insurance. So you could make a new government insurance programbut if no doctor accepts it then the program is a total bust.

The current plan is just spending money to get what we already have.


This problem was got around in the UK by the government employing doctors. Their contracts define the terms and conditions of employment, thus compelling them to see patients if they want to be paid.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 08:09:28


Post by: Miguelsan


halonachos wrote:Well the thing is, in america you can get taken care of regardless of insurance or not. Homeless people and illegal immigrants are given hospital care despite lack of insurance. The end result is the hospital footing the bill and charging those with insurance more for care...


Last time I was there in Spain our national healthcare program was treating people regardless their origin and footing the bill. So I don´t get to see what´s the problem here.

M.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 09:35:51


Post by: dogma


Tyras wrote:
That number is inflated. It includes illegal aliens, and those that are in transitions between one sytemt to the other (most companies have a thirty day period when you start before your insurance kicks in) . It also includes those that in fact do have insureance, but Kennedy and his crew deem as bing underinsured.


That number is from the US Census Bureau. Available here.

The chance of systemic transition having a significant impact on the data is incredibly small. You're talking about at least 1 million people changing plans during the data collection period, and permitting themselves to go without coverage for some period of time (which is generally unnecessary).

The study makes no mention of the under-insured.

As for illegal immigrants...

2007 Census Data wrote:
Nativity

* Between 2005 and 2006, the number of U.S.-born residents who were uninsured increased from 33 million to 34.4 million, and their uninsured rate increased from 12.8 percent in 2005 to 13.2 percent. The number of foreign-born who were uninsured rose from 11.8 million in 2005 to 12.6 million, and their rate was statistically unchanged at 33.8 percent in 2006.


Even if you assume that all foreign-born uninsured can be classified as illegal the number of U.S.-born uninsured remains shameful.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 10:05:32


Post by: sebster


You have a system that more or less fell into place by mistake, additional benefits offered to employees slowly but surely becoming the basis for an entire health system. No-one anywhere would ever create such a thing, because it manages to include the profit motive (leading to insurers following aggressive denial policies to grow profits) while simultaneously removing the benefits of individual healthcare choice (as individual consumers can't choose their own plans, they're just stuck with the plans of their employers). As unemployed people have no coverage in this systemAs a kludge to this system

The result is that despite spending more per capita than any other country you get healthcare that ranks worse than every other developed country. There are countries on the list provided by reds8n who spend less than half as much money per citizen but have better health outcomes.

You have a very bad system, accept that and move on with finding a solution.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 13:59:44


Post by: reds8n


halonachos wrote:The current plan is just spending money to get what we already have.


which looks so good.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:13:58


Post by: Wrexasaur


I can tell you from personal experience that it sucks a lot to be poor in the U.S. and if you lose your precious job (recession ding ding) you will be sitting high and dry w/o any health coverage. Medi-cal is practically a joke, and the Governer of California (Ahnuld uv corz) actually attempted to cut even that recently. The dental available has been cut to a nonexistent minimum, it is like a joke now.

Regardless of your background people should have healthcare available, and I can't imagine anything worse than what we have now, I mean seriously though... MY FREAKING GOD PEOPLE!!!

Even people WITH healthcare are totally screwed by their insurance companies, and I have seen this first hand from nearly anyone on serious prescribed medication (which I actually have a problem with personally, this gak isn't candy ffs) namely my Grandmother. I have heard here talk about the changes over the past few decades, and it honestly scares me that the insurance companies and pill companies have developed so much power.

I see kids in schools being prescribed nothing less than fancy meth, and adults being prescribed fancy downers, it all seems very unhealthy to me. I was actually prescribed some stuff by some quack at one point in middle school because I was disruptive in class... brainwashing, plain and simple. The stuff they gave me was probably the strongest substance I have ever taken, and it literally changed who I was in a matter of 1/2 hour. Funny thing is I was later blamed by the same people who tried to drug me for setting a gasoline fire in a girls bathroom... you know what was odd about that? I wasn't even at school that day, and I think I know who passed the blame to me. Crazy stuff man... I do not understand why people go to such drastic lengths to change others, like they don't have opinions themselves and they fear mine for even existing.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:21:57


Post by: HellsGuardian316


The thing i find funny about the UK's NHS is that their is a common misconception that you are entitled to any drug you want whenever you want it. What people don't tend to realise about healthcare is that the money to pay for these drugs has to come from somewhere.

UK citizen's like any other country complain about paying more tax and yet want more for their buck. Expecting everyone else to foot the bill.

And on a slightly off-topic note, I love the way that every single prime minister thinks the answer is to throw money at the NHS thinking it will fix it, it won't, and I'm not even going to make a suggestion as I'm not qualified to do so without a better understanding.

The other main factor for both UK and USA users of healthcare is that people are generally living longer and thus using more healthcare and more & more dieases and illness's are cureable than ever before so the drain on health care is considerably more.

You also have to consider that more and more people are abusing the healthcare because of ... well ... stupidity, like going to hospital for a case of common cold. And in other cases by their own hand, people who smoke or eat excessive amounts of fatty foods are more likely to aquire disorders and illness's for example. As population increases, the above issue's become fair greater as there are greatr numbers doing it


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:22:03


Post by: reds8n


The dental available has been cut to a nonexistent minimum, it is like a joke now.


You're just like us really.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:24:55


Post by: Wrexasaur


Don't you have some sort of 3 pound rule with options to have it free for any medication in the U.K.?

Sounds slightly preposterous to me, but I do know that some medication should be that cheap if not even cheaper.

reds8n wrote:
The dental available has been cut to a nonexistent minimum, it is like a joke now.


You're just like us really.


You know that scene in castaway where he has to knock his bad tooth out? Yeah... that is the situation out here now...


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:26:48


Post by: dietrich


The US Healthcare system needs change. And massive change. It's a huge, bloated, festering bureacracy. And people like presidential hopeful John Edwards got rich from it (by being the lawyer for families suing for damages in very tragic cases involving children).

Having the US government take it over - doesn't inspire me. This is the same government that developed the Susan B. Anthony dollar and funds Amtrak. The same government that is posting record deficit spending and has 'managed' social security to the point it's going backrupt in a few years. I won't oppose regulation and reform, but I don't support the government taking it over.

One of the problems with the US government taking over the program, is they always seem to underestimate the human factor. They'd do something like eliminate profit on new drugs, but then expect pharm companies to keep developing new drugs. The reason they do now, is to post record profits. If that goes away, their incentive goes away. Now, maybe the profits should be reduced, but the government would do something like make them so small, it won't offset the R&D.

To me, reform needs to consist of:
1. More competition, which drives prices down
2. Reducing the medical bureacracy (for example, when my wife was in OSU hospital, we got like 4 separate bills for the same visit)
3. Reducing legal expenses
4. Realizing that patients are clients and should be treated appropriately
5. Making doctors more professional. My doctor's has a bunch of freebies from pharm companies. I'm an engineer, and if I was taking freebies from vendors, that'd be considered unprofessional. Why should I recommend American Pipe when another product is just as good and cheaper? Claritin is great, but instead of putting me on claritin, shouldn't my doctor just tell me to get the generic substitute that's half the cost? But, because claritin gave him some pens and kleenex boxes and a lunch - they expect him to recommend the name brand.

Now, I think that doctor's should be held accountable if they make mistakes. But, I don't see how paying someone $100 million because their child died tragically helps the victim's family. The doctor doesn't pay that - everyone else does due to higher insurance costs spread around to all the doctors, which pass it onto their clients.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:35:35


Post by: Wrexasaur


I am not an expert on this by any means, but some of what you have proposed sounds pretty lofty if you ask me. I actually like the idea of socialized health care, as long as the U.S. takes measures to improve on the present system.

At this point ANY change is good, but I hope for something that will actually create improvement in the availability of health care in the U.S. We need this badly, and any more procrastination could prove to create even more serious problems for out nation.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:47:12


Post by: DarthDiggler


I see two problems in US healthcare. One is to many people going to the hospital/emergency room for no good reason. If a kid has a fevor they are in the emergency room and two catastrophic care.

These are the two areas that need improvement. There should be a place for primary care that doesn't involve emergency rooms. A nurse practicinor (sp) or some equivilent can be the initial evaluator and if they can solve it great, if not then it gets moved up the food chain. The problem comes from people going to the hosptial for things that aren't emergencies. It's easy to just go when you have your insurance to pay for it, but it's expensive and those costs bring everything else up. When I was young my Mom used to threaten us in going to the doctor. "Stop complaining or you'll go to thedoctor." That would pretty much get us to shut up. She's not a doctor, but she knew enough about illness to know when it was serious and when it wasn't.

Next is catastrophic care. There should be a government fallback for catastrophic care available to all Americans. Long term catastrophic care can be controled by government and provided for through a minor tax everyone would pay for. Sales, income, property, or just everyone pays $10 a year on tax day to go into the catastrophic care fund. Most of us will never see it and not use the money, but that safety net would be there in case the unthinkable happens and whole families won't lose their savings in the aftermath.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 14:51:33


Post by: Fallen668


Frazzled wrote:

But thats not how it currently is in the US. If you're working full time legally you pretty much have insurance. If you're not you have medicaid.



That is so not true. I don't... I work on average 50 Hours a week for the county in the court system and I DO NOT have health insurance. The last two people chronologically in my office do not get ANY benefits. Conveniently though the person who is under me is a retiree from the sheriff's department, so he retained his Insurance as a retirement perk. So... I am the ONLY employee in my office who does not get health care. I am desperately waiting for someone who is above me to leave in whatever means necessary, be it quitting, getting fired or just out right dieing. Quite honestly... I can not tell you how happy I wold be if I came to work and heard that one of those three outcomes had happened to anyone there above me.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 15:05:15


Post by: reds8n


One is too many people going to the hospital/emergency room for no good reason.


Ah, that reminds me.

I'm not having a pop or anything here, honest, but friends and acquaintances who have been over the pond all come back saying how surprised they are at the amount of medicine adverts and health warnings that fill up every advetising break on the telly, and from what I've read it seems that the average person ( if they have insurance I'm assuming) is almost encouraged to see a Dr. at the slightest sign of discomfort or potential malady. Is this generally the case or not ?

And if so, do you think this inflates or impacts ( be it positively or negatively) upon your health services.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 15:08:11


Post by: dietrich


Wrexasaur wrote:I am not an expert on this by any means, but some of what you have proposed sounds pretty lofty if you ask me. I actually like the idea of socialized health care, as long as the U.S. takes measures to improve on the present system.

At this point ANY change is good, but I hope for something that will actually create improvement in the availability of health care in the U.S. We need this badly, and any more procrastination could prove to create even more serious problems for out nation.

Yeah, I'm like that. I'm sure it won't happen. What will happen is another band-aid treatment. Sometimes, you need to stop putting band-aids onto the wound and just dig down to the bottom of the wound and dig out any infection or embedded objects. The healthcare system evolved over a couple hundred years, it's not going to be fixed overnight.

Also, there's multiple compounding problems in the system. If someone doesn't have insurance, they won't go see a primary care physician when they get sick. Then, they may get so sick, they're going to ER and admitted to the hospital. And if they didn't have insurance, they probably can't afford the doctor bills either.

I think a lot of the issue is there are not enough primary care physicians (because being a specialist pays more), and not enough people go to see a primary care doctor (whether it's because they don't have insurance, time, or for whatever reason).

At the same time, you can't just give everyone open access to a primary care doctor, because you'll have hypocondriacs in there three times a week. As always, it's a balance issue - how do you make sure the people who really need help are seen, but the ones who don't need to, don't? And, sometimes, something is really wrong with a person and the doctor doesn't see it (I don't know how many people know someone who had a tough-to-diagnose issue that was ignored/not diagnosed for years before a doctor figured out what was wrong. My wife went through this before being diagnosed as a celiac.).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 15:23:00


Post by: Polonius


Aren't there something like 400,000 bankruptcies a year due to medical costs? Even if they did have insurance, there is a limit to nearly all policies, after which it becomes a matter of "pay or die."

http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/2008/09/01/aarp-185-million-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-bills-in-one-year/

One way or another, somebody is funding this stuff. Somebody is also deciding who gets what care. Given that medicine is de facto nationalized, why not give up the fig leaf?

Medicare and medicaid cover a huge chunk of the population, with federal employees, veterans, and dependents another big chunk. Drug companies enjoy ludicrous tax benefits and subsidies. Med schools, hospitals, and clinics all recieve government grants and funding. Free clinics operate in most cities, charities operate massive networks of free care facilities, and all emergency care is provided regardless of ability to pay. Health insurance provided by an employer is currently partially subsidized by the tax break to the employees, and medical spending is tax deductible above a certain point. At the end of the road, those that declare bankruptcy leave the bill for the government. Guess what? We have social health care. We just have social health care that's ad hoc and has plenty of gaps.

I don't' have a ton of faith in the plans floated, but the facts are stunning, given our spending and results compared to other countries. The debate isn't about universal health care, its' about what kind to have. I, for one, would rather have the kind where there's more security for more people against the most common stuff. yes, it's callous to tell a person that a 0.5% chance of recovery isn't enough to justify the treatment, or that six more months isn't worth the cost for meds. The current system is just as callous.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 16:22:19


Post by: sebster


dietrich wrote:One of the problems with the US government taking over the program, is they always seem to underestimate the human factor.


The government isn't taking over the program. Why do people keep talking about this? Why are people falling the Republican framing of the argument again?

To me, reform needs to consist of:
1. More competition, which drives prices down
2. Reducing the medical bureacracy (for example, when my wife was in OSU hospital, we got like 4 separate bills for the same visit)


1. How about you build a system which formally recognises a basic level of care, including some preventative care. But to provide competition, have private insurance providing a higher level care for those who can afford it. There would actually be competition because it would be direct marketed from the insurer to the individual. You could tailor your individual insurance, adjusting the extent of your care and level of excess to raise or lower your monthly payment.
2. Hospitals would perform treatment surgery and produce a single bill. If other specialists outside the hospital were involved they would charge the hospital, who would then add that to the total bill. If covered by government you would provide your Medicaid number and govt would be charged. If covered by private insurance the bill would be sent to the private insurer, who on completion of the surgery would provide a single bill to you for the total of your excess.


By the way, what I just described was one of the 'socialised' systems used elsewhere in the world.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 16:38:59


Post by: HellsGuardian316


The trouble with rationing is you might be happy in saying that the 1% of sufferers of "insert illness" have to buy the drug that cost £100,000. But what if you were in the 1%? would you be ok with it? Sure as heck not.
And yet the 50% sufferers of "insert illness" get it for free where theirs only cost £19.99 or something daft.
(figures are made up to show an example of what I am trying to say)

Don't get me wrong, I agree that drugs should be rationed and maybe go on a case by case basis, the trouble is that someone will always lose out and be let down by the system. Rationing is a fantastic concept, overseeing it in a fair and just manner, is a pipe dream. unless you want to raise taxes to such a level to support your healthcare further.

At the end of the day, no matter what you do, someone will lose out and they will be the ones that try to change it all again to suit them, meaning that another will lose out who will try to change the system again and so on, and so on, and so on.

"You can please some of the people some of the time and all of the people none of the time" No idea who said this, but thought it was apt


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 16:39:20


Post by: dietrich


sebster wrote:
dietrich wrote:One of the problems with the US government taking over the program, is they always seem to underestimate the human factor.

The government isn't taking over the program. Why do people keep talking about this? Why are people falling the Republican framing of the argument again?

The problem is there's several debates going on at once.
1. What Obama has proposed is dumping another $1 trillion or so to provide coverage for uninsured.
2. What people want is some sort of national health care program combined with reform.

And the two are being combined, even by myself at some points.

While giving insurance to the uninsured, by the US gov't dumping $1 trillion into the system, helps those individuals, it doesn't overhaul or help the system. It's just spending tax dollars. And while that means there'd be fewer uninsured going to the hospital - how much will that affect overall cost in the system? How good is that health coverage? And why should employers still offer an benefit if there's a government program to fall back on?

I'd like to see the system improved. It can be and should be. I don't want the US gov't to take it over in an effort to reform it though.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 16:46:04


Post by: Kilkrazy


Wrexasaur wrote:Don't you have some sort of 3 pound rule with options to have it free for any medication in the U.K.?

Sounds slightly preposterous to me, but I do know that some medication should be that cheap if not even cheaper.

reds8n wrote:
The dental available has been cut to a nonexistent minimum, it is like a joke now.


You're just like us really.


You know that scene in castaway where he has to knock his bad tooth out? Yeah... that is the situation out here now...



In the UK a Doctor can only prescribe a medicine on the NHS if it has been licensed by NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.) This stops super expensive new drugs from being prescribed willy-nilly and bankrupting the system.

Drugs can still be prescribed privately (the patient pays full cost) unless they haven't completed testing to UK standards.

A standard NHS prescription now costs £7.20. People exempt from charges include children, pregnant mothers, the unemployed, pensioners, war pensioners and long-term disabled. There is also a sheap rate 1-year prescription scheme to help employed people on long-term medication.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:02:50


Post by: Frazzled


Kilkrazy wrote:


In the UK a Doctor can only prescribe a medicine on the NHS if it has been licensed by NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.) This stops super expensive new drugs from being prescribed willy-nilly and bankrupting the system.



So if it could cure your cancer but its reallyexpensive you're screwed? Yep that is indeed NICE.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:14:28


Post by: Kilkrazy


They don't automatically buy the cheapest on the market. They evaluate the likely benefits in terms of life extension and quality versus cost.

Let's suppose there is a particular cancer and two drugs for it. Drug A costs £10 per treatment and has a 75% chance of success. Drug B costs £25 per treatment and has an 85% chance of success. Should both be licensed and under what guidance? That's the kind of evaluation they have to do.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:21:38


Post by: Wrexasaur


Frazzled wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:


In the UK a Doctor can only prescribe a medicine on the NHS if it has been licensed by NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.) This stops super expensive new drugs from being prescribed willy-nilly and bankrupting the system.



So if it could cure your cancer but its reallyexpensive you're screwed? Yep that is indeed NICE.


What is the difference between that and what we have now?

There was a woman in Oakland, Ca that jumped off a building in protest (if you want to call it that) because she could not get her cancer treatment from her provider.

NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER, and the drugs will probably become available at a lower cost because of competition to create the best drugs, not the most expensive ones. If more people have access to health care in general (doesn't matter where the money comes from) their will be more customers by default for the pill companies.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:21:40


Post by: Frazzled


What if there is no Drug A?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:46:03


Post by: sebster


dietrich wrote:The problem is there's several debates going on at once.
1. What Obama has proposed is dumping another $1 trillion or so to provide coverage for uninsured.
2. What people want is some sort of national health care program combined with reform.

And the two are being combined, even by myself at some points.

While giving insurance to the uninsured, by the US gov't dumping $1 trillion into the system, helps those individuals, it doesn't overhaul or help the system. It's just spending tax dollars. And while that means there'd be fewer uninsured going to the hospital - how much will that affect overall cost in the system? How good is that health coverage? And why should employers still offer an benefit if there's a government program to fall back on?

I'd like to see the system improved. It can be and should be. I don't want the US gov't to take it over in an effort to reform it though.


Yeah, I think there's a reasonable amount of credit to be targetted at Obama for his health plan, it doesn't do anything to address the fundamental reasons US healthcare is so bad and so expensive. I mean, I think it's an absolute must to extend healthcare to all citizens but there's other very big problems facing your system, and they won't be solved without major reform.

What did you think about my proposal in my previous response? Where you cut out the middle man, and let people purchase their own insurance, introducing the competition to the system people seem to keep claiming is important (but strangely absent).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 17:55:10


Post by: dietrich


sebster wrote:What did you think about my proposal in my previous response? Where you cut out the middle man, and let people purchase their own insurance, introducing the competition to the system people seem to keep claiming is important (but strangely absent).

It couldn't be worse. On paper, it sounds fine, but I think there's some problems. What happens if someone is unemployed and can't afford it? Do they not get coverage? Do they have to pay for it out of pocket?

Part of the issue is that we don't know what we want out of health coverage. As someone said (Guiliani, maybe), we don't buy car insurance and expect it to pay for oil changes and car washes. Why do we expect that with health coverage?

To me, a good first step, would be extending major medical coverage to everyone for 'free' (our tax dollars would cover it, so it's not technically free). Whether that is in tax rebates, or whatever, it could work. The question is - what's considered major? A hospital stay? More than $10,000 in a year? More than $4,000 in a year? Hard to determine (and knowing the US gov't, it wouldn't be tied to inflation, so it'd stay stagnant and in 20 years, wouldn't do what it was intended to do), and not something that I have an answer for. And it would lead to other problems (if you need three surgeries, make sure they're all in one calendar year, etc.). Insurance rates for an employer are generally driven by one or two big events for employees. That's why it's cheaper to provide coverage to more people - it's spreading the risk around. That would reduce the cost to employers, and employees, and would also help cover the uninsured.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 22:18:02


Post by: Kilkrazy


Frazzled wrote:What if there is no Drug A?


I suppose that NICE would have to judge it by similar criteria.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 23:09:53


Post by: Ahtman


I don't think there should be free Health Care for all. I think there should just be free Health Care for me and it should be the best in the world. At least that is what I think.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 23:19:21


Post by: Huffy


Ahtman, there is no such thing as free health care, its always payed for or subsidized by someone or some group,
but my take on it is no I don't want universal health care, I don't really trust the US gov at all


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/27 23:22:28


Post by: Ahtman


Huffy wrote:Ahtman, there is no such thing as free health care


Well now you've gone and ruined my day. Hopefully some BonBons still in the fridge to go with this cigarette and Big Mac. That should make me feel better.

Edit: I just realized I was posting in the wrong health care thread.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 04:17:14


Post by: halonachos


Miguelsan wrote:
halonachos wrote:Well the thing is, in america you can get taken care of regardless of insurance or not. Homeless people and illegal immigrants are given hospital care despite lack of insurance. The end result is the hospital footing the bill and charging those with insurance more for care...


Last time I was there in Spain our national healthcare program was treating people regardless their origin and footing the bill. So I don´t get to see what´s the problem here.

M.


Well, see the materials use by the physicians who treat the patients must cost money as does the time the physicians give to treatment. So somewhere down the line, costs are being incurred nd paid for. I see this, I work hard to earn pay. I don't want my pay to help those who are unwilling to work or those who have failed down the line. If you dropped out or had a kid in high school that's your problem, not mine. I don't want to pay for healthcare for others, it may be good but I'm going to go for qualitative good and not quantitative. It is better for me to help myself and my family than it is to help some stranger(I think that his is either Bentham or Mills I'm not sure).

Another issue is this, the government has a wonderful way of screwing things up. So why on earth do I want them in charge of medical care? The answer is I don't.

In effect, the plan will help those without healthcare at the cost of those who are already insured and may cause those who aready have healthcare to lose their care.

I also look the possible cause and effect.
Government makes plan--> physicians don't accept plan--> government socializes healthcare--> quality goes down.


@reds8n.

That was my point, the current plan is not good. The new plan proposed is the same thing we have now, but with higher costs.

PS. America does have free clinics established in many cities to care for the homeless/poor. There aren't many but there are some.


Read and Dissect.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 05:11:36


Post by: sebster


dietrich wrote:It couldn't be worse. On paper, it sounds fine, but I think there's some problems. What happens if someone is unemployed and can't afford it? Do they not get coverage? Do they have to pay for it out of pocket?


I'm guessing you didn't read all of my earlier post that you replied to. I said that a basic level of care would be established for all. This wouldn't just be for people out of work but for anyone on a sufficiently low income.

But once you start earning so much a year you are moved into private care. The move to private care is encouraged because the private system has benefits (shorter waiting periods for elective surgery, greater choice of doctors, nicer conditions in hospital such as your own room), and because once you start earning too much you are taxed if you don't have private care.

But the big, big difference is that the consumer chooses his own private insurer. This means the insurance companies that benefit right now from denying care based on technicalities would take severe hits to their brand and lose business for doing so. Once you have choice over your insurance the invisible hand would actually come into play, and start motivating insurers to provide value for the consumer.

Part of the issue is that we don't know what we want out of health coverage. As someone said (Guiliani, maybe), we don't buy car insurance and expect it to pay for oil changes and car washes. Why do we expect that with health coverage?


That's an interesting point. I'm not sure I agree with (possibly) Guiliani's implied point that doctor's appointments and the like, because preventative care is so much more important in medicine. But I certainly agree that there needs to be discussion on exactly what insurance is expected to cover.

But to shift that analogy slightly... why would you have your car insurance provided by your employer? It's your car, your responsibility. If your employer provided your car insurance he'd be motivated by nothing but keeping that cost as low as possible. Which means you end up with crappy car insurance provided by a company who's business model is to deny any and all claims. Instead, you have people buy their own car insurance and they're free to weigh up the costs of various plans against what they actually want. Why should healthcare be any different?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 05:39:43


Post by: Mad Rabbit


halonachos wrote:I don't want my pay to help those who are unwilling to work or those who have failed down the line. If you dropped out or had a kid in high school that's your problem, not mine. I don't want to pay for healthcare for others, it may be good but I'm going to go for qualitative good and not quantitative.


Well sorry, Mr. Reagan, but it's really not that simple. The American myth of "welfare queens" and those who are "unwilling to work" gets me every time. Homeless people with "WILL WORK FOR FOOD" signs seem pretty willing, but you won't pay for their healthcare, will you?

Honestly, the stupid propaganda about "government bureaucrats who decide what you get, NOT THE DOCTORS!" is worthless fearmongering. They fail to mention that not only are insurance companies already doing the same (with the incentive of profit to rip you off), and that you're already paying them to do it. Sometimes people seem so afraid of taxes that they fail to see that paying money to a company is about the same as paying it to the government if you get the same thing out of it. Not to mention that countries with socialized medicine have lower overhead costs than American health insurance companies.

I hate to say it, but eventually we've gotta drop the stupid individualist cowboy crap. Not as in "everyone dress like Mao." More like it's ok to help your neighbor out if he needs it now, since he'll do the same if you need it later. We aren't all pioneers anymore with no one around for miles.

No one tell Texas, though. That would break their John Wayne loving hearts (kidding),


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 06:16:07


Post by: Miguelsan


First I´ll say that I´m not up to date in the exact plan that Mr Obama and the Congress are negotiating. But on the general issue of Social vs. Private care I have a few things to comment on Halonachos´post

halonachos wrote:
Well, see the materials use by the physicians who treat the patients must cost money as does the time the physicians give to treatment. So somewhere down the line, costs are being incurred nd paid for. I see this, I work hard to earn pay. I don't want my pay to help those who are unwilling to work or those who have failed down the line. If you dropped out or had a kid in high school that's your problem, not mine. I don't want to pay for healthcare for others, it may be good but I'm going to go for qualitative good and not quantitative. It is better for me to help myself and my family than it is to help some stranger(I think that his is either Bentham or Mills I'm not sure).

Nice argument here, the old and true the poor are to blame for being poor. Well let me tell you that the dropouts and teenager moms are already receiving other things from the US government that you are "paying" for like security, defense, etc... Think about how much quality would you get in police protection if somehow you could disfranchise all these people from the system.
In an ideal health care plan (I don´t know if this one will be) an extension of the benefits to non insuranced people doesn´t have to cost you a dime. As I already pointed you are already paying taxes for "free services" to the State like defense, transportation, justice. So the State has two options, either rise additional taxes as everybody against the plan seems to think or divert resources from the other areas of the budget as the money is already there. The US citizens will have to ask themselves what they want:a national health care system or more fighter planes, a department of Homeland Security or Transportation. Check the 2008 budget and think which areas overlap, are superfluous or could shed some money to health care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008

In effect, the plan will help those without healthcare at the cost of those who are already insured and may cause those who aready have healthcare to lose their care.
I also look the possible cause and effect.
Government makes plan--> physicians don't accept plan--> government socializes healthcare--> quality goes down.

Quite a bold affirmation here, specially if like in some countries with socialized health care you are getting treated in the same place, with the same doctors and the same equipment, the only difference being who is footing the bill.


Another issue is this, the government has a wonderful way of screwing things up.

This is the only part of the message I agree with you. But even screwed up, somethings are a necessity.

M.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Rabbit wrote:
I hate to say it, but eventually we've gotta drop the stupid individualist cowboy crap. Not as in "everyone dress like Mao." More like it's ok to help your neighbor out if he needs it now, since he'll do the same if you need it later. We aren't all pioneers anymore with no one around for miles.

Sometimes when I read the news I wonder if that´s not the default setting of most US guys.

M.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 08:19:01


Post by: dogma


halonachos wrote:
I also look the possible cause and effect.
Government makes plan--> physicians don't accept plan--> government socializes healthcare--> quality goes down.


Why would any physician ever refuse national insurance? All it does from their perspective is provide a means of receiving payment for services they are currently required to render for free.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 09:26:55


Post by: Kilkrazy


halonachos wrote:

Another issue is this, the government has a wonderful way of screwing things up. So why on earth do I want them in charge of medical care? The answer is I don't.

...



If governments screw everything up, why would you want them in charge of defence, law & order and national standards for weights and measures?

halonachos wrote:
In effect, the plan will help those without healthcare at the cost of those who are already insured and may cause those who aready have healthcare to lose their care.

...


If done right it might help everyone. There isn't any western nation with a nationalised healthcare system where people who used to be rich have become poor and lost their healthcare thanks to universal coverage.

Advantages in a national system include bulk-buying of materials at discount prices, for example, and reduced accountancy overheads.

The base fact is the USA spends 15% of GDP on healthcare, which is about 50% more than most western countries, yet many indicators of public health are worse.

halonachos wrote:
I also look the possible cause and effect.
Government makes plan--> physicians don't accept plan--> government socializes healthcare--> quality goes down.



The UK faced the same problem in 1948, and it was solved by:
Government makes plan in counsultation with doctors--> physicians accept plan--> government socializes healthcare--> quality goes up.


I hope it doesn't seem I have quoted too selectively.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 17:26:49


Post by: halonachos


Now here's the thing, the defense and security budget benefits all americans while welfare only affects those who are in the bottom classes of american society.

This little website has some reasons for my attitude towards socialized medicine.http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf


To save some reading.

In the United States there are about 14 million people—
more than a third of the uninsured—who are,
in principle, eligible to get free medical care by
joining either the Medicaid program or the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program. And yet they
don’t bother to enroll.


If you’re the hundredth
person waiting for heart surgery,
you’re not entitled to
the hundredth surgery. Other
people can and do get in ahead
of you. From time to time, even
Americans go to Canada and jump
the queue, because Americans can do
something that Canadians cannot—Americans
can pay for care. Canadian hospitals love
to admit American patients, because that
means cash into their budgets.


In Britain, the typical general
practitioner barely has time to take your
temperature and write a prescription. And
even if they discover something wrong with
you, they may not have the technology to
solve your problem.
Among people with chronic renal failure,
only half as many Canadians as Americans
get dialysis, and only a third as many
Britons on a per capita basis. The American
rate of coronary bypass surgeries is
three or four times what it is in Canada,
and five times what it is in Britain.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 17:46:05


Post by: sebster


halonachos wrote:Now here's the thing, the defense and security budget benefits all americans while welfare only affects those who are in the bottom classes of american society.


Duh, that's what welfare is.

This little website has some reasons for my attitude towards socialized medicine.http://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv3n1.pdf


Ah, I see. You read the Cato Institute, that's goes a long way to explaining your views.

For the record, those guys make the Austrian School economists blush.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 17:47:54


Post by: Wrexasaur


In the United States there are about 14 million people—
more than a third of the uninsured—who are,
in principle, eligible to get free medical care by
joining either the Medicaid program or the State
Children’s Health Insurance Program. And yet they
don’t bother to enroll.


Yep... straw man argument, the system sucks in a way that is unfathomable to most. I think this is the epitome of greed, and it is a serious problem for our nation. Our overspending on stuff like big tv's and fancy cars has taken any sense of rationality for other things. If a TV is more important than a persons life, more importantly a CHILDS LIFE, you need to be... never mind, have a nice day and blablabla


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 17:54:51


Post by: reds8n


In Britain, the typical general
practitioner barely has time to take your
temperature and write a prescription.


Utter rot.

welfare only affects those who are in the bottom classes of american society.


The point your missing therefore being that it does affect your society as a whole.

Geez how hard is that to understand.


PLus, if your kid is dying of cancer and you can't afford the treatment I fail to see how the security and armed forces are benefitting you at all. In that situation you'd have a lot to gain from, say, a revolution. Hmm.. the dispossessed and the underclasses rising up against a system that actively conspires to keep them down...I reckon there's a book in that.

Americans can do
something that Canadians cannot—Americans
can pay for care.


Not true at all either. Whilst some of the states in canada did outlaw private treatment a Quebec supreme court order ruling in2005 made it quite legal to buy private treatment.

Also... how are American;s going to canada to buy treatment then if this isn't possible.

Also the changes proposed to your system (from everything I've read, I'm "happy" to be shown otherwise) would not prevent people who are stil wealthy enough to buy their own treatment from doing so.





Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 17:56:42


Post by: halonachos


Yes, and I don't believe in welfare. Throwing money at your problems doesn't solve anything.

I'm going to go and say this: I believe that I should decide what I want my money to be spent on and it shouldn't be distributed all willy-nilly to causes I don't support.

I would rather the government took my money and bought some run down houses and improved them. Take homeless people and let them live in said houses but here's the catch, the people living in the houses have to work to maintain the housing complex and are paid by the government. This program will also offer a program to help those without a high school diploma receive their GED.

I would support a program that would have long term effects instead of long term costs only. Welfare just gives money.

Give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish feed him for life.



But back to healthcare, I don't care how they're rated about their economic rantings. Some of the things about quality of care ring true.

A russian immigrant came to our house to steam our carpets once. He saw the healthcare issue on TV and said "Why the hell do you americans want that? We had it in russia and I'll tell you this... If you went to a dentist it hurt, but if you had money it didn't hurt."

@ reds8n
The plan and healthcare we currently have is the same as the plan Obama is working on just that those uninsured people are called insured. Changing a label for a billion dollars is not a fair deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I believe in a fair tax. No tax for necessities only for luxuries. I've seen "poor" people with $100 shoes. I go to steve and barry's and pay $7.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 18:04:09


Post by: Wrexasaur


halonachos wrote:Give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish feed him for life.


Applying this rationally to the current state of affairs in the U.S. is like saying that... wait so you wouldn't pay for that either? Am I missing something here?

I have read so much bigoted stuff recently I really do not want to tag you as one by my present state of mind. That said I do agree that there should be work on the "welfare" system throughout the country. The whole idea that most people wouldn't want a part of a good program is totally ludicrous.

Okay... I have seen these programs start up and fail. Why you may ask? Were the people involved not involved enough? Would you actually accuse some of these people (a lot of which help out of good will) that they were not doing there jobs (screw your elite standard of excellence, this is just life man, not the olympics) and therefor deserved to not get funding?

Places like this are still going to take money out of your pocket as you put it, and the government will mess them up so bad through corruption and genuine theft that it would become a 3 little pigs scenario where you end up with a revolutionary brick and mortar force TAKING what they feel they deserve.

halonachos wrote:Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.


Hmmm... I am not sure you know what you are talking about... stop paying your taxes if you care that much. Better yet see how much it costs to help support that single mom with kids going to school, while working two jobs.... AAAAAARRRRRRrrrgggghhh!!!

You make me pretty angry dude.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 18:13:23


Post by: Kilkrazy


@halonachos

What I don't understand is this: You know from facts that the USA spends considerably more of its money on healthcare than comparable western nations (Canada, UK, Denmark) yet generates worse outcomes on a number of measures.

Do you think that "socialised medicine" would cost you as a taxpayer more than the current US system, or that it would cost the same but produce even worse results?

If it cost less, but produced worse results, you as a taxpayer would have more money left to go private.

Your idea about letting the government pay people to refurbish run-down houses is not a bad one as such, but it will be taking work away from private builders.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 18:17:31


Post by: ShumaGorath


ITT: 14 year olds watch sean hannity, know nothing about foreign healthcare systems, don't understand the ideas being put foreward for our own system, and link to BS blog articles which are little more than anti communist propaganda with the word healthcare thrown in a few dozen times.


Shocker.



Though its nice to see the socialists rush out to shout down all the insults Bill "Maybe I'm just not a smart guy" O'rielly has been throwing out.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 18:18:10


Post by: Wrexasaur


Kilkrazy wrote:Your idea about letting the government pay people to refurbish run-down houses is not a bad one as such, but it will be taking work away from private builders.

Did you say work?

There is actually a very large amount of construction going on in my area recently. 2 new supermarkets have been built, and at least 3 new very large apartment buildings in or around the downtown area.

The funniest thing is that any extra jobs are usually going to go the migrant workers that hang out near the fancy area, kind of weird actually. It is like a one stop shop for yuppies, and I cannot hate on the hard-working migrant workers, they are a pleasure to work with most of the time.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 18:22:14


Post by: reds8n


I believe that I should decide what I want my money to be spent on


Everyone thinks that and it is impossible*. the closest we get is by electing Govts and then they do their thing.

You can't have a tax system by plebiscite.

It would be quite hard to fight a war that wasn't popular for example.


* Possible exception, not sure if this still/ever applies : did the Amish or some such group get something odd with their taxes and military spending ?

government took my money and bought some run down houses and improved them.


Council houses you mean ? Careful, that's verging towards socialism.

I would support a program that would have long term effects


Like feeding, providing housing and medical care for poor children you mean.
You're more communist than we thought.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 19:05:52


Post by: dogma


halonachos wrote:Yes, and I don't believe in welfare. Throwing money at your problems doesn't solve anything.


It frequently does just that. The real issues involve not having money to throw, or not knowing where to throw it.

halonachos wrote:
Give a man a fish feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish feed him for life.


You know there's a middle ground there. Where you feed the man when he can't feed himself, while teaching him how to do so in the future.

halonachos wrote:
I believe in a fair tax. No tax for necessities only for luxuries. I've seen "poor" people with $100 shoes. I go to steve and barry's and pay $7.


Cool. I've seen wealthy people pay homeless men to fight each other. Therefore all wealthy people are immoral jerks.




Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/28 19:17:28


Post by: Wrexasaur


halonachos wrote:I believe in a fair tax. No tax for necessities only for luxuries. I've seen "poor" people with $100 shoes. I go to steve and barry's and pay $7.


I don't even want to know how you KNEW they were poor, or why it matters to you either way, shoes are shoes, not cars and yachts...


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 04:26:25


Post by: halonachos


reds8n wrote:

government took my money and bought some run down houses and improved them.


Council houses you mean ? Careful, that's verging towards socialism.

I would support a program that would have long term effects


Like feeding, providing housing and medical care for poor children you mean.
You're more communist than we thought.


Okay, listen. This medical care thing is ALREADY established in america and those without insurance would get the same care they get not even if they were insured. The hippocratic oath ensures that care will be given by a trained proffessional. The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs because he decided to get coked up got the same quality of care that a young woman with insurance who was in an automobile accident received.

With my quotes, I would rather the government take my money towards those housing complexes maintained by those that live in them(hell why not have them build some new houses as well), rathar than just give it to some down on their luck woman or man or family. I would much rather have a privately run version of this, but seeing as though the government is already taking the money they might as well start it and then pass it to someone else so that it is privately run.

@ Wrexasaur

Speak to Thoreau. He believed that if he didn't believe in a cause he shouldn't have to pay for it , but he could decide to donate to whatever he did support. He even argued what if he didn't want to support anything at all. Ayn Rand Spoke for individualism and warned against serving others completely or even at all.

I believe in some causes and not in others, its that simple. Welfare doesn't work so I don't want to support it. I fear that this "new" program is more or less the same just with a higher cost for the country. Obama may even go against his word and raise taxes on middle class families to do so.

And when you teach a man to fish he catches fish and can eat it, that's the whole idea of it. I believe that education is the answer, not money.

I know welfare sucks and I know that even the healthcare given to military family sucks, I've dealt with both.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Buying shoes that are $100 is a luxury and if a person is struggling they should not be buying $100 shoes. A fair tax puts a sales tax on luxury items such as TV, Candies, Warhammer figures, etc. While leaving basic clothing, food, water, milk, etc tax free. As to how I know they're poor, I live next door to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Cool. I've seen wealthy people pay homeless men to fight each other. Therefore all wealthy people are immoral jerks.




Good thing I'm not wealthy, or that would be ad hominem and make your point invalid.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 04:55:54


Post by: Wrexasaur


What I see is a straw man argument that could have been applied a few decades ago, but simply not in the same way today.

Something about a cricket and an ant or something... just a thought. I have moved mountains but the end result is just a mountain in someone else way, and goddam was that hard as hell. I think the ant could have made some sort of deal with the cricket, especially since the cricket would have been a fantastic partner to work with. Laziness taken into todays standards is getting through high school and maintaining a minimum wage job for your whole life. The whole thing is just riddled with clear and present fallacies.

I am going to have to step out of this conversation until I feel I have calmed down a bit (you did flip-flop a bit there) and I can make sure to keep this as civil as possible.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 04:57:31


Post by: halonachos


flip flop sure, to be inconsistent is to be human. I believe in some things and not others, surely you do the same?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't believe I am reading your standing incorrectly. You do believe that we should have universal/nationalized healthcare and that it comes to a benefit for everyone,so we should have it because it makes the system better, am I correct?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 05:11:28


Post by: Wrexasaur


I want to see positive change in any form at this point, and I think we should work with the plan that Obama was elected by the people to bring into place. It was a pretty important issue for him, and I believe that a lot of people voted for him because of it.

Now, to be fair I consider myself a free-thinker, but I can follow a line as good as the next guy, it ain't rocket science. If the U.S. is truly unhappy about this there would be a lot more stuff going on because of it, people are trying to keep jobs, and get out of Iraq as a country, some kind of modernized health care and a general stance of pro-action for the countries problems is what we need.

If the people say it so, the wind does blow, and the bellows of these people are seeded in the soul.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 05:16:36


Post by: Mad Rabbit


halonachos wrote:Yes, and I don't believe in welfare. Throwing money at your problems doesn't solve anything.


Well, not to be a smartass, but poverty is something that is literally solved by money. No one is suggesting that money should be thrown at lazy people.

Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.


Well this about sums up your attitude, I'd say. I thought you were misguided until you mentioned Ayn Rand. Now I realize that you subscribe to a selfish and shortsighted philosophy that, if practiced on a wide scale, would lead to a collapse of civilization. Did you miss that lesson in preschool? Where sometimes it's ok to share? No, it's fine if you were too busy working that day.

Anyway, socialized medicine wouldn't be any costlier to most individuals than the current system. Take a look at Western Europe if you don't believe me. Once people stop crying about socialism and communism and look at the facts, this debate should be over quickly.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 05:21:37


Post by: Wrexasaur



OP wrote:Anyway I got to go buy a textbook for my college classes because I got to work hard, thousands on welfare depend on me.



This is one of the things that is still irritating me but w/e...

HAIL OBAMA! GUIDE OF THE SOCIALIST LIGHTHOUSE!



DRINKS FOR EVERYBODY!



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 05:37:59


Post by: halonachos


Personnally I do believe that Ayn Rand is a bit off of the deep end, I mean helping no one is bad, but you can be selective in helping people I believe. This is america, if I believe that welfare is stupid then I can, if others don't share my opinion then so be it.

A little girl once said that we should give as much money to the poor as possible. An adult asked her this: Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100. After that I'll take you to the store to buy food and clothing with that $100 and then you have to give everything to a homeless person. The little girl respondedwith why doesn't the homeless man just mow your lawn? the adult then said now you're thinking like a republican.

This example is not the same for all of course. I feel bad for the Iraqi vets coming home and being unable to find a job and those who want a steady income, but I don't have any jobs to offer. I believe that Obama was supposed to create some jobs for these folks, so far I haven't seen any.

Unfortunately, I do believe that what Obama is proposing is going to be costlier to both quality and economics of care. The care being proposed is, as I have said numerous times before, is the same as what we have now. People get treatment regardless of insurance if they show up to an emergency room or a free clinic(not a travelling fair), so why should I want to pay more if chances are that the "newer" plan will end up destroying the quality we currently have. People can and do see doctors regardless of insurance standing and the care given is the same. So again, why pay more for something that is potentially damaging?


I also believe this:
OBAMA=
One
Big
@$$
Mistake
America


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 06:22:31


Post by: Ahtman


halonachos wrote:A little girl once said that we should give as much money to the poor as possible. An adult asked her this: Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100. After that I'll take you to the store to buy food and clothing with that $100 and then you have to give everything to a homeless person. The little girl respondedwith why doesn't the homeless man just mow your lawn? the adult then said now you're thinking like a republican.


Unless they are also going to use the money to fund anti-gay rights and anti-arbortion she would be thinking more like a Libertarian. Without the moral indignation that the Republican party has merged with in the last 30 years or so it is Republican at all. Of course this is assuming this is a decent parable, which it isn't, or without flaws, which it has. It is cute, overly simplistic and has little basis in trying deal with real community problems in a pluralistic society, but it is cute.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 06:41:26


Post by: Miguelsan


halonachos wrote:Okay, listen. This medical care thing is ALREADY established in america and those without insurance would get the same care they get not even if they were insured. The hippocratic oath ensures that care will be given by a trained professional. The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs because he decided to get coked up got the same quality of care that a young woman with insurance who was in an automobile accident received.


I love demagogues (this is not aimed at halonachos but to the people who claim to spouse the ideas that he seems to base his arguments from). The illegal immigrant on drugs thing that the hardline republicans love was already old in 10.000 BC. why don´t we give it a twist for once so all can play the demagogue role?
The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs got the same quality of care than the young woman with insurance who decided to get coked up before she parked her car on him.


But this is not the issue at hand. The problem is to give PREVENTIVE care to people without insurance so they don´t have to receive COSTLY emergency treatments. If your mythical uninsured "welfare mommas" has access to a obgyn doctor charging the system lets say 100$ for the visit and the pills perhaps she wont rise you insurance premiums because a month later she has to receive a 10.000$ operation due to a miscarriage. Mr Obama wants to extend that health care to all US citizens, if you don´t agree it´s your right but please don´t try to sell us the idea that your system works because it does not.

M.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 06:50:57


Post by: dogma


halonachos wrote:
The same illegal immigrant who received thousands of dollars worth of drugs because he decided to get coked up got the same quality of care that a young woman with insurance who was in an automobile accident received.


You might want to try unloading your examples if you hope to be taken seriously in an argument.

halonachos wrote:
Speak to Thoreau. He believed that if he didn't believe in a cause he shouldn't have to pay for it , but he could decide to donate to whatever he did support. He even argued what if he didn't want to support anything at all.


Thoreau also believed that a good government would not govern, because a good government could only be sustained by those people who shared his individualist beliefs. The contradiction within that reasoning should be obvious.

halonachos wrote:
Ayn Rand Spoke for individualism and warned against serving others completely or even at all.


First, Ayn Rand was a moron who was never forced to trade on her own abilities in the way any of the characters in her novels did.

Second, Rand advocated a form of morality based on the sanctity of rational self-interest. This does not preclude holding a healthy interest in a larger society. It also does not necessarily endorse capitalism. She believed that it did but, as I said, she was a moron.

halonachos wrote:
And when you teach a man to fish he catches fish and can eat it, that's the whole idea of it. I believe that education is the answer, not money.


You claim to have experienced welfare. What would you have done without the program to support you when you needed it? You don't magically stop needing food while you're learning to provide it for yourself.

halonachos wrote:
Good thing I'm not wealthy, or that would be ad hominem and make your point invalid.


My point was already invalid, as it was based on an anecdote in the context of economic class. Much as your argument from "I know a poor person with expensive shoes" is invalid in the context of a debate on welfare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
The care being proposed is, as I have said numerous times before, is the same as what we have now.


The Obama administration hasn't even put forward a concrete proposal, so I don't really understand where you're getting that conclusion from.

halonachos wrote:
People get treatment regardless of insurance if they show up to an emergency room or a free clinic(not a travelling fair), so why should I want to pay more if chances are that the "newer" plan will end up destroying the quality we currently have.


The entire point is that you would pay less if there was a public option. As it stands doctors who treat the uninsured have no recourse to recover their losses. With national insurance this would no longer be the case; shifting the burden to those who have the capacity to pay through taxes.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 07:10:22


Post by: Wrexasaur


halonachos wrote:Well okay then, you can mow my lawn for $100.


Wow... how big is your lawn?!? That sounds like a hefty price to pay what I would give a kid 10$ for and tell them to be happy about it, because when you get bills it only gets worse, and when you get a career you will learn how to charge the right price.

A lawn gets mown and it is. A rock gets moved and it is.

Money gets moved and it... hmm, I am out of money .

"Note"
If a kid can explain to me why I should pay more than 10$ for something that takes less than an hour (pros cut it in 10 minutes , and then finish the day up with a dozen more netting around 300-500$ a day, but that comes with the guarantee that they are a business before an individual, please don't get into morals over this, we know how it works).

BTW, I know at least 5 straight up BUMS in my area that I wouldn't even want in my area let alone doing chores around the house, ESPECIALLY if I had kids.

The concept that you are presenting of people working for everything is antiquated to say the least. Welcome to the age of the computer where technology determines the cap of your knowledge on the grounds that you cannot fly high enough or with powerful enough binoculars to be able to counter the common Joe Shmoe with a computer and networking skills. Yes, Obama IS good at the internets, and the bets are in mate, cash your chips.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 15:58:42


Post by: halonachos


Firstly @ wrexasaur, it is an example the money is out of proportion of course its a silly way to say that we should let the homeless work for themselves to earn their pay. Now you said that you don't want those bums to be around you so they will most likely not be hired by you for pettly manual labor. Are you more willing perhaps to just give them some cash if you happen to go by them?

@ Migeulsan.

See the funny thing is I actually did a round for 12 hours in an emergency room at a hospital in a neighboring city(norfolk). Now, an illegal immigrant came in and was having severe reactions to something. Testing proved it to be cocaine. The guy's heart would've stopped and he would've died. Another funny thing is that he had a catheter put in and when he came round it was removed. Unfortunatley he wasn't off of the high and ended up urinating on me, an ER tech and the curtains surrounding the little area.

Am I saying our system is perfect, no, but name one that is. There are free clinics that offer free birth control, free HIV screening, free condoms, free anything relating to illness or prevention. Is it the same care Magic Johnson can afford no, but the guy probably has 7 private physicians. Exaggeration of course.

In the current system hospitals foot the bill for the uninsured patients, in the newer proposal the government a.k.a the people will foot the bill. Either way I lose money and everyone else loses money. There's no need for a new systemwe need to fix the old one and we can do it without running up a billion dollar bill.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another website said that one way to rid the US of this healthcare issue us for companies to pay their share for healthcare costs meaning lowering the cost for employees so they can use the plans offered by their employer. I agree with this and I also believe that we should lower industrial taxes on our corporations so that they don't lose too much income. Also it says that the government cannot haggle prescription drug costs with the providers like insurers can so that should also be fixed.

Look at that, industry gets lower taxes and pays more for employee care. Government can get lower prices on the drugs they give to medicare patients, amazing. So far I only see savings. As a bonus the corporations with the lower tax can afford more employees or more raises, this means that the average income tax would increase and provide income for the government.

BTW I do believe in the trickle down effect, lowering industrial taxes is going to have a constant effect unlike the stimulus package which gave a finite amount of currency to certain businesses.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 16:37:00


Post by: avantgarde


I got a great plan, let's shut down all this UHC stuff, talk about reforming the current system and not worry about it for 15 more years. gak we already did that...

You know that's exactly what will happen if this falls through, everyone will forget about health care reform and it'll be the status quo for another decade.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 16:48:31


Post by: halonachos


Personnally I believe it can be worked out, I think there's a senator in oregon working on a different plan for reform that supposedly does not increase the current debt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I saw it on CNN, but can't ind it again, anyways he talked about small business finding ways to cheaply get healthcare for their employees.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 16:58:25


Post by: avantgarde


He's going to drop it like it's hawt once this is over. The Dems can't even fight past the blue dogs, the biggest pack of pussies south of the mason-dixon line. Do you really expect a senator from Oregon to build up enough support to fight the lobbyists?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 17:12:49


Post by: halonachos


He said he had 14 other senators on board IIRC.

Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 17:36:49


Post by: Kilkrazy


Isn't that a national plan anyway?

Legislation will have to be passed to mandate some level of insurance payments by businesses. There will need to be an agency to check if they are doing it, and some kind of law enforcement to deal with the businesses that don't.

It sounds rather complicated and bureaucratic, and expensive.

The increased insurance payments will eat into business profits, and reduce competitiveness and staff salaries.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 17:38:11


Post by: gorgon


The reason the rest of the developed world has universal healthcare and the U.S. doesn't is because we have by far the most refined sense of "as long as I'm okay, F@&$ everybody else." The stuff that health insurers get away with is ridiculous, but they know they're safe as long as a majority of Americans have health coverage. Nobody gives two $hits about the system until THEY'RE the one lacking health insurance and with a pre-existing condition that means either they can't get coverage or it's priced beyond their ability to pay.

In America, there are no problems until it happens to ME.

/rant


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 17:47:12


Post by: avantgarde


Awesome, 14 mystery senators in the chamber that can't initiate a spending, revenue or appropriation bill. That's guaranteed to get stuff done.

halonachos wrote:Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.
That's included in HR 3200. Employers with a payroll above $250k must provide health care to employees or pay 6% or 8% (depending on the size of the company) of the payroll to help finance coverage for the employees and those below $250k (if they choose to buy insurance for employees) will receive government assistance through the form of tax credits. Of course it's a very round about way of putting it in place considering the rest of the bill is over a thousand pages long and it hinges on the rest of the bill to provide for employees whose work won't provide healthcare.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 18:00:28


Post by: sebster


halonachos wrote:He said he had 14 other senators on board IIRC.

Anyway I believe that making businesses pay more for their employees' healthcare and allowing small business to give healthcare plans for their employees is they way to go, not a national plan.


A healthcare policy based around hitting business for the increased costs has exactly zero chance of passing. There's been 70%+ support for healthcare reform since the Clinton healthcare plan was sunk. But it was still a political dead issue because the power groups in Washington didn't care. Then the car companies found out that healthcare costs per car were greater than other component. It was $2,000 or 3,000 hit that foreign manufacturers weren't paying. All of a sudden healthcare became an issue again.

A plan that hits businesses has no chance of getting up, none. I really wonder what the intention of the senators involved in the plan is. Is it to rally opposition to the Obama plan while claiming they're not obstructionist? Maybe, because it sure isn't to get their own plan passed.

And simply increasing the charge on business is missing the point entirely. You have a system that doesn't provide preventative care to millions, that costs around 50% more than other countries and provides poorer care. That hurts the competitiveness of your business by charging them. And the solution you prefer is to charge businesses more?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 20:30:23


Post by: halonachos


No the plan for the small business is to let them go to a "farmers market" of insurance which gives them more power so they can get coverage or something like that.


But I know that making business cover more costs will go down, but maybe if the government lessens the tax burden on said corporations it may go through.

America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. As of 2005 it had a 39% tax while in the UK and Australia they had a 30% tax. The private tax was at around 28% for america and about 25% for australia while the UK had close to 35%.

If we perhaps cut the corporate tax to about what european countries charge their corporations then maybe the corporations would 1) Stop moving to foreign countries, 2) Make higher profits, 3) Be willing to cover employee healthcare costs, etc.

I mean a major retailer making $1,000,000 would lose (rounding to 40%) $400,000 to corporate tax alone. So they would end up with $600,000 left to pay employees and give benefits and buy products, etc. If the tax was reduced(McCain wanted 25%) they would lose $250,000 having $750,000 left to do the same.

However, I don't believe that the federal government should demand that business does these things, but instead the federal government should do what it does to get state governments to go along. Give incentives. For example: If business A would cover 95% of their employees' healthcare costs then they get a nice tax reduction.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 22:28:10


Post by: Kilkrazy


I'm afraid that whatever tax rate you set, some little craphole like Sark will set a lower one.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/29 23:32:03


Post by: Ketara


Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 04:20:58


Post by: sebster


halonachos wrote:No the plan for the small business is to let them go to a "farmers market" of insurance which gives them more power so they can get coverage or something like that.


But seriously, why not just take the business out of the equation? Why should a person's healthcare be determined by whether he works at one company or another? Why not build a system where an individual can go out and choose his own coverage?

It would be a complete restructure of the system but this is the internet, the natural home of pie in the sky. I don't understand why no-one seems to be talking about that option at all.

But I know that making business cover more costs will go down, but maybe if the government lessens the tax burden on said corporations it may go through.

America has one of the highest corporate taxes in the world. As of 2005 it had a 39% tax while in the UK and Australia they had a 30% tax. The private tax was at around 28% for america and about 25% for australia while the UK had close to 35%.


You have to be careful with those direct comparisons of tax rates. The US rate quoted is the top marginal rate, whereas the Australian rate is the flat tax rate. In the US you can pay as little as 10% (I think?) while in Australia you pay 30% regardless of whether you generate $10 or $10 billion.

It gets more complicated again, because there's another 10% in Australia as GST, and various other taxes collected at a state level. I'm not saying who ends up getting charged more or less, just that it's very complicated and any straight up comparison is likely to be wrong.

If we perhaps cut the corporate tax to about what european countries charge their corporations then maybe the corporations would 1) Stop moving to foreign countries, 2) Make higher profits, 3) Be willing to cover employee healthcare costs, etc.


Jobs in every developed country are moving overseas. No tax rate can ever compete with a total employee cost of a $1 a day. The way you stop this is by not competing in low skilled manufacturing. Let stuff that adds little or no value go overseas, and focus on high end manufacturing, design, and other technical jobs. You protect high income jobs by focussing on jobs that actually add high value.

And I don't think any level of stuffing about with corporate tax rates will make companies more or less interested in covering employee health plans. An expense is an expense, and it cuts into profit.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 04:35:20


Post by: halonachos


What I am saying is this though, the federal government can't control certain aspects such as schooling. For example where I live I have a 6pt scale (A=100-94,B=93-86,C=85-78,D=77-70,E=69 and below) while others including the college I now go to have a 10 pt scale(A=100-90,B=89-80,C=79-70,D=69-60,E=59 and everything below). Now this is just to show that the federal government has no control over this, in fact the city does.


@ketara,

Anyone with an illness can see a doctor despite race, creed, etc already. There are free clinics, and charity clinics, and emergency rooms. Things are already set in place for care.
However each school doesn't allow drugs, alchohol, or tobacco anywhere near the schools. This is mainly because the federal government gives incentives to the city government(funding) if they comply with these rules.

All I am saying is that they do the same for business, stick a carrot in front of them to lead them in the general direction. I believe that wal-mart(oh, evil, evil) has many of its employees on medicaid because their plan is too expensive for the employees. If wal-mart was offered a discount on taxes for paying for their employees healthcare then they may nibble and eventually bite. So the government gets a little less taxes, but the employees then have affordable healthcare.

Yeah, about the taxes,it did say that you guys have a funny time frame for it as well. In america taxes is dependent on what you own and how much you make. I believe england is closer to what you own IIRC.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 12:01:11


Post by: Frazzled


Ketara wrote:Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.


Yes but what does naitonal Healthcare do for you when you're old. There are certain big issue things going along with the Congress/Obama fiasco plan in that regard. Judging whether or not you get treatment based on your age vs. life expectantcy? Its all well and good if the system can treat the average broken arm. Big damn deal. Its another if the you've heart arythmia (spelling) at 65 and its recommended you take painkillers -er what? (actual Obama statement at last townhall). if the measure of your care is determined by your age then this is absolutely nuts. Again great for invulnerable 20 year olds, sucks for senior citizens. We vote (and still vote more than you BAH!)


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 12:36:50


Post by: SilverMK2


I am not entirely sure how people think that paying for medical insurance is better than spending the equivilent amount on state healthcare?

Currently a tiny fraction of your tax will go towards healthcare, while you pay (through decreased wages to cover work health insurange) a considerable amount more for health insurance.

For a simple example, if you pay 10% of your wage in tax, perhaps 0.5% of that will go on healthcare for those without insurance.

You then effectively pay another 10% for private health coverage. Most of that will go into stockholders pockets and the general insurance organisation. The rest will go into treating other people covered by your insurance company who are ill.

I am just going to make up a figure here, but if 50% of your insurance goes back into healthcare, and 50% of it goes into the insurance industry, I would not be surprised.

Now, imagine a world where, for the sake of argument, you pay a special health tax of 10% instead of your insurance contributions. I would be vastly surprised if it turned out that more than 1% of this new tax was "wasted" (in the same way that 50% currently goes stright into the insurane company's pockets), while 99% would go straight back into the medical industry, leading to BETTER healthcare than is currently available.

The numbers are made up for ease of illustration, but the basic principal is the same. With a national healthcare system, you may end up paying less (as everyone would contribute to the health service via tax, rather than currently where a large chunk of your wage is taken out as health insurance, meaning that as everyone is paying, the burdon on the individual will be less) for a better service at the end of the day.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 13:05:22


Post by: Kilkrazy


Exactly. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread the US system consumes 50% more GDP than European style national systems for roughly the same result.

I say roughly because there are many different areas within health where some nations are better or worse than others.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 13:13:51


Post by: Frazzled


SilverMK2 wrote:I am not entirely sure how people think that paying for medical insurance is better than spending the equivilent amount on state healthcare?

Currently a tiny fraction of your tax will go towards healthcare, while you pay (through decreased wages to cover work health insurange) a considerable amount more for health insurance.

For a simple example, if you pay 10% of your wage in tax, perhaps 0.5% of that will go on healthcare for those without insurance.

You then effectively pay another 10% for private health coverage. Most of that will go into stockholders pockets and the general insurance organisation. The rest will go into treating other people covered by your insurance company who are ill.

I am just going to make up a figure here, but if 50% of your insurance goes back into healthcare, and 50% of it goes into the insurance industry, I would not be surprised.

Now, imagine a world where, for the sake of argument, you pay a special health tax of 10% instead of your insurance contributions. I would be vastly surprised if it turned out that more than 1% of this new tax was "wasted" (in the same way that 50% currently goes stright into the insurane company's pockets), while 99% would go straight back into the medical industry, leading to BETTER healthcare than is currently available.

The numbers are made up for ease of illustration, but the basic principal is the same. With a national healthcare system, you may end up paying less (as everyone would contribute to the health service via tax, rather than currently where a large chunk of your wage is taken out as health insurance, meaning that as everyone is paying, the burdon on the individual will be less) for a better service at the end of the day.


The problem of course, is that you're assuming incredibly falsely, that it will be cheaper via taxes than via insurance. Its a sweeping but accurate statement-there simply isn't anything that the US government does more cheaply than private. This is the same government that was going to spend tens of thousands so the FDA could have a meeting in Australia(!!!) and is just now thinking of such cost savings as turning the lights off after working hours. Brilliant! They don't have a clue.
Maybe your government is more efficient.

Add in that the impact upon Medicare is going to drive estimates of half the doctors currently in the sytem out of the system, and you have a horror story scenario. Turning existing healthcare for seniors in craptown is not the way to go. I'd better get off this topic before I land blows I can't recall as this is a big deal to me.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 13:22:19


Post by: Wrexasaur


Frazzled wrote:Maybe your government is more efficient.


Ours seems to be relatively efficient for the time being, if Obama has half a brain, he will inform people in subtle ways to make some changes by voting for better reps in whatever areas they see fit.

After all we do supposedly vote most if not all of the important guys and gals in right?

Damn we must suck at voting... seriously though...


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 13:26:00


Post by: SilverMK2


Would it be possible to get an idea of how much tax you would expect to pay on a wage of, say, $25,000 and how much you would then pay in health insurance (or how much health insurance you would get to "take your wage up to" and equivilent of $25,000)?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 13:56:59


Post by: Kilkrazy


Assuming £1 = $1.60, your take-home pay would be $20,327.84

In other words, the stoppages for income tax and National Insurance amount to $4,672.16.

Health Insurance, basic state pension, unemployment insurance and state earnings related pension payments are all included within the stoppages.

Caculated here:

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php?c=1&yr=2009&age=0&add=0&code=&pension=0&time=1&ingr=15625&vw[]=yr&vw[]=mth&vw[]=wk


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:09:50


Post by: Ketara


Ketara wrote:Okay, I've just read the last 4 pages. I think that my reason as to why the US should have National Healthcare can summed up in a few concise points.

-National Healthcare allows everyone to get treated when they are sick, regardless of race,AGE, social position, or bank balance.

-This is a good thing.

-See above two points.


It's really as simple as that. Bemoan taxes all you like, but if you think that people should be denied the right to good health(and thus, quite possibly, life) just because they don't have a good enough job, or enough moolah in the bank, you are the kind of person that disgusts me.


Edited it in for you there Frazzled. Regardless of whatever illness you have, or however old you are, you should be treated.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:18:42


Post by: Frazzled


You should be BUT YOU AREN"T UNDER THIS PLAN.

thats the freeking point.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:19:53


Post by: SilverMK2


That is a pretty cool tax site. Thanks for that.

Although I was rather interested to see the American side of things (in terms of their tax and insurance premiums etc), it is good to have a more concrete idea as to what taxpayers in the UK would pay on the same wage.

Though I am given to understand that in terms of cost of living, $1 is worth more or less the same as £1, so it might be worth comparing £25,000 against $25,000 directly in terms of taxation/insurance etc...


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:24:29


Post by: dietrich


halonachos wrote:I mean a major retailer making $1,000,000 would lose (rounding to 40%) $400,000 to corporate tax alone. So they would end up with $600,000 left to pay employees and give benefits and buy products, etc. If the tax was reduced(McCain wanted 25%) they would lose $250,000 having $750,000 left to do the same.

Corporate taxes get levied against Profit, not Revenue. So, it a business have $1mill in revenue, spent $500,000 on payroll, another $200,000 on rent, and another $200,000 on other operating expenses - they would pay $40,000 not $400,000. Now, if they were making $1mill in Profit, yes, they'd pay $400,000 in taxes.

Kilkrazy wrote:Exactly. As I have pointed out earlier in this thread the US system consumes 50% more GDP than European style national systems for roughly the same result. I say roughly because there are many different areas within health where some nations are better or worse than others.

That's why extending coverage to everyone seems like a band-aid. The healthcare system needs some real reform, and this isn't it. It would help, becuase the insured wouldn't be paying for treatment to uninsured, but it's not the whole step. Malpractice insurance has sky-rocketed. There's a shortage of nurses, so their labor costs have gone up. There's a bureacracy that rivals the Imperium behind the whole thing.

Again, I don't want the fed gov't to take over health coverage. The US fed gov't has rarely shown itself to be fiscally efficient. Further, it depends on getting funding from Congress (unless they set up a separate fund, and if it's like Social Security, it'll run out of money at some point).

I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:29:11


Post by: reds8n


Don't all the big American corporations simply move their HQS out of the country, sometimes just after taking record amounts off of the USA taxpayer through Govt. contracts ?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:34:51


Post by: SilverMK2


dietrich wrote:I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.


Perhaps with everyone paying taxes for a better healthcare system rather than feeding the insurance industry, you would be able to get something better than a sticky plaster


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:37:48


Post by: dietrich


SilverMK2 wrote:
dietrich wrote:I don't have an answer, but what has been proposed seems like putting a band-aid on a broken leg.

Perhaps with everyone paying taxes for a better healthcare system rather than feeding the insurance industry, you would be able to get something better than a sticky plaster

The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:41:15


Post by: Frazzled


Again why? Why do you think government run anything would be better? (again this is a US only comment).

Not everyone is paying taxes. Only about 50% are paying income taxes at this point. Comparisons to late imperial Rome are...disconcerting. Personally, and i am speaking in the official context and not this discussion, unless you're paying taxes you should have no vote or say whatsoever in this.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:42:19


Post by: SilverMK2


dietrich wrote:The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.


I'm not going to argue there. Many systems get by year after year with patches slapped over the cracks. The chaos caused by putting the whole thing into dry dock for rebuilding would be too immense to most people to contemplate, and so the cycle moves on.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:54:04


Post by: halonachos


That whole tax thing is nice, but in America we have federal taxes, state taxes, social security, and sometimes other taxes depending on where you are.I don't know about england too much, but I don't think you guys have a "county tax" or something similar to a state tax. I think you only have something similar to the federal tax(main government) correct me if I'm wrong.

Still, most major retailers and gas comapnies will make the high margin profits that get heavily taxed. If a business can't thrive in america it would go elsewhere where they don't have to lose 40% of their profit.

However, removing liability is impossible. I mean if someone is willing to complain and sue over spilling coffee on themselves, then they would sue if a doctor slighted them in the least. Seeing as though there are 3x more lawyers in america than there are doctors and most politicians are lawyers, liability is here to stay.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 14:56:34


Post by: SilverMK2


Frazzled wrote:Again why? Why do you think government run anything would be better? (again this is a US only comment).


It works reasonably well in the rest of the world. Some of the best healthcare in the world is found in countries with a national health service.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html and to perhaps a greater extent http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html show how far behind the UK the US is in terms of the performance of its health service.

No matter how much we in the UK moan about the NHS, we are ranked 24th best in the world (in the second link), and ranked 18th in overall health system performance, with the US trailing at 72nd, with a a rank of 37th in terms of overall health system performance.

It also looks like, from the second link, the US spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation on earth.

It is no guarantee that it would be better, but it indicates that, if you do it right, it can be significantly better and cheaper than leaving it in the hands of the private sector.

unless you're paying taxes you should have no vote or say whatsoever in this.


So, only those who torture people should be able to say whether torture is good or bad and should have any control over whether torture is fine or not?

Perhaps only people who use buses should be able to dictate where they run and if you drive, you have no say when the motorway is closed down to provide an ultra fast bus route free of cars?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:02:10


Post by: dietrich


halonachos wrote:However, removing liability is impossible. I mean if someone is willing to complain and sue over spilling coffee on themselves, then they would sue if a doctor slighted them in the least. Seeing as though there are 3x more lawyers in america than there are doctors and most politicians are lawyers, liability is here to stay.

Except that you can't sue the State unless the State allows you to. And working for the government, generally, protects the individual from a direct suit as well.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:11:39


Post by: Frazzled


SilverMK2 wrote:
So, only those who torture people should be able to say whether torture is good or bad and should have any control over whether torture is fine or not?

Perhaps only people who use buses should be able to dictate where they run and if you drive, you have no say when the motorway is closed down to provide an ultra fast bus route free of cars?


No only people who actual skin in the game should have a say. Thats people who are paying those taxces, or have paid them in the past (retireds). People just voting themselves benefits should shut the hell up.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:20:11


Post by: Kilkrazy


SilverMK2 wrote:
dietrich wrote:The government rarely does anything cheaper than private industry. And partially because the overhead for government employees is probably 25% to 50% higher due to better benefits. The system needs overhauled. People making money from the current system don't want to see it changed. Just switching private insurance to a government backed insurance isn't the whole answer. Now, if they switched everything to government sponsored and it reduced liability, etc. - then it could matter.


I'm not going to argue there. Many systems get by year after year with patches slapped over the cracks. The chaos caused by putting the whole thing into dry dock for rebuilding would be too immense to most people to contemplate, and so the cycle moves on.


If the UK managed it in the aftermath of WW2, I should think the USA can manage it if there is the political will.

This whole 'governments manage things badly' mantra is getting old and tired.

Blackwater defence contractors cost a lot more than US Army.

US private health insurance costs a lot more than European government managed health

Look at the current state of US car and banking industries and say that the private management managed all of that well.

Good managers manage things well. Bad managers don't. It doesn't matter if they are in the private sector or the public sector.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:22:42


Post by: Frazzled


Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.

What has US government run well? Yep you can name examples of bad US companies but no one can ever provide examples of well run US government entities.
-Post Office
-military procurement
-nonmilitary procurement
-Amtrak
-NASA


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:24:40


Post by: SilverMK2


Right...

Well, I understand what you are saying; only those who contribute to the nation should be permitted to shape it.

However, we are not talking about giving the poor/unemployed rights above and beyond the average tax payer, we are not talking about taking your house and TV away from you and letting some hobo have them.

We are talking about the provision of required care for all, without the worry that they will then have huge bills that they cannot pay.

What happens, for example, when you are injured (or become ill) and go to the doctor but that particular injury or illness is not covered by your insurance? You would be in (to my understanding), more or less the same boat as someone with no job living on the streets.

You could be treated (if it were a life or death treatment), but you would be stuck with a huge bill afterwards. Perhaps if the condition were not so urgent you might decide you could not afford to be treated, and would have to live with it. Hell, perhaps the insurance company would decide that you were too much of a liability and that one day soon they may have to shell out some of their party tokens on treating you, so they either bump your premiums through the roof or simply refuse to insure you.

Surely in the long run, everyone (or the vast majority) paying a little so that everyone has a basic level of care, free from the worries illustrated above is better than a sizable proportion of the population being unable to get the treatment they require, while you continue to pay top dollar for health insurance that you may never use anyway?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:48:11


Post by: Frazzled


[I should posit beforehand that I am not saying the system has some problems and needs work…I mainly have an issue with these imncompentents trying to rush through a bad version in two weeks that won’t fix any issues.

SilverMK2 wrote:Right...

Well, I understand what you are saying; only those who contribute to the nation should be permitted to shape it.

However, we are not talking about giving the poor/unemployed rights above and beyond the average tax payer, we are not talking about taking your house and TV away from you and letting some hobo have them.

*Actually it will. Increased taxes on the middle class are coming. Less jobs will hammer the economy further. Billions of dollars are going to be pulled from Medicare which directly takes resources from Sr. Citizens.



We are talking about the provision of required care for all, without the worry that they will then have huge bills that they cannot pay.

But also limitations on care for said Sr. Citizens, and significantly increased taxes.


What happens, for example, when you are injured (or become ill) and go to the doctor but that particular injury or illness is not covered by your insurance? You would be in (to my understanding), more or less the same boat as someone with no job living on the streets.

What happens when its not covered by GovCare? What happens when GovCare determines you’re too old so no medical procedure for you? What happens when half the Medicare doctors bail on the program for Sr. Citizens because payments are reduced to govern GovCare?



Surely in the long run, everyone (or the vast majority) paying a little

Low estimates are $1.0TRN in increased costs, and that includes taking hundreds of millions out of Medicare and includes vaunted cost savings. Lets restate that number: $1.0TRN.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:53:14


Post by: halonachos


That's true dietrich I forgot about that whole the government must give you permission to sue it thing, however, the government would allow people to sue lest the people get really, really upset about it.


Thanks reds8n, it seems that you have the same types of taxes we have(for the most part) however, we still pay an income tax to both state and federal taxes. For example I had to use my entire federal tax return to pay my state taxes.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:55:26


Post by: dietrich


It depends what and why they're suing. If a private firm had designed the New Orleans levee system, they'd been sued off the planet. Because the Corps of Engineers did it, they haven't been.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I should posit beforehand that I am not saying the system has some problems and needs work…I mainly have an issue with these imncompentents trying to rush through a bad version in two weeks that won’t fix any issues.

That's a thousand-or-so pages long. My guess is that most of Congress hasn't read it, at best, they've had an aide(s) read it and give them a summary. I have no faith in Congress doing something that makes sense. This is the same group that wants to give up Cap and Trade. My guess is they'll pass something with the best of intentions and the law of unintended consequences will just turn it into a disaster.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:59:30


Post by: Frazzled


Hell they've said there's no use reading... thats just scary. This will be round four of this nightmare style of approval

TARP
Budget
Cap and Trade
This.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 15:59:43


Post by: SilverMK2


As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.

Now, don't get me wrong, but do you really need a huge fleet of Nuclear steath bombers, more nukes than you need to blow the planet in half a couple of times, etc etc...?

I don't have time to reply to all your points, as I am about to leave work (woo, paid to debate on the internet!), but I just thought that I would point out that £1trn is not actually a large figure when dealing with governments.

And what I do not think is factored into your costing is the fact that you can "increase taxes" quite considerably to cover the cost of healthcare, simply by rerouting a proportion of the employers wage package that used to go on medical insurance, leaving health insurance the province of choice, (as it is in the UK) rather than manditory.

*gone*


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:01:36


Post by: dietrich


$1 Trillion is a lot of money, doesn't matter who is paying it.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:03:31


Post by: halonachos


dietrich wrote:
That's a thousand-or-so pages long. My guess is that most of Congress hasn't read it, at best, they've had an aide(s) read it and give them a summary. I have no faith in Congress doing something that makes sense. This is the same group that wants to give up Cap and Trade. My guess is they'll pass something with the best of intentions and the law of unintended consequences will just turn it into a disaster.


Hell, most of congress doesn't even show up to work. Have you ever watched c-span? There's like 50 people in the house and 13 in the senate.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:05:13


Post by: Kilkrazy


Frazzled wrote:Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.

What has US government run well? Yep you can name examples of bad US companies but no one can ever provide examples of well run US government entities.
-Post Office
-military procurement
-nonmilitary procurement
-Amtrak
-NASA


Well it's true NASA never got to the Moon.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:06:16


Post by: halonachos


SilverMK2 wrote:I don't have time to reply to all your points, as I am about to leave work (woo, paid to debate on the internet!), but I just thought that I would point out that £1trn is not actually a large figure when dealing with governments.



Actually that's almost 2trn in american monies. Seeing as though our national debt is 11TRN, that is a whole hell of a lot of money.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:06:34


Post by: Kilkrazy


The funny thing is, lots of government run things in other countries are great.

British Post Office used to be the best in the World.
British Rail worked much better before privatisation.
The NHS.

Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:07:11


Post by: halonachos




Also to those nonbelievers, the moon has some gravity, not a lot but some so the flag would sag.

But the US government is well, stupid. NASA spent millions to develope a pen that would write in zero gravity, the russian space program used a pencil. We like to be high tech, not simple.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:17:09


Post by: dietrich


Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.

That could well be. There's a Friends episode, where Joey is describing his family, "The Tribianies aren't great leaders, or thinkers. And we don't run real fast. But, we can eat!" That's America.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:23:29


Post by: Frazzled


SilverMK2 wrote:As of 2009, the United States government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.


Do we really need to be defending Europe?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The funny thing is, lots of government run things in other countries are great.

British Post Office used to be the best in the World.
British Rail worked much better before privatisation.
The NHS.

Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.


Thats why I keep saying US government KK. While even we are better than your average banana republic, I have no proof that Europe's government is as blindingly incompetent as ours. I'm pretty certain the Singapore government is a Ferrari compared to our Nova.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:37:18


Post by: halonachos


dietrich wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Maybe Americans are just rubbish at government.

That could well be. There's a Friends episode, where Joey is describing his family, "The Tribianies aren't great leaders, or thinkers. And we don't run real fast. But, we can eat!" That's America.


Yet we somehow decided to be the world's police force and invented the internet, atomic power, assembly lines, ended both world wars, and invented the waffle cone.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:44:34


Post by: Frazzled


Don't forget Chicago style pizza.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 16:58:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


World's police force -- copied from Britain.
Teh Internet -- Key technologies invented by Britain.
Atomic Power -- Mostly British work.
Assembly Lines -- Adam Smith (British)
World Wars -- stepped in to help once Britain and the Soviets had done the hard bits.
Waffle Cone -- I cone argue with that one. It sounds waffly interesting.

There's a reason it's called Great Britain, you know!!!


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:04:40


Post by: reds8n


NASA spent millions to develope a pen that would write in zero gravity,


Except they didn't. This is a hoary old internet myth.

snopes article


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:05:32


Post by: Frazzled


Kilkrazy wrote:World's police force -- copied from Britain.-yep
Teh Internet -- Key technologies invented by Britain. yea but we did it.
Atomic Power -- Mostly British work. BS we did it. Actually mostly German work...
Assembly Lines -- Adam Smith (British) Smith was a theorist. Ford made gazillions.
World Wars -- stepped in to help once Britain and the Soviets had done the hard bits. Yes, like how you kicked the crap out of the Japanese right? Germans didn't give up until WE entered WWI. I'll give you Soviets but your big victory in WWII to date was beating Rommel in a battle before we came along...
Waffle Cone -- I cone argue with that one. It sounds waffly interesting. Good one! Note the key purpose of waffle cones is as an ice cream delivery system yea baby yea baby!
There's a reason it's called Great Britain, you know!!!Because "Land of Oi! You there!" was taken?


Come on English, you did 5,000 things, no need to try to go after every bit. There's enough for both.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:11:23


Post by: halonachos


Should be renamed the Britain formerly known as Great...

After all, america pulled its fair share. Seeing as though only Germany, Russia, Japan, and Yugoslavia lost more soldiers than the US. Sure UK lost more civilians but you were in the direct path of the nazi war machine while we were out of the way and not wanting to fight.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:14:38


Post by: Frazzled


Lets be nice Halo, country bashing by any party is not needed.

Personally I think Royal Brittania works better though. It sounds even more formal and empiresque.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:28:00


Post by: halonachos


OK fine. England does have some good things, like Monty Python and Simon Pegg, and I guess Warhammer is good too.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:30:46


Post by: sebster


Frazzled wrote:Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.

What has US government run well? Yep you can name examples of bad US companies but no one can ever provide examples of well run US government entities.
-Post Office
-military procurement
-nonmilitary procurement
-Amtrak
-NASA


But I'm sure you'd be able to present a lot of cases of private companies running public utilities with great success and public applaud. Or possibly running a utility is pretty much a guarantee that people are going to be pissed at you.



Meanwhile, you keep saying that govt run healthcare would cost so much more. Which is great, arbitrage and invisible hands and all the rest, hooray for Adam Smith. Except that the efficiencies of the private sector only kick in when you have a competitive market where the end consumer can directly choose his preferred vendor. Which you really, really don't have. So you miss the advantages while still getting all the problems of a private system. And it's the big reason admin costs in the US system are more than anywhere else in the world.

Don't believe me?
The New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/349/8/768
"In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada."
"administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada"

The New York Times http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/
"One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year."
"The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total."

The Commonwealth Fund http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2008/Jul/Why-Not-the-Best--Results-from-the-National-Scorecard-on-U-S--Health-System-Performance--2008.aspx
"Inappropriate, wasteful, or fragmented care: In 2007, as in 2005, U.S. patients were much more likely—three to four times the benchmark rate—than patients in other countries to report having had duplicate tests or that medical records or test results were not available at the time of their appointment."
"Administrative costs: U.S. health insurance administrative costs as a share of total health spending are 30 percent to 70 percent higher than in countries with mixed private/public insurance systems and three times higher than in countries with the lowest rates."



So you can go with what's true, or you can go with the theory of 'wooho private is more efficient'. It's up to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
dietrich wrote:It depends what and why they're suing. If a private firm had designed the New Orleans levee system, they'd been sued off the planet. Because the Corps of Engineers did it, they haven't been.


Because people can't sue government? The hell? I think you'll find its more to do with specifically constructed public liability (because if any body became liable for the destruction of a city then no organisation could risk undertaking the work, not even a government). It has nothing to do with government being unable to be sued.


halonachos wrote:But the US government is well, stupid. NASA spent millions to develope a pen that would write in zero gravity, the russian space program used a pencil. We like to be high tech, not simple.


Except that story is false and was discredited decades ago. In early manned missions both NASA and the Russians used pencils. Unfortunately there were a lot of problems with using pencils, as leads would snap and threaten to lodge themselves in the fragile equipment. So, Paul Fischer, an inventor enthused with space flight, spent his own time and money to develop a pen that would work in space. He gave it to the American space program for free, and later the Russians as well.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:48:42


Post by: Kilkrazy


halonachos wrote:OK fine. England does have some good things, like Monty Python and Simon Pegg, and I guess Warhammer is good too.


Don't forget Britain invented the USA.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/30 17:50:13


Post by: halonachos


Britain invented the colonies which americans later took to make america.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 08:19:10


Post by: dogma


Frazzled wrote:Blackwater's actually a good deal cheaper for what it does.



Blackwater only looks cheap on paper. When considering time on deployment PMC troops cost more per day than any other type of soldier as they not only earn more money, but utilize the logistical train which is paid for entirely by the defense department. The only savings originate in the absence of a standing outlay, which itself can be discounted because any employee of Blackwater is likely to have received his training during a stint in the services. Its actually a great example of how the private sector can artificially increase costs.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 09:12:24


Post by: SilverMK2


halonachos wrote:Britain invented the colonies which americans later took to make america.


Yeah, with the help of the French if I recall (my American history is almost non-existant as we have way more history to learn over here )


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 09:26:05


Post by: Ahtman


You don't invent colonies you settle them. I'm also not sure Britain take credit for every colony settled in North America. Wait, I am sure.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 10:20:58


Post by: reds8n


Ahtman wrote: I'm also not sure Britain take credit for every colony settled in North America.


Happy to try though.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 12:11:20


Post by: Frazzled


Fallen668 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

But thats not how it currently is in the US. If you're working full time legally you pretty much have insurance. If you're not you have medicaid.



That is so not true. I don't... I work on average 50 Hours a week for the county in the court system and I DO NOT have health insurance. The last two people chronologically in my office do not get ANY benefits. Conveniently though the person who is under me is a retiree from the sheriff's department, so he retained his Insurance as a retirement perk. So... I am the ONLY employee in my office who does not get health care. I am desperately waiting for someone who is above me to leave in whatever means necessary, be it quitting, getting fired or just out right dieing. Quite honestly... I can not tell you how happy I wold be if I came to work and heard that one of those three outcomes had happened to anyone there above me.


The irony of a government worker complaining about not having private insurance is ironical.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 12:31:39


Post by: George Spiggott


Even Alanis Morisette thinks that's unfortunate.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 12:38:06


Post by: Frazzled


At least she's not here to remind us of the mess we made when we went away.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 12:51:18


Post by: George Spiggott


Frazzled wrote:At least she's not here to remind us of the mess we made when we went away.

It was tidy when I left, that must have been you leaving your raincoat out (did you have to wear that for her wedding?). She was out of knives so I topped up the drawer with extra spoons, I bet she'll have a problem about that too.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 14:57:19


Post by: halonachos


Well, england may take credit for the colonies(at least everything besides florida on the eastern coast), but look at the proper mess you gits made. I mean you left us with poor healthcare and economic instability. I thought you english would have better manners than that.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 14:59:23


Post by: Frazzled


halonachos wrote:Well, england may take credit for the colonies(at least everything besides florida on the eastern coast), but look at the proper mess you gits made. I mean you left us with poor healthcare and economic instability. I thought you english would have better manners than that.


And the Louisiana Territories, and the territories owned by Spain, and the territories controlled by the Czar of all the Russias.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:03:40


Post by: halonachos


You want to blame england for those as well?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:08:48


Post by: Frazzled


No just noting only a small portion of the US started as the 13 Colonies.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:16:29


Post by: halonachos


Shhh, ixnay on the originalay thirteenay coloniesay. They don't know that they only foundeday the easternay coastay.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:31:43


Post by: SilverMK2


We were too busy playing flags over the rest of the world with the French, Germans, Dutch and Russians to think much of smelly old America


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:40:43


Post by: halonachos


And its that elitist attitude that made us break up our relationship with you. You never called, and when you did you were only asking for money. I mean, what were we to you, just some tool for economic benefit?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:49:15


Post by: SilverMK2


What do you expect when you kick us out of our own colony and throw all our tea into the sea?

And where were we when we really needed you, eh? Out the back with your fingers in your ears!

So we had to do it ourselves twice, before you eventually turned up and claimed all the glory.

All we wanted was what was best for you, but no! You had to know better! You had to go out into the world before you were ready, and now look at you!

Swaggering around the world like you own the place while at home your poor starve and are unable to get healthcare, your cars get 0.000001/mpg and where the idea of experiencing another culture is to order a Chinese



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 15:57:27


Post by: dietrich


Does the British NHS cover dental visits as well?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 16:01:27


Post by: SilverMK2


It covers most of the cost, yes. There is a £16 pound charge per check up (if you are over 19 and out of full time education).

Then there are small costs for other treatments though you can have a read for yourself:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1781.aspx?CategoryID=74&SubCategoryID=74

There are quite a lot of ways to be eligable for free treatment though.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/07/31 16:52:42


Post by: Ahtman


The Dutch were on the East Coast as well, sorry to break it to you so the British didn't have all the East Coast either. By by George if you didn't make the best of it (by killing and taking over other areas).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/01 04:35:07


Post by: halonachos


Let's not forget the puritans who left england to be away from england, and Rhode Island, the gutter of the colonial outcasts.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/02 06:22:59


Post by: Mad Rabbit


halonachos wrote:BTW I do believe in the trickle down effect, lowering industrial taxes is going to have a constant effect unlike the stimulus package which gave a finite amount of currency to certain businesses.


Hmm. I'm not sure if anyone can help you if you still believe that throwing money at the rich will eventually help the poor.

Also, I believe that Ketara wins this thread. Especially with that last point.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 15:49:10


Post by: halonachos


I think that the trickle down effect doesn't always involve throwing money at the rich. You could I don't know, lower taxes upon their profits. Throwing money at masses usually involves them paying credit card bills(only to get rid of said credit card) or depositing it into a local bank account(that's what I did). Both of these practices don't stimulate the economy. The whole purpose is to buy things.

The trickle down effect means that businesses keep more profit and can then spend more to hire people(longterm economic benefit), pay more benefits(longterm economic benefit), pay higher wages(longterm economic benefit), etc.

People are more willing to spend what they get on salary because the amount they receive isn't just a one time thing like a government stimulus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yay, nationalised healthcare works. If you have money it won't hurt.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 18:52:25


Post by: dogma


Frazzled wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html


Cortisone is about the worst thing you can give to someone with an undiagnosed pain source. It generally causes people to exacerbate the problem by eliminating that natural warning sensation of the body (pain).


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 18:57:16


Post by: Frazzled


dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html


Really awesome chocolate is about the worst thing you can give to someone with an undiagnosed pain source. It generally causes people to exacerbate the problem by eliminating that natural warning sensation of the body (pain).


Corrected your typo.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 20:07:30


Post by: halonachos


They already know that there's a freakin problem if they're in pain already. All you need to do is crack open that bad boy and see what's going wrong.

Anesthesia is an extra $1,000 BTW.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 20:51:18


Post by: reds8n


Frazzled wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html


Sad indeed.

Just to clarify : would EVERY American qualify for painkilling injections upon demand or would that be entirely dependant upon their level of medical insurance coverage payout ?

Sorry, make that approved insurance payouts of course. Because that happens instantly with no wait at all. Ever.

.. right ?

Oh, assuming you even get the chance to get ill anyway.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.


fething poor people breeding like that ! Disgraceful ! It's almost like you need an underclass or something.... eerrrrr..

This is going to be a great game : you post a gakky story and then us " dern zocialists" will and it'll be just like some game of tennis !


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 20:54:44


Post by: Frazzled


When do we get to make fun of Leichtenstein?
its ironic I pulled my back this weekend (translation genghis Connie beat me up)


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:00:32


Post by: reds8n


We all live in fear of her.

In tribute :




ouch !

Hope that gets better soon.

... you septics and your ideas that Lichenstein is a real place ! Next thing you'll be telling that Idaho is real !


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:09:31


Post by: Frazzled


(fakes bad Merlin from Excalibur accent)
Idaho, a dream to some, a NIGHTMARE TO OTHERS!


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:20:33


Post by: reds8n


*somewhatpoortasteRiverPhoenixjoke*

...it's not famous for anything else is it ?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:27:42


Post by: Frazzled


Potatoes. I think there is a type of beef that comes from there and is pretty good, but I could be thinking of Omaha.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:39:42


Post by: reds8n


No, that's I reland. Close though.

Omaha I'm pretty certain is a holiday resort. Least people go on and on about the beach there. Or something.

...might be awkward to park there and, typically, the Germans have got there and bagsied all the best spots first.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:43:16


Post by: Frazzled


I heard about that actually (the germans grabbing spots not the Normandy reference, Omaha really is a state I know its hard to believe). There was a story about certain hotels now allowing germans to pre-reserve chairs ahead of time around the pool. Thats even more anal retentive than I am.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:47:59


Post by: Ahtman


Frazzled wrote:Potatoes.


reds8n wrote:No, that's Ireland.


No, Idaho is known for potatoes. They produce a huge amount of them and they are real potatoes fit for real men and not sustenance farmers. Ours are the size of Cadillac's.



Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 21:55:45


Post by: Frazzled


Ahtman wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Potatoes.


reds8n wrote:No, that's Ireland.


No, Idaho is known for potatoes. They produce a huge amount of them and they are real potatoes fit for real men and not sustenance farmers. Ours are the size of Cadillac's.



We just had to go there didn't we.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CgeJED9SU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3CgeJED9SU&feature=related


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/03 22:07:39


Post by: reds8n


No no no. You see....

...*considers famine/fussy eater joke and backs away hurriedly*

..sometimes it just makes sense to chicken out yeah ?

Idaho isn't famous at all, let alone for spuds.

Yeah we heard that German story as well . Clarification : in Europe - not just the UK from conversations I've had -- the typical German tourist is infamous for getting up early and then "claiming" sun longers/similar etc by the pool by placing towels etc and then wandering off. Typically the British/whomever hungover tourist arises X hours later, finds said towel, surveys the scene and then promptly just takes the seat anyway.

Building a better, brighter Europe step by step !


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 03:39:15


Post by: sebster


Frazzled wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html


The Telegraph rules. You get all the truthiness you can handle and gratuitous skin flashes.

Meanwhile, if you want to look past the really obviously contrived story, you have government saying 'we aren't going to pay for pain treatment when the cause of pain hasn't been established. That is, you don't get to go into the doctor's and tell him your back hurts and get a prescription for some pills. We are going to require doctors to actually find out what's wrong and treat it.'

Which seems sensible. Until the Telegraph gets a hold of it. Then it becomes the outrage of the day.


And how is cortizone 500 pounds a day? My parents give their dog a cortizone pill every day, it's like $5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:I think that the trickle down effect doesn't always involve throwing money at the rich. You could I don't know, lower taxes upon their profits.


Wow, 80s flashback.

Meanwhile, trickle down economics suck. They rely on the idea that investment and job creation are based around higher profits, when it does not work that way. Investment and job creation comes from new markets and growing existing markets, which comes from consumer demand - and that comes from putting money in the hands of the working and middle classes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:No, Idaho is known for potatoes.


If you have to tell people what a place is famous for, it isn't famous for it

Which is a shame for Idaho.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 03:59:15


Post by: generalgrog


Frazzled wrote:
halonachos wrote:Well, england may take credit for the colonies(at least everything besides florida on the eastern coast), but look at the proper mess you gits made. I mean you left us with poor healthcare and economic instability. I thought you english would have better manners than that.


And the Louisiana Territories, and the territories owned by Spain, and the territories controlled by the Czar of all the Russias.


Did you purposely leave out the Dutch and Vikings? And anyway is Killkrazy starting to sound Canadian or what?


GG

edit....ahtman beat me to the Dutch but I think I'm the first to point out the Viking connection!!


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 12:00:29


Post by: Frazzled


Vikings never made it to the USA. Dutch, yea missed them.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 18:17:17


Post by: SilverMK2


Frazzled wrote:Vikings never made it to the USA. Dutch, yea missed them.


The Vikings visited America in the 11th Century. As is the subject of several Icelandic sagas and I also believe, archaeological evidence.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 18:23:11


Post by: Ahtman


SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Vikings never made it to the USA. Dutch, yea missed them.


The Vikings visited America in the 11th Century. As is the subject of several Icelandic sagas and I also believe, archaeological evidence.


He didn't say they didn't arrive in North America, just that they didn't arrive in the USA. I'm not sure if he is joking in that he is referring to the USA as a country or the geographical region that would compromise what would become the USA.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 18:28:57


Post by: halonachos


They visited america's hat, Canada.


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 18:33:56


Post by: Frazzled


Ahtman wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Vikings never made it to the USA. Dutch, yea missed them.


The Vikings visited America in the 11th Century. As is the subject of several Icelandic sagas and I also believe, archaeological evidence.


He didn't say they didn't arrive in North America, just that they didn't arrive in the USA. I'm not sure if he is joking in that he is referring to the USA as a country or the geographical region that would compromise what would become the USA.


not joking. I'm only referring to nations that controlled some part of the US at some time. As far as I know, yea folk of Swedish Meatballs three nevr made it that far south.

Now think about that. What if they had made it to better climes like, er Virginia?


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 18:37:18


Post by: SilverMK2


Point taken. I was blocking together North America with the USA as one and the same...

Though I think that Vikings probably would have been happier to continue to stay in Canada


Arguments on why we should ration healthcare like they do in the UK @ 2009/08/04 19:05:10


Post by: halonachos


No, Virginia is much nicer, we have ham.