Berster7 wrote:
You seem incapable of grasping the most basic concepts and keep arguing against all the statistical data there is. You have NOTHING to support your argument.
Holeeeey shit. You have not provided ONE link or source ANYWHERE. Not a single fucking reference to a source, out of "all the statistical data there is".
You want to argue in logic, fine. But sweet jesus man, claiming the data is on your side without referencing any of it,
and then yell at me for not having supporting evidence, repeatedley calling me a moron? Fucking weak man.
Bertster7 wrote:
Because the trade off is so insignificant as to make no difference. People don't care about their employers profit levels. Equally, people do care about getting their job done right and keeping it and progressing through the system. As it is their are plenty of people working for the NHS (largest employer in London) getting reasonably paid and doing a good job. They're not neccessarily doing what they do because it is right, they are doing it because to be successful in their job is in their best interests. The same as in any other job.
Right. The trade off that is the scale between borderline anarchy capitalism and communism is insignificant.
You have an
extremely rosy view of human nature.
Bertster7 wrote:
It is just health insurance. That's all these companies are. They are big money shifting organisations, financiers, insurers - whatever. They don't provide the actual healthcare. They outsource. They outsource to hospitals many of whose main source of income is the government anyway - since they pay out 45% of the ~$2.3 trillion spent on healthcare in the US each year. Obviously that is completely out of line with per capita spending anywhere else in the world which highlights the extreme inefficiencies of the current system. The government currently spend as much per capita on healthcare as most countries with universal healthcare schemes. Why do you need insurance companies as well? Just manage the money better.
Obviously from looking at the figures the American healthcare system is rubbish and absurdly inefficient which has driven healthcare costs up outrageously and continues to do so - look at the projections for future healthcare spending, the situation is only getting worse (at a much faster rate than in the rest of the world on universal government run systems). You might SAY all this drivel about privatised healthcare being more efficient and profit creating more drive to succeed - all the FACTS tell a very different story.
You pay more for healthcare than anywhere else, probably twice as much on average. Yet you get a worse overall quality of service. But you continue to claim your system is the more efficient - which I suppose is why the US is the only major Western nation using anything remotely resembling it.
The same reason you need auto insurance. The system could run without it, I'm not even going to argue that the system shouldn't run without it, but that is not the problem. No money is lost in them, it's a gamble that people can choose to take just as with any other money-shifting organization.
As for the rest of the empty rhetoric:
The Grass is Not Always GreenerTop three quotes:
Micheal Tanner wrote:
To a large degree, America spends money on health care because it is a wealthy nation and chooses to do so. Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending is positively correlated with income.
Micheal Tanner wrote:
For years, British health policy has focused on controlling spending and in general has been quite successful, with the system spending just 7.5 percent of GDP on health care.232 Yet the system continues to face serious financial strains. In fiscal year 2006, the NHS faced a deficit of £700 million, according to government figures, and as much as £1 billion, according to outside observers.233 This comes despite a £43 billion increase in the NHS annual budget over the past five years.234 By some estimates, NHS spending will have to nearly triple by 2025 just to maintain the current level of services.235
Micheal Tanner wrote:
A small but growing private health care system has emerged in the UK. About 10 percent of Britons have private health insurance. Some receive it through their employer, while others purchase it individually
You should read the whole thing though, it's pretty good (if biased, but reputable source).
Oh, what was that about R&D?In short: We pay more not completely because, if at all because we are inefficient, but because we are innovating. We can then export those products to other nations. Foreign countries can abuse patent laws to get the same innovation for cheap.
Berster7 wrote:
Nor does it in big business. Like with these medical insurers.
In business you can actually be fired if you fuck up, and more importantly you can possibly be fired for those under you fucking up. No it is still not easy to fire people in a very large corporation, but it is practically a
requirement to make it difficult to fire people in government. If it is too easy to fire people, the possibility of political corruption is too great.
Berster7 wrote:
How is that relevant? Are you saying it's a good thing to cut the essential healthcare workforce?
It's good to cut out excess workforce. Government has a hard time cutting anything due to its nature.
Berster7 wrote:
What happened, which routinely happens, is that major financial institutions made a complete mess of things by acting irresponsibly (all fueled by greed of course - which you seem to believe is the only thing that makes stuff work efficiently) and had to be bailed out to avoid the devastating consequences for consumers - because these financial instutions run on having a good deal of fiscal stability, if they don't then everything screws up. These are the people governing your healthcare system.
I hardly regard Enron type schemes as relevant to this - so no, I shouldn't be bringing them up. That's totally the wrong way of looking at it.
All business involves risk - they took too much, and they burned for it. Er, well, they should have burned, but we bailed them out with little consequences. The devastating consequences are not making these people learning from mistakes, not the temporary damage that would have been done in letting them fail. I would be a lot more sentimental to consumers if there wasn't FDIC insurance up to $100k.
There is no possible way they could have done anything remotely like what the banks did in healthcare. That was just silly.
Enron is an example of corporate corruption, as a counter to my argument of government corruption. Corporate corruption that undermines the entire idea of a single person's desire for profit helping society as a whole. I guess if you don't want to take what I hand you on a silver platter though...
Berster7 wrote:
Bollocks I did. Where? What example? Banning private healthcare is very different to providing universal healthcare.
Berster7 wrote:
They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in
Berster7 wrote:
FINANCIAL STABILITY! Take it in context man!
Financial stability provides flexibility. Governments provide more financial stability than anyone else.
Provides flexibility to do what? Certainly not spend money in a flexible manner, and I can't think of something else they can do that doesn't involve financial flexibility somewhere along the line.
Berster7 wrote:
Rail services, where fares have risen vastly out of line with inflation despite falling standards.
Postal services, where prices have risen out of line with inflation and services are worse than they were.
There are many more examples. Thatcher privatised virtually everything.
Two examples where the U.S. has government competes in, but does not own the industry. The system works quite well here.
