BF2S Forums The Problems with Socialized Health Care

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Allowing a vital need to be distributed solely by the market would appear to be ignorant of greed in human nature.

Forcing a moral standard on the system in spite of human nature is being ignorant of it, serving the same need by exploiting basic human nature in a free market is using human nature to your advantage. No reason to paddle upstream if you can get to the same place going down.

....except for the fact that rising costs and considerably less accessibility to the average person render this "free market" rather....  plutocratic.  In effect, our current system mostly just benefits the rich and insurance agencies.  It really fucks over the average person.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is my point . Bargaining is satisfaction of mutual need, the only possible way that all parties come away happy, satisfied that they have not been cheated out of their work. It seems that socialists fail to see this, not making the connection between producer and consumer happiness, focusing only on the consumer's well-being. Whether that is achieved through reasonable means or by unnecessarily screwing over someone else does not appear to present a dilemma.

Uh, I wouldn't exactly consider the 40 million uninsured to be "happy."

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Because the demand is high for medical technologies, there is an incentive to lower the cost of the technology is well. Medical care is expensive it is true, but not the run-of-the-mill stuff we take for granted. First-aid supplies, cold/allergy medicine, penicillin that makes short work of what very well may have been a life threatening disease a century ago. The problem is people feel entitled to the absolute best, technology that cannot be distributed without extreme cost to society. No matter how many people need it, it doesn't lower the cost of what it takes to produce it (in the short term).

Yes, but having a huge tax pool to work with would.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

But you're not managing anything, you're just compensating. You may be more efficient, but now even more money is spent on healthcare that people don't need enough to pay for themselves.

Except for the fact that under our private system, we pay more currently than we would through taxes for a universal system.  We pay more per capita than any other country.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Rising costs from technological advancement. I seriously doubt it is getting more expensive to maintain the same standard of care apart from any simple supply/demand reasons, which are anything but "plutocratic". And just forget the irony of using that word to apply to the U.S., when you're comparing socialized countries favorably to it.

If it was solely technological advances, other countries would see an increase in prices that would keep up with our increases.  Clearly, that is not the case.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What about everyone else who doesn't have to pay to insure those 40 mil?

Trade results in the traders being happy...if you don't have anything to trade, how can happiness be gleaned from that circumstance? The only thing you can do is spread around the misery.

Spreading around the misery is what happens when a significant portion of your population is uninsured, ends up in the ER, gets served, and then the costs get passed to you and me.  In a socialized system, there would be less misery to spread.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

How?

As I mentioned earlier, the predictability of costs in a socialized system allows prices to change less dramatically when someone needs an expensive treatment that they can't fully pay themselves.  In a socialized system, you have a continual flow of money from taxation that is invested in healthcare.  Private healthcare is subject to the business cycle, which means that unexpected costs can result in dramatic price increases to cover those that don't pay their way, especially during a recession.

Socialized healthcare is kind of like having a massive insurance service.  Insurance works on the principle of paying a standard amount per month to cover the possible costs you could incur on your provider (and in the process helps pay for other people currently using services).  With socialized healthcare, the pool is much larger than any private business would have access to, and therefore can handle more unexpected costs than a private system.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

links I provided to Berster7 if you aren't reading that exchange.

http://www.scribd.com/document_download … _password=

http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publicatio … 49_ERP.pdf

The first one is fairly long, but it's good. If you still don't want to read it I pulled some quotes above.

The first one apparently requires a password.

The second one made my computer freeze, so I'm going to try reading it in a moment.  I think there was some conflict with my Adobe Reader.

I'll probably respond to this second link in a few hours.  (I'm about to play some Left for Dead.    )

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The first link in my response to Berster7 even talks about forced waiting periods of 122 days. So, looking at you Fodder, make sure other countries do it better before pointing the finger at us.

Good advice
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co … 042072.htm

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. "Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference," he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

I'll give you a cookie if you can actually find the nonexistent/poorly cited sources that article makes its case on. It's worthless if you can't find that.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1 - I was actually talking about the other survey mentioned, that's the one I couldn't find.

2 - "Interview Method: Telephone" - self-reporting bitchy Americans for the win

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1 - I was actually talking about the other survey mentioned, that's the one I couldn't find.

2 - "Interview Method: Telephone" - self-reporting bitchy Americans for the win

Varegg wrote:

Why is so many conservatives "afraid" of his movies?

My view of the US medical system is not based on MMs movies, I said he raises some serious issues about some of it and I happen to share his view that a insurance based system where a company must have a profit increases the cost of just that system ... that profit is not present in a government controlled system, it is rather used on healthcare ...

You really should see that movie ... he doesn't attack you or your lifestyle if that's what you are afraid of ...

I said I am not going to watch a politically slanted movie, because it's a waste of two hours. Whether the slant is left, right, or sideways is irrelevant, I don't want to watch it because it's boring and biased.

So you don't read books, newspapers or watch television because you can't argue or debate with them either ... or?



Most sources of information is biased in one way or another you know ...

Varegg wrote:

Why is so many conservatives "afraid" of his movies?

My view of the US medical system is not based on MMs movies, I said he raises some serious issues about some of it and I happen to share his view that a insurance based system where a company must have a profit increases the cost of just that system ... that profit is not present in a government controlled system, it is rather used on healthcare ...

Bertster7 wrote:

kylef wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The government is more flexible in virtually every way. How can you say it isn't? They can change the rules, they can set the budgets, they can change every aspect of the framework the system works in - private companies just work with that framework, the government makes it. That is real flexibility.

The problem is, our Government is restricted heavily by Parliament. Where private companies can use tax avoidance schemes and workarounds to pay lower costs, the Government framework is often loopholed.

How is that benefiting the country?

How on earth do you connect businesses avoiding taxes to being in the best interests of the country?

In any case, the point is nonsense since the NHS doesn't pay any tax. It's not a profit making organisation.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

_{what is your steamid}

Harmor wrote:

Varegg wrote:

So you think that a profit based private enterprice that have employees whos main goal is to deny you healthcare is better? (maybe stretching it a little but it's not completely untrue)

Yes, because one important different between a government0-run healthcare and a private one is that I can sue the private one.  In the United States you can't 'sue the government'.

Man With No Name wrote:

Flecco wrote:

Do illegal immigrants participate in the US Census? Just curious.

no



the truth is no one who posts here knows shit about illegal immigrants and if they try and tell you they do, youll know better.

nickb64 wrote:

The Often cited statistic of "47 Million Uninsured" is pure deceit.

The Number shown by the Census is 46.6 Million:
*9.5 Million are not citizens
*17 million make over $50,000 a year
*18 million were between 18-34 years old and in good health, choosing not to purchase health insurance
*Only 30% remained uninsured for more than 12 months
*50% regained health coverage within 4 months

The first three groups make up 44.5 million of the 46.6 million.