Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

 

2010-01-12 20:35:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England
These questions are specifically aimed at Turquoise but feel free to chime in...

Why do you feel the government would do a good job running a single payer system?

What would you suggest they do to fix the current doctor shortage that would be exacerbated by thousands of doctors retiring the day a single payer was implemented?

How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?

You believe that a person should be responsible for their own retirement, but not responsible for paying for their own medical insurance?

Medical insurance purchased by the individual would be a lot less expensive than the end cost after it's run through a government bureaucracy. Refute this.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 20:36:53
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?
Just to clarify, is your stance that healthcare is NOT a right?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 20:42:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?
Just to clarify, is your stance that healthcare is NOT a right?
No, it's a commodity. If I considered it a right I would be considering the doctor to be my slave with no right of refusal.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 20:49:11
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?
Just to clarify, is your stance that healthcare is NOT a right?
No, it's a commodity. If I considered it a right I would be considering the doctor to be my slave with no right of refusal.
I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want. If it is elective surgery, by all means a doctor can refuse, charge whatever they want, etc.

But for a broken arm, the prescription of drugs, anything that is a need, should not qualify as a commodity.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 20:51:58
TSI
Cholera in the time of love
+247|5982|Toronto
The problem is that you're approaching this issue from a purely economic standpoint. That's what the US system has been doing, and that's why it's in so much trouble. The fact of the matter is that you can't really correlate health to money easily; look at the "death panel" issue.

It's a given fact that you can't really run a government healthcare system with a profit. That's not what governments do. Once the government takes over all payments, it can become incredibly efficient, but will always keep sucking money. That's why you increase taxes; to pay doctors well, to get better equipment, etc...which is enjoyed by all equally, thus increasing the health of the population. Why? Because it's a right. We pay the government to take care of us; in American terms it's like a huge insurance scheme.

A perfect example of this is what is in fact the best healthcare system in the world: France. Purely socialist, but cannot be beaten in terms of cost-efficiency.
I like pie.
2010-01-12 20:52:51
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5703|College Park, MD

JohnG@lt wrote:

What would you suggest they do to fix the current doctor shortage that would be exacerbated by thousands of doctors retiring the day a single payer was implemented?
Provide major incentives to go to medical school. It's hard enough to get in to med  school, paying for it is even worse. More people might consider applying to med school if they didn't have to incur massive loans.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2010-01-12 20:53:12
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


Just to clarify, is your stance that healthcare is NOT a right?
No, it's a commodity. If I considered it a right I would be considering the doctor to be my slave with no right of refusal.
I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want. If it is elective surgery, by all means a doctor can refuse, charge whatever they want, etc.

But for a broken arm, the prescription of drugs, anything that is a need, should not qualify as a commodity.
A doctor is not necessary to set an arm. You choose to go to a doctor because it is safer. That doctor spent 12 or so years in school and residency paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to get where he is today. You damn well better believe he should be able to refuse you if you don't want to pay him.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 20:54:21
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Why do you feel the government would do a good job running a single payer system?
It works for most of the First World.

JohnG@lt wrote:

What would you suggest they do to fix the current doctor shortage that would be exacerbated by thousands of doctors retiring the day a single payer was implemented?
That wouldn't happen.  It didn't happen with any other First World nation that implemented a single payer system.  Why would it here?

The shortage is primarily because of the AMA and the artificial shortages in instruction created by their hold on accrediting.  Open up accrediting, and the problem solves itself.  In effect, opening up the instruction market needs to occur.

JohnG@lt wrote:

How does care improve when it is devalued, and therefor abused as a 'right', by offering it to everyone?
Doctors in various other countries make much less profit than our doctors yet sometimes have lower malpractice rates.

JohnG@lt wrote:

You believe that a person should be responsible for their own retirement, but not responsible for paying for their own medical insurance?
I have no control over my genes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Medical insurance purchased by the individual would be a lot less expensive than the end cost after it's run through a government bureaucracy. Refute this.
The single largest factor that contributes to higher costs is the massive array of private bureaucracy we deal with.
2010-01-12 20:57:47
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|6761|San Antonio, Texas

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


Just to clarify, is your stance that healthcare is NOT a right?
No, it's a commodity. If I considered it a right I would be considering the doctor to be my slave with no right of refusal.
I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want.
Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
2010-01-12 21:00:22
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

A doctor is not necessary to set an arm. You choose to go to a doctor because it is safer. That doctor spent 12 or so years in school and residency paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to get where he is today. You damn well better believe he should be able to refuse you if you don't want to pay him.
A doctor is necessary to set an arm. To give you an xray. To set the bone correctly. You can do it yourself if you have training, equipment, and experience. You'll still likely do a poor job and that can have negative effects in the future. That you expect someone without qualifications to treat themselves if they can't afford professional treatment is laughable.

And public healthcare isn't giving you the right to not pay a doctor. They still get paid by the taxpayer. How does the doctor lose money exactly?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 21:00:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


No, it's a commodity. If I considered it a right I would be considering the doctor to be my slave with no right of refusal.
I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want.
Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
2010-01-12 21:00:42
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

TSI wrote:

The problem is that you're approaching this issue from a purely economic standpoint. That's what the US system has been doing, and that's why it's in so much trouble. The fact of the matter is that you can't really correlate health to money easily; look at the "death panel" issue.

It's a given fact that you can't really run a government healthcare system with a profit. That's not what governments do. Once the government takes over all payments, it can become incredibly efficient, but will always keep sucking money. That's why you increase taxes; to pay doctors well, to get better equipment, etc...which is enjoyed by all equally, thus increasing the health of the population. Why? Because it's a right. We pay the government to take care of us; in American terms it's like a huge insurance scheme.

A perfect example of this is what is in fact the best healthcare system in the world: France. Purely socialist, but cannot be beaten in terms of cost-efficiency.
Money is involved so it is of course an economic issue. I really don't care that the insurance industry would be wiped out. I do from a theoretical standpoint but it's not the primary issue that I have.

My issue is that doctors will be subjected to pay scales and would not be able to set their own wages. I find the very idea of pay scales to be completely abhorrent. It means someone else is dictating your value for you without your say.

Then there is the issue of our government being completely inefficient and corrupt. A good $0.70 on the dollar would be skimmed off the top in administrative costs before it ever reached the doctor or patient. It's how our government operates.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 21:01:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

A doctor is not necessary to set an arm. You choose to go to a doctor because it is safer. That doctor spent 12 or so years in school and residency paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to get where he is today. You damn well better believe he should be able to refuse you if you don't want to pay him.
A doctor is necessary to set an arm. To give you an xray. To set the bone correctly. You can do it yourself if you have training, equipment, and experience. You'll still likely do a poor job and that can have negative effects in the future. That you expect someone without qualifications to treat themselves if they can't afford professional treatment is laughable.

And public healthcare isn't giving you the right to not pay a doctor. They still get paid by the taxpayer. How does the doctor lose money exactly?
Really? We survived for thousands of years without university trained doctors. How did that happen?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-12 21:02:01)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 21:01:59
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
All work for free? Come back into this topic when you understand that under a public option a doctor is still paid, by the taxpayer.

If you think they are working for free you shouldn't be posting in D&ST.

kthxbai
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 21:02:26
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|6761|San Antonio, Texas

Turquoise wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want.
Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be "free" and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for "free". Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
My point was more of it not being a right then payment.

... I knew I should have put "free" in quotes or y'all miss the point...

Last edited by {M5}Sniper3 (2010-01-12 21:03:51)

2010-01-12 21:02:40
S3v3N
lolwut?
+685|6519|Montucky
What I really don't understand is this:

If the gov't takes over the healthcare industry does it mean, the insurance part only, where I pay them so much a month and i'm covered for bloody noses and pills with a deductable like car insurance.  Or is the master plan to make everybody in the medical field government employees?


I already have government healthcare thanks to the Vetran's Affairs Division, i'm a 75% disable Vet according to them.
2010-01-12 21:03:03
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

A doctor is not necessary to set an arm. You choose to go to a doctor because it is safer. That doctor spent 12 or so years in school and residency paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to get where he is today. You damn well better believe he should be able to refuse you if you don't want to pay him.
A doctor is necessary to set an arm. To give you an xray. To set the bone correctly. You can do it yourself if you have training, equipment, and experience. You'll still likely do a poor job and that can have negative effects in the future. That you expect someone without qualifications to treat themselves if they can't afford professional treatment is laughable.

And public healthcare isn't giving you the right to not pay a doctor. They still get paid by the taxpayer. How does the doctor lose money exactly?
Really? We survived for thousands of years without university trained doctors. How did that happen?
It happened "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
2010-01-12 21:03:24
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

A doctor is not necessary to set an arm. You choose to go to a doctor because it is safer. That doctor spent 12 or so years in school and residency paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition to get where he is today. You damn well better believe he should be able to refuse you if you don't want to pay him.
A doctor is necessary to set an arm. To give you an xray. To set the bone correctly. You can do it yourself if you have training, equipment, and experience. You'll still likely do a poor job and that can have negative effects in the future. That you expect someone without qualifications to treat themselves if they can't afford professional treatment is laughable.

And public healthcare isn't giving you the right to not pay a doctor. They still get paid by the taxpayer. How does the doctor lose money exactly?
Really? We survived for thousands of years without university trained doctors. How did that happen?
Yeah and for thousands of years the average life expectancy was under 50.

Have you got an actual argument or not?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 21:03:48
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


I can't understand how anyone can refuse treatment to someone, simply based on pay.

It's not the same as a commodity. Healthcare is a need, not a want.
Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
But why should I be forced to subsidize another persons poor life choices? Why should I pay the bills of people with Type 2 diabetes or heart disease or lung cancer?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 21:04:58
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:


Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
My point was more of it not being a right then payment.
Well, to expand on that, food is much more affordable than healthcare on average.  Water is already socialized by local municipalities, even if it's run privately.   And shelter is partially subsidized by things like welfare and Section 8.
2010-01-12 21:05:06
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6154|what

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:


Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
But why should I be forced to subsidize another persons poor life choices? Why should I pay the bills of people with Type 2 diabetes or heart disease or lung cancer?
They'll support you if your dumb ass walks out into traffic.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2010-01-12 21:05:07
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

S3v3N wrote:

What I really don't understand is this:

If the gov't takes over the healthcare industry does it mean, the insurance part only, where I pay them so much a month and i'm covered for bloody noses and pills with a deductable like car insurance.  Or is the master plan to make everybody in the medical field government employees?


I already have government healthcare thanks to the Vetran's Affairs Division, i'm a 75% disable Vet according to them.
Universal Health Care would be like everyone having VA care.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 21:06:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
But why should I be forced to subsidize another persons poor life choices? Why should I pay the bills of people with Type 2 diabetes or heart disease or lung cancer?
They'll support you if your dumb ass walks out into traffic.
Really? In what way?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 21:08:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6406|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:


Then with that thinking I could say that food, water, and shelter should also be free and no one should have to pay for it. Make the farmers, engineers, and carpenters all work for free. Why should it just be doctors that are controlled by the government? Why not live in a communist society where everyone works for free and everyone gets equal everything?
They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
But why should I be forced to subsidize another persons poor life choices? Why should I pay the bills of people with Type 2 diabetes or heart disease or lung cancer?
Well, in most societies with socialized healthcare, some life decisions either become illegal, extremely expensive through taxes, or hard to engage in due to bans.

This is the downside to a socialized system, but it beats having a system so concerned with the freedom to hurt yourself that you end up subsidizing their decisions in the ER anyway.

Ultimately, when you live in a society, you end up paying for the mistakes of others to a certain inevitable extent.  The question is how efficiently and effectively do you want to pay for them?
2010-01-12 21:09:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5359|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


They aren't working for free though.  Socialization just means you're working with a constant flow of money that is shared among the populace.

If anything, it just makes payment more efficient.
But why should I be forced to subsidize another persons poor life choices? Why should I pay the bills of people with Type 2 diabetes or heart disease or lung cancer?
Well, in most societies with socialized healthcare, some life decisions either become illegal, extremely expensive through taxes, or hard to engage in due to bans.

This is the downside to a socialized system, but it beats having a system so concerned with the freedom to hurt yourself that you end up subsidizing their decisions in the ER anyway.

Ultimately, when you live in a society, you end up paying for the mistakes of others to a certain inevitable extent.  The question is how efficiently and effectively do you want to pay for them?
Oh, so now you're limiting my freedoms as well as increasing my taxation. What exactly do I get in return?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3 … 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard