So you don't want to help pay the bills of the 10 year old buy with cancer?JohnG@lt wrote:
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?
Through the extra $ in taxes they pay on the consumption of goods that made them fat and unhealthy, in the taxes on cigarettes and the junk food.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? In what way?AussieReaper wrote:
They'll support you if your dumb ass walks out into traffic.JohnG@lt wrote:
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?
I think you forget that you live in a society and not just an economy.
Last edited by AussieReaper (2010-01-12 21:10:37)
That's his parents responsibility.S3v3N wrote:
So you don't want to help pay the bills of the 10 year old buy with cancer?JohnG@lt wrote:
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
-Frederick Bastiat
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so now you're limiting my freedoms as well as increasing my taxation. What exactly do I get in return?
In response:JohnG@lt wrote:
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.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.
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.
I fail to see how doctors not having the power to set their own wages is a problem. It is the consumers who do that, by way of the government. We all know that the doctors would want to charge as much as possible for the work they do. Injecting a little bit of basic market dynamics here, one will easily see that it is demand that will affect the price, not supply. If people aren't willing to allow their government to pay, say, 150 units for a treatment, then the number of treatments available (by virtue of an increasing, yet finite number of doctors in the system) will naturally increasing, thereby decreasing their worth. As such, only when the people are satisfied will the government pay for them. Since the government is the only client of the medical industry, it effectively dictates price for its constituents. Any doctors who want to charge more are effectively cut off from revenue.
Now, corruption is a real problem, as you say, but even though that may be how the US government operates, it's another issue entirely. Overhead costs are by definition lower if you have a single entity performing all the work, but that depends of course on the structure of the system.
I like pie.
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal healthcare and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.AussieReaper wrote:
Through the extra $ in taxes they pay on the consumption of goods that made them fat and unhealthy, in the taxes on cigarettes and the junk food.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? In what way?AussieReaper wrote:
They'll support you if your dumb ass walks out into traffic.
I think you forget that you live in a society and not just an economy.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
The public option is just that, an option.Turquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so now you're limiting my freedoms as well as increasing my taxation. What exactly do I get in return?
You still have private insurance available. But for the premium price you'd expect a premium service. So expect your private health company to compete for your services more and offer you more.
That doesn't sound as bad, does it, when private competes with public, John?
Last edited by AussieReaper (2010-01-12 21:13:38)
I choose freedom. ThanksTurquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.JohnG@lt wrote:
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
-Frederick Bastiat
Except I would still be subsidizing the public option via my taxes and the government could easily run their insurance plan at a negative profit indefinitely and drive all competition out of business.AussieReaper wrote:
The public option is just that, an option.Turquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so now you're limiting my freedoms as well as increasing my taxation. What exactly do I get in return?
You still have private insurance available. But for the premium price you'd expect a premium service. So expect your private health company to compete for your services more and offer you more.
That doesn't sound as bad, does it, when private competes with public?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
This is slavery.TSI wrote:
In response:JohnG@lt wrote:
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.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.
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.
I fail to see how doctors not having the power to set their own wages is a problem. It is the consumers who do that, by way of the government. We all know that the doctors would want to charge as much as possible for the work they do. Injecting a little bit of basic market dynamics here, one will easily see that it is demand that will affect the price, not supply. If people aren't willing to allow their government to pay, say, 150 units for a treatment, then the number of treatments available (by virtue of an increasing, yet finite number of doctors in the system) will naturally increasing, thereby decreasing their worth. As such, only when the people are satisfied will the government pay for them. Since the government is the only client of the medical industry, it effectively dictates price for its constituents. Any doctors who want to charge more are effectively cut off from revenue.
Now, corruption is a real problem, as you say, but even though that may be how the US government operates, it's another issue entirely. Overhead costs are by definition lower if you have a single entity performing all the work, but that depends of course on the structure of the system.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Freedom to pay when you turn 65 and start needin prostate cancer treatments? (not saying it will happen, but it's the concept that counts)JohnG@lt wrote:
I choose freedom. ThanksTurquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh, so now you're limiting my freedoms as well as increasing my taxation. What exactly do I get in return?
The point of all this is welath redistribution; it's exactly like a traditional insurace firm, only bigger.
I like pie.
But that doesn't happen. France, perhaps the most socialized system in the world, has a flourishing private care system.JohnG@lt wrote:
Except I would still be subsidizing the public option via my taxes and the government could easily run their insurance plan at a negative profit indefinitely and drive all competition out of business.AussieReaper wrote:
The public option is just that, an option.Turquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.
You still have private insurance available. But for the premium price you'd expect a premium service. So expect your private health company to compete for your services more and offer you more.
That doesn't sound as bad, does it, when private competes with public?
You're familiar with the concept that the government also provides $ to private insurance companies and incentive to continue operating?JohnG@lt wrote:
Except I would still be subsidizing the public option via my taxes and the government could easily run their insurance plan at a negative profit indefinitely and drive all competition out of business.AussieReaper wrote:
The public option is just that, an option.Turquoise wrote:
Cheaper healthcare, less crime, a healthier populace, and I suppose some level of peace of mind.
You still have private insurance available. But for the premium price you'd expect a premium service. So expect your private health company to compete for your services more and offer you more.
That doesn't sound as bad, does it, when private competes with public?
And that with this system, the Government isn't trying to run the private insurance option out of business. Just to make both affordable and productive?
Right then, I'm sorry. I must have landed on the worng planet.JohnG@lt wrote:
This is slavery.TSI wrote:
In response:JohnG@lt wrote:
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.
I fail to see how doctors not having the power to set their own wages is a problem. It is the consumers who do that, by way of the government. We all know that the doctors would want to charge as much as possible for the work they do. Injecting a little bit of basic market dynamics here, one will easily see that it is demand that will affect the price, not supply. If people aren't willing to allow their government to pay, say, 150 units for a treatment, then the number of treatments available (by virtue of an increasing, yet finite number of doctors in the system) will naturally increasing, thereby decreasing their worth. As such, only when the people are satisfied will the government pay for them. Since the government is the only client of the medical industry, it effectively dictates price for its constituents. Any doctors who want to charge more are effectively cut off from revenue.
Now, corruption is a real problem, as you say, but even though that may be how the US government operates, it's another issue entirely. Overhead costs are by definition lower if you have a single entity performing all the work, but that depends of course on the structure of the system.
I like pie.
No, you were just born in a country that doesn't place much value on the individual.TSI wrote:
Right then, I'm sorry. I must have landed on the worng planet.JohnG@lt wrote:
This is slavery.TSI wrote:
In response:
I fail to see how doctors not having the power to set their own wages is a problem. It is the consumers who do that, by way of the government. We all know that the doctors would want to charge as much as possible for the work they do. Injecting a little bit of basic market dynamics here, one will easily see that it is demand that will affect the price, not supply. If people aren't willing to allow their government to pay, say, 150 units for a treatment, then the number of treatments available (by virtue of an increasing, yet finite number of doctors in the system) will naturally increasing, thereby decreasing their worth. As such, only when the people are satisfied will the government pay for them. Since the government is the only client of the medical industry, it effectively dictates price for its constituents. Any doctors who want to charge more are effectively cut off from revenue.
Now, corruption is a real problem, as you say, but even though that may be how the US government operates, it's another issue entirely. Overhead costs are by definition lower if you have a single entity performing all the work, but that depends of course on the structure of the system.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal health care and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.AussieReaper wrote:
Through the extra $ in taxes they pay on the consumption of goods that made them fat and unhealthy, in the taxes on cigarettes and the junk food.JohnG@lt wrote:
Really? In what way?
I think you forget that you live in a society and not just an economy.
You didn't have insurance coverage for your child? What did you buy instead? That would be my first priority for any kid that I had.S3v3N wrote:
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal health care and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.AussieReaper wrote:
Through the extra $ in taxes they pay on the consumption of goods that made them fat and unhealthy, in the taxes on cigarettes and the junk food.
I think you forget that you live in a society and not just an economy.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Oh wait--healthcare sense! From an American no less!S3v3N wrote:
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal health care and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.AussieReaper wrote:
Through the extra $ in taxes they pay on the consumption of goods that made them fat and unhealthy, in the taxes on cigarettes and the junk food.
I think you forget that you live in a society and not just an economy.
<3 S3v3N
@ John: That's the problem: every individual is what matters.
I like pie.
Here in Aus the state Governments run the public hospital system, but are funded by the Federal government. Essentially they are competing for the tax dollars between each state, with incentive to perform well.S3v3N wrote:
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.
They can still be bailed out if going badly though, and the Fed government does have oversight in some of the maintenance and to make sure they are running at a certain standard of care.
As you said though, not all private insurance is viable and covers everything.
He was 6 weeks old.JohnG@lt wrote:
You didn't have insurance coverage for your child? What did you buy instead? That would be my first priority for any kid that I had.S3v3N wrote:
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal health care and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.
Blue Cross Blue Shield isn't known for speedy paperwork.
No, only certain ones matter. A doctor is obviously not allowed to set his own value in your society.TSI wrote:
Oh wait--healthcare sense! From an American no less!S3v3N wrote:
I believe health care shouldn't be controlled by the Federal government, but by the State government. Here in Montana, we have a state system for Children, up to the age of 10. It doesn't cover everything for every situation but it works. I've used it and without it I'd had to have gone through Medical bankruptcy. A 40,0000 dollar surgery and a Life flight bill isn't pretty and by any means an affordable debt on a shitty County paycheck.JohnG@lt wrote:
I live in a society where people are free to live the lifestyle they want as long as they don't mind the bills that come along with it. There's been a serious disconnect between the latter and the former stirred up by idiots pushing universal health care and other socialist crap in this country. They want a free ride to continue their shitty lifestyle and have someone else foot the bill for them.
<3 S3v3N
@ John: That's the problem: every individual is what matters.
A persons wages define their value within a society. The rarer and more useful (to society) the skill, the more money a person makes. Placing limits on their pay is placing a limit on their value. Ever wonder why Canada has such a massive shortage of doctors? Hell, your own hospitals in Toronto are sending patients to Buffalo for treatment and it's even worse in places like Alberta.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
One reason I'd like Healthcare state run is this, I have faith in my state government. I don't have faith in my federal government. Also states like California can keep fucking shit up all they want without bothing my way of life.
hahaha oh wow!JohnG@lt wrote:
A persons wages define their value within a society.
I live in Illinois, I wouldn't even turn my back on our politicians, they'll steal the post-it notes on my desk...S3v3N wrote:
One reason I'd like Healthcare state run is this, I have faith in my state government. I don't have faith in my federal government. Also states like California can keep fucking shit up all they want without bothing my way of life.
I don't mind it at the state level tbh. Competition at the state level is healthy and in the end you end up with better systems as certain states lose residents and others gain them due to what they can offer. A federal one size fits all solution is a nightmare because picking up and moving states is one thing, moving to a different country is an entirely different one.S3v3N wrote:
One reason I'd like Healthcare state run is this, I have faith in my state government. I don't have faith in my federal government. Also states like California can keep fucking shit up all they want without bothing my way of life.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat