Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5027|949

Shahter wrote:

uziq wrote:

but the senator isn’t there to give guidance to the children
the senator shouldn't be there at all then. the only productive thing that can possibly be done to the children is, quite literally, "giving them guidance".

they are there to petition her for political change.
for political change?! are you fucking kidding me? what kind of "political change" could those small kids possibly comprehend?
Probably the kind where they grow up in a world that isn't boiling. If you were at all following along, that is the issue the kids were in the Senator's office for.
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2115
I have noticed that Gen Z seems to be really focused on climate change. They are oddly fixated on it and seem to think it is going to kill us all.
uziq
Member
+174|1847
MIT recently published a report estimating that, if things continue as they are, the humidity+heat in vast areas of the world will contribute to about 500 million deaths. people will literally be dying inside/in the shade as their bodies are unable to adequately sweat+cool themselves in the thick heat. i'd say that's pretty worrying. can't really chagrin the kids for being keen. when i was that age we were all focused on pokémon red or blue.
coke
Aye up duck!
+436|5104|England. Stoke
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4501|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I have noticed that Gen Z seems to be really focused on climate change. They are oddly fixated on it and seem to think it is going to kill us all.
They are going to be directly affected by it, except they aren't because its all scaremongering by communists who want to destroy the stock market.

There's a lot of hyperbole but the boomer generation does seem to be one of the worst which has afflicted this planet. I'm sure I've droned on about this before.
https://i.imgur.com/xrJFlf1.jpg
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+174|1847
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 … l-warming/

A new study has found that 30 percent of the world’s population is currently exposed to potentially deadly heat for 20 days per year or more—and like a growing forest fire, climate change is spreading this extreme heat.

Without major reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, up to three in four people will face the threat of dying from heat by 2100. However, even with reductions, one in two people at the end of the century will likely face at least 20 days when extreme heat can kill, according to the analysis, published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.
if i had a slim chance of seeing 2100, or of at least introducing kids to the world who will, then i'd be pretty concerned about climate modelling like that, too.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5027|949

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:


There is always randomness in life. You could be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow. You could get hit by a car walking across the street. You can't risk assess your way through life or you'll be cowed by fear. The people trying to sell you socialism are the people that are preying on your fear of being lost in the world without guidance or protection. They are offering you the warm maternal embrace of a comforting parental figure while in reality all they really want to do is act as your personal shopper and run up your credit cards. Live within your means, save your money. This is the only way to gain the financial security you crave. It's by no means easy, but it really is the only way.
I don't want universal healthcare because I am cowed by fear and need a mom figure. I want it because it will make it easier and cheaper to see an eye doctor when my vision starts to get blurry. I pay a premium each month for insurance I don't use because I don't want to get more medical bills and pay a co-pays just to be told "we don't know" or "you are fine".
That's what insurance is... it's a just in case thing. You have insurance on your car just in case you get in a wreck, yeah? Even if you replaced health insurance with a national health care model you're still paying a premium, it just comes out of your taxes instead of being a line item on your pay stub. I fail to see why you are complaining about something like this, as a teacher you have better and cheaper insurance than anyone else. I pay $516.51 every two weeks. Wanna trade?
Because with a national health care model (single payer) the government uses their purchasing power to negotiate rates.  Are you economically illiterate?
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2115

Macbeth wrote:

Beto 2020
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I don't want universal healthcare because I am cowed by fear and need a mom figure. I want it because it will make it easier and cheaper to see an eye doctor when my vision starts to get blurry. I pay a premium each month for insurance I don't use because I don't want to get more medical bills and pay a co-pays just to be told "we don't know" or "you are fine".
That's what insurance is... it's a just in case thing. You have insurance on your car just in case you get in a wreck, yeah? Even if you replaced health insurance with a national health care model you're still paying a premium, it just comes out of your taxes instead of being a line item on your pay stub. I fail to see why you are complaining about something like this, as a teacher you have better and cheaper insurance than anyone else. I pay $516.51 every two weeks. Wanna trade?
Because with a national health care model (single payer) the government uses their purchasing power to negotiate rates.  Are you economically illiterate?
So you want to install price controls which increases both demand and scarcity... are you magically going to graduate a few million doctors without hundreds of thousands in med school loans, tens of thousands of dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and without mortgages on multimillion dollar homes they have to support? You can say the last is not necessary, but the fact remains it's the current reality. Oh, also, who the fuck are you to dictate other peoples wages? Can I dictate your wages? You're clearly overpaid and I should get a chunk just because I deserve it.

Last edited by Jay (2019-03-19 14:05:05)

"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
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5027|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

That's what insurance is... it's a just in case thing. You have insurance on your car just in case you get in a wreck, yeah? Even if you replaced health insurance with a national health care model you're still paying a premium, it just comes out of your taxes instead of being a line item on your pay stub. I fail to see why you are complaining about something like this, as a teacher you have better and cheaper insurance than anyone else. I pay $516.51 every two weeks. Wanna trade?
Because with a national health care model (single payer) the government uses their purchasing power to negotiate rates.  Are you economically illiterate?
So you want to install price controls which increases both demand and scarcity... are you magically going to graduate a few million doctors without hundreds of thousands in med school loans, tens of thousands of dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and without mortgages on multimillion dollar homes they have to support? You can say the last is not necessary, but the fact remains it's the current reality. Oh, also, who the fuck are you to dictate other peoples wages? Can I dictate your wages? You're clearly overpaid and I should get a chunk just because I deserve it.
It's weird to me that you immediately take the idea of price negotiation to mean price controls.  I guess in some abstract way the terms are interchangeable, but it's more likely that you are attaching a negative connotation to the idea of a co-op or consumer-based leverage in negotiations to mean artificial price controls.  Aren't prices set in a free market based on supply and demand? Why is it bad to have the demand funneled through a single entity in order to get the most favorable pricing, should people want to sign up to a public healthcare plan? Supply has been consolidated, definitely.  This has led to artificial price hikes, but here we are talking about price controls as a negative that could possibly happen (not really, demand within healthcare is more or less a constant, for all practical purposes) when data shows our (U.S.) healthcare costs are artificially inflated due to market conditions, i.e. consolidation of supply, by way of large healthcare organization mergers.  If anything, a single payer system will provide a better balance.

Do you think a single-payer system automatically removes private insurance?

All the other fluff you mentioned is conjecture at best.  You are predicting an outcome based on your own assumed worst-case scenario, which is that the consolidation of market demand will somehow lead to shortages in labor.

But yes, dictate my salary. LOL
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


Because with a national health care model (single payer) the government uses their purchasing power to negotiate rates.  Are you economically illiterate?
So you want to install price controls which increases both demand and scarcity... are you magically going to graduate a few million doctors without hundreds of thousands in med school loans, tens of thousands of dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and without mortgages on multimillion dollar homes they have to support? You can say the last is not necessary, but the fact remains it's the current reality. Oh, also, who the fuck are you to dictate other peoples wages? Can I dictate your wages? You're clearly overpaid and I should get a chunk just because I deserve it.
It's weird to me that you immediately take the idea of price negotiation to mean price controls.  I guess in some abstract way the terms are interchangeable, but it's more likely that you are attaching a negative connotation to the idea of a co-op or consumer-based leverage in negotiations to mean artificial price controls.  Aren't prices set in a free market based on supply and demand? Why is it bad to have the demand funneled through a single entity in order to get the most favorable pricing, should people want to sign up to a public healthcare plan? Supply has been consolidated, definitely.  This has led to artificial price hikes, but here we are talking about price controls as a negative that could possibly happen (not really, demand within healthcare is more or less a constant, for all practical purposes) when data shows our (U.S.) healthcare costs are artificially inflated due to market conditions, i.e. consolidation of supply, by way of large healthcare organization mergers.  If anything, a single payer system will provide a better balance.

Do you think a single-payer system automatically removes private insurance?

All the other fluff you mentioned is conjecture at best.  You are predicting an outcome based on your own assumed worst-case scenario, which is that the consolidation of market demand will somehow lead to shortages in labor.    Aren't you supposed to be the resident economist? Not only are you an idiot, but you are the worst kind - one shrouded in a smug jacket of pseudo-intelligence.

But yes, dictate my salary. LOL
Do you not understand that many doctors refuse to accept patients with Medicaid? The low payments make accepting the patients a money losing proposition. If your goal is to set up a single payer plan as a competitor to private insurance you're going to end up in a situation where either the plan has to be insanely subsidized to provide a competitive payment schedule or you will have mass refusals. If you go with the former you are not lowering prices at all, simply transferring it to income taxes (or more realistically, the national debt). If it's the latter then you end up in a situation where there is a massive backlash and the next logical step is to outlaw private insurance. Once private insurance is outlawed you have in fact implemented price controls with all the myriad negatives associated with that.
"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
uziq
Member
+174|1847
outlaw private insurance? lmao it’s almost as if there are dozens of examples of these systems working ... private care and insurance are very common here. i have it and use both depending on circumstances.

Last edited by uziq (2019-03-20 01:19:34)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4501|eXtreme to the maX
We've had the 'socialist healthcare is unpossible' debate before, and I swear it was only yesterday John [email protected] was advocating eliminating all controls and letting anyone who wanted to to practice as a doctor.

American healthcare is vastly overpriced and shit, there are other solutions if you pull your head out of your ass.

https://piie.com/sites/default/files/images/fig-kirkegaard20090310-2.gif
Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2115
If we get rid of private insurance that would be awesome. I need to get a MRI to see if I have multiple sclerosis. Before I get the MRI, I need to get the insurance company to approve it. If they deny me then I have to go to a neurologist to advocate for me to get the MRI. It would be fantastic if I could just schedule the damn MRI after my primary care physician said I needed it instead of having to convince my insurance company I need it.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

We've had the 'socialist healthcare is unpossible' debate before, and I swear it was only yesterday John [email protected] was advocating eliminating all controls and letting anyone who wanted to to practice as a doctor.

American healthcare is vastly overpriced and shit, there are other solutions if you pull your head out of your ass.

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES
Looks like we're wasteful but the most effective. I like effective healthcare personally. Waiting lists and rationing are bad mmmkay?
"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
uziq
Member
+174|1847
do you know how long the average waiting time is? what the hell are rations?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

uziq wrote:

do you know how long the average waiting time is? what the hell are rations?
I've heard horror stories from Canadian friends that have been put on 18 month waiting lists for things like shoulder surgery. Many Canadians cross the border instead of waiting in agony for their appointment time to arrive.

Our system isn't perfect. There is a lot of waste in the form of excessive testing and there are frequent stories about Medicare fraud, but I don't mind paying more to have fast access to what is in fact a very good and robust medical system full of highly trained and motivated professionals. Doctors are well compensated, sure, but the biggest cost we have is very similar to the issue our colleges have: they overspend on facilities and new equipment. Five year old MRI machines get ripped out, replaced and sold to South American hospitals even though they are fully functional. Non-profit doesn't mean low cost.
"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
coke
Aye up duck!
+436|5104|England. Stoke
Why wouldn't they just pay for private care in Canada then?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

coke wrote:

Why wouldn't they just pay for private care in Canada then?
They get reimbursed by Canadian NHS when they come here.
"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
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4501|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

We've had the 'socialist healthcare is unpossible' debate before, and I swear it was only yesterday John [email protected] was advocating eliminating all controls and letting anyone who wanted to to practice as a doctor.

American healthcare is vastly overpriced and shit, there are other solutions if you pull your head out of your ass.

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES
Looks like we're wasteful but the most effective. I like effective healthcare personally. Waiting lists and rationing are bad mmmkay?
Looks like you read the chart wrong, as US healthcare is in the ineffective and wasteful zone according to that chart.

My insurance costs ~U$1500/yr, capped for life, and I can see pretty well any specialist within a fortnight.

Seems like your healthcare is shit mmkay?
Epstein didn't kill himself
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,966|3753|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

We've had the 'socialist healthcare is unpossible' debate before, and I swear it was only yesterday John [email protected] was advocating eliminating all controls and letting anyone who wanted to to practice as a doctor.

American healthcare is vastly overpriced and shit, there are other solutions if you pull your head out of your ass.

TODO: FIX GAL IMAGES
Looks like we're wasteful but the most effective. I like effective healthcare personally. Waiting lists and rationing are bad mmmkay?
Looks like you read the chart wrong, as US healthcare is in the ineffective and wasteful zone according to that chart.

My insurance costs ~U$1500/yr, capped for life, and I can see pretty well any specialist within a fortnight.

Seems like your healthcare is shit mmkay?
That's misleading and you know it. What about the over $100B that came out of your taxes?

Who pays for what?
In 2013–14, governments were responsible for $105 billion, or nearly 68% of total health
expenditure of $155 billion in Australia. Of the government contribution, the Australian
Government contributed $63.5 billion, or 41% of total health expenditure, and state and
territory governments contributed $41 billion, or nearly 27% of total health expenditure.
The Australian Government provides a large amount of the funding for medical
services—$21 billion in 2013–14, or 78% of medical services expenditure—with
the balance sourced from the non-government sector. The Australian Government
also spent $8.4 billion for benefit-paid medications, covering 84% of benefit paid
medication expenditure in 2013–14.
State and territory governments on the other hand provide most of the funding for
community health services, contributing $6.2 billion in 2013–14, or 79% of community
health service expenditure.
Most funding provision for public hospital services is shared between Australian, state
and territory governments. The Australian Government provided 37% of recurrent
funding for public hospital services in 2013–14 ($17 billion), while the state and
territory governments, which have primary responsibility for operating and regulating
public hospitals, provided 54% ($25 billion).
Total non-government expenditure was nearly $50 billion in 2013–14, or 32% of the
share of total health expenditure. Funding by individuals was $27.5 billion in 2013–14,
which accounted for nearly 55% of estimated non-government funding and nearly
18% of total health expenditure. Nearly 93% of funding for non-subsidised medicines
($9.0 billion) in 2013–14—such as over-the counter medications, private prescriptions
and under co-payment level medicines—was funded by individuals. Nearly 60% of
dental services expenditure in 2013–14 was funded by individuals ($5.3 billion).
Private health insurance funds provided $13 billion of total health expenditure in
2013–14, while the balance of $9.4 billion came from other non-government sources,
mainly in the form of payments by compulsory motor vehicle third-party and workers’
compensation insurers.
The majority of private health insurance funding was for hospital services, with
$7.3 billion spent in 2013–14.
For further information on the Australian health system, including an overview of
health expenditure, see ‘Chapter 2.1 How does Australia’s health system work?’.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou … ZZ0zLGPnkQ

Shit formatting

Last edited by Jay (2019-03-20 15:51:08)

"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
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5027|949

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

So you want to install price controls which increases both demand and scarcity... are you magically going to graduate a few million doctors without hundreds of thousands in med school loans, tens of thousands of dollars worth of malpractice insurance, and without mortgages on multimillion dollar homes they have to support? You can say the last is not necessary, but the fact remains it's the current reality. Oh, also, who the fuck are you to dictate other peoples wages? Can I dictate your wages? You're clearly overpaid and I should get a chunk just because I deserve it.
It's weird to me that you immediately take the idea of price negotiation to mean price controls.  I guess in some abstract way the terms are interchangeable, but it's more likely that you are attaching a negative connotation to the idea of a co-op or consumer-based leverage in negotiations to mean artificial price controls.  Aren't prices set in a free market based on supply and demand? Why is it bad to have the demand funneled through a single entity in order to get the most favorable pricing, should people want to sign up to a public healthcare plan? Supply has been consolidated, definitely.  This has led to artificial price hikes, but here we are talking about price controls as a negative that could possibly happen (not really, demand within healthcare is more or less a constant, for all practical purposes) when data shows our (U.S.) healthcare costs are artificially inflated due to market conditions, i.e. consolidation of supply, by way of large healthcare organization mergers.  If anything, a single payer system will provide a better balance.

Do you think a single-payer system automatically removes private insurance?

All the other fluff you mentioned is conjecture at best.  You are predicting an outcome based on your own assumed worst-case scenario, which is that the consolidation of market demand will somehow lead to shortages in labor.    Aren't you supposed to be the resident economist? Not only are you an idiot, but you are the worst kind - one shrouded in a smug jacket of pseudo-intelligence.

But yes, dictate my salary. LOL
Do you not understand that many doctors refuse to accept patients with Medicaid? The low payments make accepting the patients a money losing proposition. If your goal is to set up a single payer plan as a competitor to private insurance you're going to end up in a situation where either the plan has to be insanely subsidized to provide a competitive payment schedule or you will have mass refusals. If you go with the former you are not lowering prices at all, simply transferring it to income taxes (or more realistically, the national debt). If it's the latter then you end up in a situation where there is a massive backlash and the next logical step is to outlaw private insurance. Once private insurance is outlawed you have in fact implemented price controls with all the myriad negatives associated with that.
Yes, many doctors refuse to accept patients with medicaid, due to the low payments. There's a simple solution - up the payments (as was done after the ACA was implemented, resulting in higher acceptance rates), or, more likely, the transfer of more people to a healthcare system will result in lower costs for everyone, and less unpaid medical bills which means medical facilities actually get paid instead of having to increase costs for paying members to offset medical bill defaults.

I think a guaranteed cost plus scenario would be welcomed by the medical establishment, and it makes more sense than increasing medical bills according to who can actually pay.  We pay higher healthcare as a direct result of two factors - healthcare middlemen, and providing healthcare to people who can't afford it.  A single-payer system largely eliminates both those factors.

Pointing to how a system (in this case medicaid) is broken as evidence a different type of system that operates in the same space will not work is like making an argument against capitalism by highlighting failures within the American economic system.  By your logic, you also agree capitalism is untenable.  You can argue with yourself on that one.

People with health insurance are already subsidizing those without insurance. Adopting universal healthcare will share that burden with all taxpayers instead of putting the burden on people with insurance who still cannot afford to break a leg without cleaning out their savings, or those unfortunate enough to hit the cancer lottery and go bankrupt due to hospital bills.  Will people still have health coverage even if they don't have a job? *Gasp!* OMG they will!

No one is advocating abolishing private insurance (i even said as much in the comment you replied to), but again, feel free to argue with yourself.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,793|5027|949

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

do you know how long the average waiting time is? what the hell are rations?
I've heard horror stories from Canadian friends that have been put on 18 month waiting lists for things like shoulder surgery. Many Canadians cross the border instead of waiting in agony for their appointment time to arrive.

Our system isn't perfect. There is a lot of waste in the form of excessive testing and there are frequent stories about Medicare fraud, but I don't mind paying more to have fast access to what is in fact a very good and robust medical system full of highly trained and motivated professionals. Doctors are well compensated, sure, but the biggest cost we have is very similar to the issue our colleges have: they overspend on facilities and new equipment. Five year old MRI machines get ripped out, replaced and sold to South American hospitals even though they are fully functional. Non-profit doesn't mean low cost.
Oooh, I have one! Is it still story time? Can I share my anecdote that in no way represents the healthcare system at-large?

My friend separated his shoulder sliding in to home in one of our rec-league softball games last July. He's terribly uncoordinated and the slide was his own fault (and he was very clearly safe even though the umpire called him out), but that's besides the point.

End of July he hurt his shoulder.  He had to schedule a doctors appointment.  His doctor had to recommend him to an orthopedic specialist.  The orthopedic specialist had to take x-rays, then decide whether an MRI was needed (it was). Once the specialist conceded surgery was needed, my friend had to schedule an appointment with the surgeon. Once the surgeon looked at it and confirmed the type of surgery, the surgery was scheduled.

My friend is scheduled to go into surgery the first week of April.  My friend gets to spend the first four months as the father to a newborn baby with his arm in a sling.

Go effective American healthcare!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,623|4501|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

That's misleading and you know it. What about the over $100B that came out of your taxes?
Still cheaper than yours, and my tax burden is lower than yours.

We know you think any other system is impossible and unworkable.
I've simplified the chart for you.
https://i.imgur.com/v4TNWuZ.png

Your MRI argument is relatively trivial, the vast bulk of the cost of running a hospital is in the capital build and providing staff, equipment is a relatively small part and many equipment supply models assume regular replacement of equipment now, as you'd expect.
Epstein didn't kill himself
SuperJail Warden
Member
+199|2115
So the FBI man submitted his report. Predictions?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard