Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6911
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/heal … lized.html

Americans Blindly Supporting More Government through so-called Universal Health Care
Socialist health care system supporters often point to sky rocketing health insurance prices in the U.S. as a problem with a "capitalist" system. However, all of the pervasive problems within the U.S. health care system are a direct result of statism.


pretty interesting... socialized health care may be the downfall of the US... I'm sure that will make
some people happy...?       insanity
Love is the answer
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6963
Seems to work pretty well in Australia. We don't have the population of the USA though.

We do have our problems though, dont get me wrong. If you want something fucked up, let the government run it.

Then again, private enterprise CANNOT be trusted when it comes to any service that is run for profit.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

I'd rather a choice available for all.

If you want free health care it is available to you, or you can pay extra for the premium beds and "services", shorter wait times, etc with private health cover.

I don't want to ever see health care available to those who can afford it exclusively.

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6796|132 and Bush

Manage it locally and have option to sell it back for a tax credit.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
Fine by me, so long as the doctors agree.
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6963

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather a choice available for all.

If you want free health care it is available to you, or you can pay extra for the premium beds and "services", shorter wait times, etc with private health cover.

I don't want to ever see health care available to those who can afford it exclusively.

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
Sounds like the balance we have here.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
Fine by me, so long as the doctors agree.
Hippocratic oath ring a bell? Unless you think doctors won't work unless paid...? But if it is treatment through public health insurance they are paid by tax dollars so there is no different. So why wouldn't they agree? And if they are chasing money there's still plenty of well paying work in the private sector.

BN wrote:

Sounds like the balance we have here.
It is more or less. However the competition between the private companies is a lot less than what I would like to see.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
Fine by me, so long as the doctors agree.
Hippocratic oath ring a bell? Unless you think doctors won't work unless paid...? But if it is treatment through public health insurance they are paid by tax dollars so there is no different. So why wouldn't they agree? And if they are chasing money there's still plenty of well paying work in the private sector.
...ok

AussieReaper wrote:

Unless you think doctors won't work unless paid...?
...you don't?

AussieReaper wrote:

But if it is treatment through public health insurance they are paid by tax dollars so there is no different. So why wouldn't they agree?
...because the pay is shitty, the government doesn't have the money to spend on it, because people believe that medical care should be based on need and not the depth of their wallets.

AussieReaper wrote:

And if they are chasing money there's still plenty of well paying work in the private sector.
So why wouldn't they all work in the private sector.

Certainly an inordinate amount poorly thought out logic here man.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina
Socialize health insurance.  That would fix most of the problem right there.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|5791|Vacationland
Honestly to charge people large bills BECAUSE they are poor and can't afford health care is absurd.  Universal health care will help to eliminate poverty.  Just because you have more money then I do doesn't mean you deserve to cut in front of me in line. If everyone is equal like we say they are in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, then why does having more money in your bank account make you need to be seen by a doctor more then me?
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6963

AussieReaper wrote:

BN wrote:

Sounds like the balance we have here.
It is more or less. However the competition between the private companies is a lot less than what I would like to see.
Me too. I went to MIA on Wed and it was $360 for an ECG. Other than waiting 2 weeks for the hospital I am not sure what other options I had.

But I did get $235 of that back through Medicare.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So why wouldn't they all work in the private sector.

Certainly an inordinate amount poorly thought out logic here man.
You think that doctors must only be in it for the money. There is always going to be well paid positions in both public and private health care. And if the pay differences are huge it doesn't take a genius to work out that the govt. just has to narrow the gap.

I don't think you understand how many public sector jobs are out there that people have no problem working in.

Why wouldn't they all work in the private sector, are you serious? Supply and demand for one thing. If they all work in the private sector the demand is high and the pay drops. Businesses can now afford to pay doctors less.

I mean, you do understand simply economic principals like supply and demand, don't you?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6911

AussieReaper wrote:

I'd rather a choice available for all.

If you want free health care it is available to you, or you can pay extra for the premium beds and "services", shorter wait times, etc with private health cover.

I don't want to ever see health care available to those who can afford it exclusively.

Treatment should be based on medical circumstances, not on your bank balance.
That would just make the public system obselete. All the rich people will go to the expensive hospitals etc. The only way to improve the public system is to have the high class cry for improvement, otherwise nothing will change /Naomi Klein.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6348|what

Cybargs wrote:

That would just make the public system obselete. All the rich people will go to the expensive hospitals etc. The only way to improve the public system is to have the high class cry for improvement, otherwise nothing will change /Naomi Klein.
It works here and we have a strong public system. It's so good in fact a lot of the time the rich people will opt to not go through the private health insurance cover they do have just to save money...
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6911

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

That would just make the public system obselete. All the rich people will go to the expensive hospitals etc. The only way to improve the public system is to have the high class cry for improvement, otherwise nothing will change /Naomi Klein.
It works here and we have a strong public system. It's so good in fact a lot of the time the rich people will opt to not go through the private health insurance cover they do have just to save money...
Its a tricky thing to maintain the balance. I'd rather have a really good public system tbh, but you still need about 70% of the high class using it, in order for things to improve if theres a problem, otherwise, no one would give a fuck.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

That would just make the public system obselete. All the rich people will go to the expensive hospitals etc. The only way to improve the public system is to have the high class cry for improvement, otherwise nothing will change /Naomi Klein.
It works here and we have a strong public system. It's so good in fact a lot of the time the rich people will opt to not go through the private health insurance cover they do have just to save money...
Its a tricky thing to maintain the balance. I'd rather have a really good public system tbh, but you still need about 70% of the high class using it, in order for things to improve if theres a problem, otherwise, no one would give a fuck.
For the most part, that's true.  Things only change when the rich and powerful give a shit about it.

Still...  In most countries with socialized health care, there is a flourishing private market in combination with a suitable public system.

Public systems are more geared toward preventive care, while private systems are more geared toward advanced operations.
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6796|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


It works here and we have a strong public system. It's so good in fact a lot of the time the rich people will opt to not go through the private health insurance cover they do have just to save money...
Its a tricky thing to maintain the balance. I'd rather have a really good public system tbh, but you still need about 70% of the high class using it, in order for things to improve if theres a problem, otherwise, no one would give a fuck.
For the most part, that's true.  Things only change when the rich and powerful give a shit about it.
For the most part.. French revolution aside.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6600|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:


Its a tricky thing to maintain the balance. I'd rather have a really good public system tbh, but you still need about 70% of the high class using it, in order for things to improve if theres a problem, otherwise, no one would give a fuck.
For the most part, that's true.  Things only change when the rich and powerful give a shit about it.
For the most part.. French revolution aside.
True...  but things had to get REALLY bad before that happened. 
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6189|Truthistan
Market speak time

Doctors have a monopoly on health care. You can't get necessary treatment, or prescription drugs or surgeries without going to see one. Like all monopolies doctors require heavy duty regulation to ensure that the public is protected. So the debate isn't one of "socialism versus free market." Its more like "regulation of monopoly versus not regulating a monopoly."

I wouldn't red bait the issue by calling socialism. It is necessary regulation of a monopolized industry that is required and one of the easiest ways to regulate doctors would be through a single payer system like national health care.

The Party of No and their lack of free market solutions

The conservatives are not offering any solutions to the health care problem. Their do nothing approach is just a lack of will on their part to regulate the health care monopoly. Solutions like medicare prescription drug plans and tax breaks for people to afford health insurance is not a solution but is in fact merely a path to funnel tax money into the pockets of these monopolies. I would like to hear them talk about about some real "free market" solutions.

Real Free Market Solutions

A free market solution would be to break the hold that doctors monopoly that they have on health care by making some prescription drugs available without a prescription and all others available with a consult with a pharmacist. Surgeries could be preformed by skilled people not necessarily doctors, I believe that the army did this during WW II where people who were non doctors were trained to do just appendix operations.

Nurses can surely diagnose a cold/flu, order appropriate tests and tell a patient to see a pharmacist for antibiotics... you really don't need 7 years of training and medical degree that guarantees you admittance to the monopoly.

Pharmaceutical patents could be shortened to 5 or 10 years and patent extensions could be banned as well as banning the payments to stop generics coming to market.

I'm sure that there are other things that would be free market solutions but so far the answer to the health care issue from the other side has been "No, you're a GD socialist." I wish that the "conservatives" would seek to offer some real free market solutions instead of just trying to keep people tied to this health care monopoly that is a cash cow for their supporters. They have pretty much made it clear that they don't want the health care industry regulated, and that brings us to the whole financial crash brought to you by the whole "don't regulate me bro" crowd. Until the party of NO puts some solutions on the table, they can STFU, because what's there now has crashed and the need for regulation is obvious.


EDIT BTW the list of problems on the link in the OP with the UK system would be many times greater for the US if you take into account the stories of the 40 million people in the US without health insurance. Talk about rationing health care LOLZ when you are uninsured and can't see a doctor, I would call that "a line of infinite length" or "an infinitely long wait time" because youi never get to see a doctor.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2009-04-30 22:21:00)

Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

You think that doctors must only be in it for the money. There is always going to be well paid positions in both public and private health care. And if the pay differences are huge it doesn't take a genius to work out that the govt. just has to narrow the gap.
With what money? Where does that money come from?

AussieReaper wrote:

I don't think you understand how many public sector jobs are out there that people have no problem working in.
How many of them went to school for 8+ years and spent a small large fortune to get their degree?

AussieReaper wrote:

Why wouldn't they all work in the private sector, are you serious? Supply and demand for one thing. If they all work in the private sector the demand is high and the pay drops. Businesses can now afford to pay doctors less.
It doesn't matter unless they are paying less than the government. That's not something we need to worry about.

AussieReaper wrote:

I mean, you do understand simply economic principals like supply and demand, don't you?
I understand that value doesn't spawn from need. The doctor can't buy groceries, or be as it may a hot new BMW with the medical need of his patients.

the gist of Diesel_Dyk's post wrote:

I'm sure that there are other things that would be free market solutions but so far the answer to the health care issue from the other side has been "No, you're a GD socialist." I wish that the "conservatives" would seek to offer some real free market solutions instead of just trying to keep people tied to this health care monopoly that is a cash cow for their supporters.
The "free market" solution has simple but radical solutions contained in that word. Nothing more should have to be said, assuming the audience knows how to use wikipedia.

No regulation. That is the true free market solution, one encompassing all of your above points and more.

In this case the free market solution is socially unacceptable, because it means throwing all manner of quality control out the window. People don't take kindly to that when it deals with their lives, though the irony is they seem to like paying for it even less...
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6869|Canberra, AUS
Until the party of NO puts some solutions on the table, they can STFU, because what's there now has crashed and the need for regulation is obvious.
Nicely put.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6902|67.222.138.85
An economic downturn != the system is flawed abandon ship

Some people fucked up over here, so let's put more people over here watching those people, and a few more over here, and a layer or two above that watching the watchers. Then we can double or even triple the chance of someone somewhere fucking up!
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6301|eXtreme to the maX
I don't buy the 'socialised healthcare = big government' argument at all.
In general it costs less than private healthcare, whats the big deal?

If you want small government I recommend privatising the army.
Fuck Israel
BN
smells like wee wee
+159|6963
Things like healthcare should be totally expensive for governments and totally free to its citizens.
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6688|N. Ireland

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Real Free Market Solutions

A free market solution would be to break the hold that doctors monopoly that they have on health care by making some prescription drugs available without a prescription and all others available with a consult with a pharmacist. Surgeries could be preformed by skilled people not necessarily doctors, I believe that the army did this during WW II where people who were non doctors were trained to do just appendix operations.
A "real free market solution" is complete privatization because healthcare is a merit good. Private health companies buy their drugs from pharmaceutical companies and then sell them on. The only thing that would prevent monopolization is competition.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard