My take on Healthcare

2009-11-04 19:14:45

#1

BN: smells like wee wee; +159|7054

Last tax year I paid $847 "Medicare Levy" for my socialised healthcare.

Now that covers me for virtually unlimited visits to my GP, emergency hospital visits, elective surgery (subject to waiting lists)

Now, $847 broken down to a monthly figure = $70.58

Like any insurance, I may or may not make a claim. Therefore my insurance premium also pays for other members to have medical services.

So, how is socialised medicine different from private really?

We both subsidise other people
We both pay a fee

One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens

2009-11-04 19:18:16

#2

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5872

It's different because I have a choice whether on not I want it and I also have a choice of which insurance provider I want.

2009-11-04 19:33:22

#3

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

BN wrote:
One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens

That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.

2009-11-04 20:04:03

#4

nlsme1: Member; +32|5704

Macbeth wrote:
It's different because I have a choice whether on not I want it and I also have a choice of which insurance provider I want.

Everyone else has no choiice but to pay for you if you don't have it and NEED treatment. As far as choosing what provider you have, I would say maybe 5% of those who it would matter to actually have a choice. Considering there are only so many carriers offered from state to state(95% of Alabama's ins. is through one company). Let alone the fact that most people on private plans get i through work. Your employer usually decides, not you.

2009-11-04 20:07:05

#5

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
BN wrote:
One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.

Profits =/= efficiency.

2009-11-04 20:09:00

#6

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6887|132 and Bush

There are private plans avail to me for around $80 a month or less. It just takes a little investigating.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-11-04 20:09:33

#7

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6666|MN

AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
BN wrote:
One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.

Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-11-04 20:19:52

#8

nlsme1: Member; +32|5704

Kmarion wrote:
There are private plans avail to me for around $80 a month or less. It just takes a little investigating.

You should look into those plans a little more. The only good hing about them is the price, I promise you that.

2009-11-04 20:29:14

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

LividBovine wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.
Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits

Exactly, FM has no idea.

And I'll ignore the stupid "control" statement, which is just Libertarian scaremongering.

2009-11-04 20:30:28

#10

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6784

my employer pays 100%. should i be scairt?

2009-11-04 20:40:55

#11

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6887|132 and Bush

nlsme1 wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
There are private plans avail to me for around $80 a month or less. It just takes a little investigating.
You should look into those plans a little more. The only good hing about them is the price, I promise you that.

I have been in "those" plans for over 4 years now. I completely disagree. I'm very happy with the service I get.

Let me know if you need help finding one.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2009-11-04 21:02:31

#12

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
BN wrote:
One is run for profit
One is run to serve the citizens
That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.

How do you turn a profit with fixed revenue?

LividBovine wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.
Control Serve the citizens=/=Maximum benefits

If we aren't maximizing benefits then why is everyone bitching about how many people are uninsured?

Socializing healthcare is about extending care to every citizen - that is maximizing the benefits of the system.

2009-11-04 21:04:30

#13

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.
How do you turn a profit with fixed revenue?

You lower quality.

Which is omgosh at the expense of the patients.

2009-11-04 21:04:36

#14

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6784

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That is the difference.

One is run to maximize efficiency.
One is run to maximize benefits.
Profits =/= efficiency.
How do you turn a profit with fixed revenue?

cut costs, and benefits?

ha! i knew Econ would come in handy!

2009-11-04 21:06:32

#15

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

lol, you make it more efficient (cut costs) before you cut quality. Otherwise you're a shitty business man/woman, and won't be in the business for long. At least until you get put on the taxpayer's payroll.

2009-11-04 21:07:27

#16

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6784

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
the taxpayer's payroll.

inb4gov't

2009-11-04 21:11:25

#17

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol, you make it more efficient (cut costs) before you cut quality. Otherwise you're a shitty business man/woman, and won't be in the business for long. At least until you get put on the taxpayer's payroll.

Yes, taxpayers fund socialised healthcare and are already on the taxpayer's payroll (in the negative column)... so how hard is it to work out that it's easier for private healthcare to cut quality to match the public option?

2009-11-04 21:21:41

#18

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Because the people paying for healthcare on top of their taxes expect more from their provider than what they can get through the government.

2009-11-04 21:27:23

#19

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because the people paying for healthcare on top of their taxes expect more from their provider than what they can get through the government.

Which is why you don't have to offer them too much. As long as they pay enough for you to turn a profit the rest is irrelevant. Offer a plan that betters the socialised option with extra services like acupuncture, message therapy etc and the quality of every other service can be identical.

Who's at greater risk of failing, the government is held account by the tax payer, the private insurer has shareholders...?

2009-11-04 21:37:19

#20

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Do you not understand the concept of people having a lot of money, and those same people wanting the best Western medicine has to offer?

That question is pretty amusing in context of our debt situation.

2009-11-04 21:40:26

#21

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you not understand the concept of people having a lot of money, and those same people wanting the best Western medicine has to offer?

That question is pretty amusing in context of our debt situation.

Do you really think "the best" definitively means private health care?

2009-11-04 21:42:54

#22

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Without a doubt. Someone with $1 bil is going to get better healthcare than nearly anyone else, period.

Money unlocks a lot of doors.

2009-11-04 21:54:46

#23

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6439|what

An ambulance doesn't change what hospital it rushes towards based on the patients wallet.

2009-11-04 22:01:30

#24

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7003

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Without a doubt. Someone with $1 bil is going to get better healthcare than nearly anyone else, period.

Money unlocks a lot of doors.

True, but at least in socialized healthcare people are treated more equally. It does not mean everyone is equal, it just gives a better chance for poorer people.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-11-04 22:09:05

#25

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:
An ambulance doesn't change what hospital it rushes towards based on the patients wallet.

Yet a rich investor in the local hospital is going to get prioritized care, and the millionaire is going to pay for a goddamn bionic heart when his god-given one fails.

BF2S Forums My take on Healthcare

BN wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

BN wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

BN wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

BN wrote:

LividBovine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Board footer