Hurricane who had to pay $10,000 (with insurance covering most of the cost) for appendicitis, was that another outlier?Jay wrote:
No it won't. My friends are smarter than that. I don't think you understand how far of an outlier that story was anyway. It's by no means normal. It's like saying all Aussies will at some point have their child snatched by a dingo.AussieReaper wrote:
But it will be your friend with cancer who goes $200,000 into debt. Yay freedrom?Jay wrote:
I care about freedom, yes. I value freedom above anything else. If that means someone somewhere ends up with a $10,000 medical bill because they had poor insurance coverage, so be it. It won't be me. I read fine print.
I'm happy for you that you get to view your doctors as servants. My conscience wouldn't let me fuck someone over like that.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane who had to pay $10,000 (with insurance covering most of the cost) for appendicitis, was that another outlier?Jay wrote:
No it won't. My friends are smarter than that. I don't think you understand how far of an outlier that story was anyway. It's by no means normal. It's like saying all Aussies will at some point have their child snatched by a dingo.AussieReaper wrote:
But it will be your friend with cancer who goes $200,000 into debt. Yay freedrom?
Cause an outlier to me would be paying anything over 1.5% of my salary towards medical taxes per year.
Happy to fuck over the uninsured and dying though.Jay wrote:
I'm happy for you that you get to view your doctors as servants. My conscience wouldn't let me fuck someone over like that.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane who had to pay $10,000 (with insurance covering most of the cost) for appendicitis, was that another outlier?Jay wrote:
No it won't. My friends are smarter than that. I don't think you understand how far of an outlier that story was anyway. It's by no means normal. It's like saying all Aussies will at some point have their child snatched by a dingo.
Cause an outlier to me would be paying anything over 1.5% of my salary towards medical taxes per year.
Freedom is messy.AussieReaper wrote:
Happy to fuck over the uninsured and dying though.Jay wrote:
I'm happy for you that you get to view your doctors as servants. My conscience wouldn't let me fuck someone over like that.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane who had to pay $10,000 (with insurance covering most of the cost) for appendicitis, was that another outlier?
Cause an outlier to me would be paying anything over 1.5% of my salary towards medical taxes per year.
Medicare and Medicaid and various state health care insurance.AussieReaper wrote:
Happy to fuck over the uninsured and dying though.Jay wrote:
I'm happy for you that you get to view your doctors as servants. My conscience wouldn't let me fuck someone over like that.AussieReaper wrote:
Hurricane who had to pay $10,000 (with insurance covering most of the cost) for appendicitis, was that another outlier?
Cause an outlier to me would be paying anything over 1.5% of my salary towards medical taxes per year.
takes a coon's age to receive coverage though. my mom moved to MD to DC and lost her state health insurance and has to wait six months (thankfully it's almost up) before she's eligible for DC's health insurance coverage. since she has pre-existing conditions or some other bullshit like that.Cybargs wrote:
Medicare and Medicaid and various state health care insurance.AussieReaper wrote:
Happy to fuck over the uninsured and dying though.Jay wrote:
I'm happy for you that you get to view your doctors as servants. My conscience wouldn't let me fuck someone over like that.
Apart from the problem of diseases being contagious, and sick people being less productive in GDP terms... use the analogy of the police if you prefer.Jay wrote:
Well, here's the difference: if a fire breaks out, and a person refused to purchase fire insurance or whatever a commercial fire department would demand, there's a good chance the neighbors houses will burn down due to the first owners negligence. There's a heavy liability factor. The same liability issues can't be translated over to doctors and hospitals.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-12-19 23:18:48)
lol yeah a healthcare system is fucked up because it doesn't play by your economics textbookJay wrote:
Then your system is fucked up and is artificially deflating the value those doctors provide. "Here, you can buy this Kia, or you can buy this Kia with a Rolls Royce emblem on it". Only the fool would choose the emblem.AussieReaper wrote:
The private hospitals usually have specialists who work in the private hospital a few days a month but spend most of their time in the public sector. The doctor can work either and/or both if he chooses to. Most doctors work both public and private.Jay wrote:
The insurance company does. I asked the question because what is stopping your doctors from being private sector only? I would imagine that in a mixed system all of the good talent would end up there.
Why would all the good talent end up in the private hospital if the demand for services is weighed more towards the public sector? There are more people who choose the public option simply because of the costs benefits, so that's where most doctors end up working.
No Aussie, I don't envy your system. Thankfully it will never be implemented here.
Because the constitution says those functions are the role of the government. It does not say that healthcare is. And we have examples of ineptitude of healthcare when run by the government.Dilbert_X wrote:
The point is you and Jay are OK with things like socialised firefighting, run by the govt, on a low uniform fixed wage, with firefighters doing side-jobs to make better money - but dead set against socialised medicine because apparently it will be more expensive if run by the govt.......FEOS wrote:
So the military and police and firemen should then be free to perform their services on the side, as well?
Gee...when you use your argument against you, it makes no fucking sense.
Does not compute.
In America, everyone wants the Rolls Royce. We all want our doctor to be House and run a million tests to find out precisely what is wrong with us. It's inefficient and irrational, and it's what we want. It's those tests that make the price of care so much higher.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person does not need or want a Rolls Royce, a Kia works just fine for them.
Would paying a doctor double or triple the sensible rate make his diagnosis better or the treatment more effective?
Sounds like you're being an obtuse tool.Dilbert_X wrote:
But wait, you have the most expensive - privately run - healthcare in the world, and I'm guessing about average firefighting costs - run by the govt.
How is it guaranteed that costs will rise if healthcare is run by the govt?
Sounds like neo-con scaremongering to me.
Nice strawman.Dilbert_X wrote:
But wait, you have the most expensive - privately run - healthcare in the world, and I'm guessing about average firefighting costs - run by the govt.
How is it guaranteed that costs will rise if healthcare is run by the govt?
Sounds like neo-con scaremongering to me.
right and you think this contributes towards a good health system how? greed and selfishness. i guess that's what hippocrates was talking about...Jay wrote:
In America, everyone wants the Rolls Royce. We all want our doctor to be House and run a million tests to find out precisely what is wrong with us. It's inefficient and irrational, and it's what we want. It's those tests that make the price of care so much higher.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person does not need or want a Rolls Royce, a Kia works just fine for them.
Would paying a doctor double or triple the sensible rate make his diagnosis better or the treatment more effective?
It's the democratization of health care. Everyone wants to be treated like they are wealthiest person in the world by the medical system, they just cry when they see the bill.Uzique wrote:
right and you think this contributes towards a good health system how? greed and selfishness. i guess that's what hippocrates was talking about...Jay wrote:
In America, everyone wants the Rolls Royce. We all want our doctor to be House and run a million tests to find out precisely what is wrong with us. It's inefficient and irrational, and it's what we want. It's those tests that make the price of care so much higher.Dilbert_X wrote:
The average person does not need or want a Rolls Royce, a Kia works just fine for them.
Would paying a doctor double or triple the sensible rate make his diagnosis better or the treatment more effective?
Last edited by Uzique (2011-12-20 08:47:08)
Are you any less ignorant about America? No.Uzique wrote:
you think that has ever been said once in the UK? you're delusional. people get cancer treatment worth £100,000+ free here. same with transplants and life saving operations. my grandfather had a quadruple heart-bypass, looked after by a team of people for 2 weeks. the whole thing cost at least £250,000 to the NHS. he could have done it on his private care but he didn't want to give away half a million dollars of his inheritance on a late-life operation where there was a very real chance of him dying, anyway. so he went with the NHS. i'd say the amount of time that elapsed between the doctor alerting him to his heart-health problems to operation-complete was about 3 weeks. 3 weeks for major-surgery requiring a top heart surgeon/specialist, in a non-emergency scenario.
so now tell me oh wise one, with your great knowledge and experience of the UK's 'socialist' healthcare system... where are the government panels forbidding care? it's funny because that's the exact sort of thing that ACTUALLY happens in america... boards of surgeons and doctors in cooperation with insurance experts/lawyers discussing a patient's case and reviewing it for acceptance/rejection based on FINANCIAL realities. that does not happen in the UK. if someone needs treatment they get it, there is no risk-analysis or cost-value evaluations or time taken to draft up repayment plans.
nice post though!
How are you theoretically right about market-based care? Whatever, you can have the last word. You're just as ignorant as you were when this conversation began. Stick to literature.Uzique wrote:
you've already admitted i am 'theoretically' right about market-based healthcare
your only comebacks in that argument were completely misguided, not-even-close to being theoretically correct sleights about 'socialism'.
market based healthcare is a travesty, socialised healthcare works great. my grandpa is around this xmas, and the state paid for it!
it's the principle, not the cost-to-the-individual. ordinarily they're negligible in both cases.Cybargs wrote:
even if you socialized the costs its still going to be relatively the same as buying insurance.
