Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Socialized Health Care


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
58 replies to this topic

#46 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 08:54 PM

military medical care is incredible.

you've got something like a 95% chance of survival if you're wounded in the field and they get you to a chopper. they've got traumatic physical injury down pat.

now, ptsd on the other hand....cough cough

#47 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:05 PM

it doesn't matter whos fault it is. the society and government will bear the burden when they can't pay.

where did I say it should be?

it should definitely be encouraged, however, since that's ultimately cheaper and more efficient.

health care costs increase almost geometrically as a problem worsens. if you don't understand that then, well, there's not much I can do for you. the rise in healthcare costs in this country is outpacing inflation for christ's sake.

not pertinent, actually supports my argument.


also if you're going to try to tell me you can put dollar value on a healthy life, then you're f*cking out of your mind. unsubstantiated given that the government and insurance companies already do this since you're using extreme examples, are you really going to feel good when you can afford to have your legs amputated after the pancreatic cancer you never had detected because you refused to spend the small amount of money on a check up ravishes your digestive, reproductive, digestive and neuromuscular systems?

of course there isn't. however, yearly check ups are going to be able to spot something earlier, and the earlier you can spot something the more likely you're going to be able to treat it successfully and at less cost to you and your family.

oh whelp can't do anything to make it better.

/smokes cigaretts
/drinks
/becomes huge burden on family when money he thinks was enough vanishes after first year of treatment unsubstantiated crap

meaningless republican talking point? check
banal use of the word socialized? check
gross generalizations without supporting evidence? check
loose reference to a "system?" check ah, the strawman.

this assumes any disease is a rational actor which is ludicrous. if you believe you can completely insulate yourself from illness just by having responsibility you're out of your mind. actually, this supports my argument about preventative care, too.

ahh yes, the greatest red herring of them all; choice. why do people think they're more able to decide what's best for them than a doctor, especially when we're dealing with knowledge that takes the smartest people our society has about a decade to learn? completely off subject

Traditional healthcare with emphasis on preventative medicine: (government controlled or not)

this is patently untrue
This article does not address my point: that through the act of hiding medical costs by filtering them through employer benefits and through the use of co-pays rather than pay-for-service type billing, that costs of actual services rendered and drugs consumed are completely hidden from the consumer.

like i already said, american pay more in healthcare related taxes than any country in the world. Not related because of what I've said in the previous point; but somehow you have once again said something that supports my support of a hands-off, direct approach.

this isn't true at all. doctors abroad get paid significantly less (though still significantly more than the rest of the population) abroad than they do in the states. this is due to numerous factors. however, if you think doctors have a problem with job security in this country, you couldn't be more wrong. Unsubstantiated and more importantly, unrelated to my point that preventative care requires more hours from doctors and therefore more demand and job security for doctors in general.

also payscale for doctors varies so wildly between specialization that it's really a useless metric for anything and difficult to apply, unless you want to compare what an oncologist in france makes compared to an oncologist in california. Unrelated prattling once again!

just your opinion that you can't prove. Proof otherwise?

ludicrous statement not supported by easily available and overwhelming facts and observation Where is your overwhelming fact and observation to the contrary?

seriously do you know anything about this at all. Tell me, oh knower of everything!

neither one of these is true at all. Link?

for example, in france, spain, sweden, etc, you can see any doctor as many times a year that you need. access to specialty medicine is not a problem in cities. once you get out, it becomes a problem, not unlike here in the states where a small town in deer f*ck iowa doesn't have an acupuncturist. Link?

also, the term "alternative medicine" is needlessly obtuse and pretty worthless. if you have a specific one you don't think is available list it and i'll gladly prove you wrong. Did I say available? Or covered?

skyrocketing premiums you say? GOD FORBID! Consider this: If your main argument against an HSA is it has a similar problem as the alternative, is it really an argument?

also you're wrong...again link?

these aren't specifics at all. you're amazingly misinformed. link?


this isn't true at all. link?

they're in administration, and people like you insure that there will always be a need for intensive geriatric care services. link to my medical records?

Is this good? Or do you need more? What am I, your english teacher? :boxing_smiley:

Edited by Jase, 15 February 2009 - 09:13 PM.


#48 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:09 PM

oh yay pitifully transparent hand waving


Interesting how you recognize the symptoms in others.

You'd better stop while you're ahead (or should I say not so behind?); you're proving me right with every post.

Keep going and I might get as conceited as you from being right so much.

#49 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:22 PM

not pertinent, actually supports my argument.

that was just providing an example about the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. it's foolish to immediately assume any investment will be able to cover the costs at a later date, especially considering you'd be planning your investments for costs you can't anticipate.

unsubstantiated given that the government and insurance companies already do this


I was just pointing out that any decline in quality of life that would most likely accompany a major illness isn't going to go away regardless of how much money you have to treat it. I mean there are certain things, barring unforeseen advancements in medical technology, that are going to completely ruin your life regardless of how much money you have which is kinda the specific argument i was responding to.

unsubstantiated crap

it's an extreme example, but it's certainly not unsubstantiated. i'm sure you know that rising healthcare costs due to a variety of reasons are the leading cause of bankruptcy in this country. while I can't find specific statistics about family losing their money trying to support their loved ones, i would like to think that logically follows.

This article does not address my point: that through the act of hiding medical costs by filtering them through employer benefits and through the use of co-pays rather than pay-for-service type billing, that costs of actual services rendered and drugs consumed are completely hidden from the consumer.

full knowledge of costs of things in regards to healthcare isn't simply a matter of "cutting through the red tape." this is incredibly complicated, education intensive material and it's unfair to expect people to understand the ins and outs of medical research, hospital overhead, doctors fees, etc etc, as well as often times being able to detach themselves from their emotional state.

i mean i just don't see the connection between "your money = more knowledge = lower costs." that just seems like is often the case where people just apply macroeocnomics principles to a situation where they aren't really applicable.

Edited by Fiz, 15 February 2009 - 09:45 PM.


#50 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:29 PM

Unsubstantiated and more importantly, unrelated to my point that preventative care requires more hours from doctors and therefore more demand and job security for doctors in general.

it's unsubstantiated that doctors make less in europe than the do in the united states? no it's not at all.

also, an emphasis on primary care would only really require more hours for general practitioners, which would decrease the requirement for more invasive, time intensive procedures at later stages of illnesses that wouldn't happen.

Unrelated prattling once again!

it's not unrelated at all. discussing pay scales of all MDs across an unbelievably wide breadth of specialties is pretty useless. it's like if I tried to compare the salaries of anyone who makes food in America vs what they make in another country. regardless of the point the example was connected to, it wouldn't be a very telling comparison.

#51 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:29 PM

Agree to disagree. I think the economic principle of empowering the individual is viable and can be successful in most cases as it relates to healthcare. I obviously think that hiding the system from the individual for his or her own good is both immoral, and inefficient from an economic perspective.

You obviously disagree.

#52 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:32 PM

it's unsubstantiated that doctors make less in europe than the do in the united states? no it's not at all.

also, an emphasis on primary care would only really require more hours for general practitioners, which would decrease the requirement for more invasive, time intensive procedures at later stages of illnesses that wouldn't happen.

it's not unrelated at all. discussing pay scales of all MDs across an unbelievably wide breadth of specialties is pretty useless. it's like if I tried to compare the salaries of anyone who makes food in America vs what they make in another country. regardless of the point the example was connected to, it wouldn't be a very telling comparison.


I was not only pointing out that you didn't support your argument, but that it also didn't matter because it wasn't related to my point. And you did no better in this post to establish a link between what your point and what I said.

You either don't understand my point, or you're trying to make a connection that isn't there. I don't know which one it is.

Edited by Jase, 15 February 2009 - 09:35 PM.


#53 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:34 PM

Proof otherwise?

so one of the cruxes of your belief is just something that can't be disproven? that's incredibly intellectually dishonest.

Where is your overwhelming fact and observation to the contrary?

Right here.

Or in graph form.

Posted Image

If you argue that more "consumer choice" gives "more information" and lowers costs then it would logically follow that a more centralized, government controlled system would be more expensive per capita, and that's clearly not true.

Edited by Fiz, 15 February 2009 - 09:45 PM.


#54 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:43 PM

Link?

This is a nice little site. treatment for what is widely described as alternative medicine is generally covered on a scale determined by efficacy, depending on country. things that are overwhelmingly proven to have visible, observable affects are covered fully, while things like drinking tea to cure cancer are not. France, for example, gives FAR more leniency to new mothers in regards to what they cover than say great britain. at some point the french decided that no one person can figure out what women want, especially after child care, and it'd probably be more cost effective to just let them have whatever they wanted then try to study it.

anyone with a wife who's had a child can attest to this.

as far as limited number of visits, i've honestly never heard that before. i think you're just misinterpreting something else.

Did I say available? Or covered?

my mistake. please give me an example of uncovered "alternative medicine"

If your main argument against an HSA is it has a similar problem as the alternative, is it really an argument?

I meant that to point out that "skyrocketing" is a gross exaggeration.

i think at this point you just started getting pissy and demanding information that had already been posted and you hadn't read. I think i was pretty thorough here though.

#55 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:47 PM

so one of the cruxes of your belief is just something that can't be disproven? that's incredibly intellectually dishonest.


Isn't that exactly what you're doing by telling me I'm wrong "just 'cause"?

Right http://dll.umaine.ed.../U.S. HCweb.pdf

Or in graph form.

Posted Image

If you argue that more "consumer choice" gives "more information" and lowers costs then it would logically follow that a more centralized, government controlled system would be more expensive per capita, and that's clearly not true.


How in the world does that address the original statement of:

This increases demand on the system and increases cost for everyone.


You're comparing apples to giraffes.

To address your supposed point, you're assuming that I think our country already has good consumer choice and high access to information than our international counterparts. Unfortunately this is not the case, as I've been saying this entire time. Over and over again.

#56 Jase

Jase

    Kuechold Fantasies

  • Administrators
  • 17,332 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:56 PM

i think at this point you just started getting pissy and demanding information that had already been posted and you hadn't read. I think i was pretty thorough here though.


I was calling out your hypocrisy for criticizing my rhetoric for lack of detail when you yourself have had barely anything to say but "you're wrong".

When I called you out on this, you did a quick google search for something that looked topically related in order to look like you knew what you were talking about. Sad really.

But after looking at what you've posted, you still haven't posted anything that remotely contradicts me. I get it. Healthcare in america is expensive. That's not the debate. The debate is why it's expensive, and what we can do about it.

I say give the individual more control and responsibility and the system will be more efficient.

You say give the government bureaucracy more power and that will fix things, just look at the rest of the world. The problem is that the rest of the world isn't like america.

#57 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:57 PM

How in the world does that address the original statement of:

i explained it quite clearly already, but once again. your original entire statement was a con against whatever you think traditional medicine is (socialized medicine in europe predates hmos for example but that's besides the point)

Because much of the cost of healthcare is hidden from the individual, often the individuals feel entitled to more care than they need. This increases demand on the system and increases cost for everyone.

this leads me to think you believe that less government influence = more knowledge = less cost which is, as i've shown, demonstrably wrong.

To address your supposed point, you're assuming that I think our country already has good consumer choice and high access to information than our international counterparts.

so at times europe doesn't cover alternative medicines (less choice) and now the US has less choice?

also does europe have a better internet or something

#58 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,063 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 10:04 PM

But after looking at what you've posted, you still haven't posted anything that remotely contradicts me.

what in the world are you talking about? I've pretty much debunked all of the points you use to come to your assumption that HSA are the only way to go. I really don't think your argument has anything to stand on. Not once have you supported your stance with anything rational. Your reasons for believing what you do are apparently truisms and generalizations.

I say give the individual more control and responsibility and the system will be more efficient.

this makes about as much sense as saying air travel would be less expensive if we just flew the planes ourselves.

The problem is that the rest of the world isn't like america.

argument to american exclusionism are very weak and baseless. The united states of america has done things no other country can and ever will do. saying "we're not europe" is pretty meaningless.

really it doesn't seem like you want to learn anything. you keep calling me names, yet I'm the one doing research.

earlier you said all i ever wanted was the last word. go nuts.

#59 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,408 posts

Posted 15 February 2009 - 10:10 PM

Nice duel here between fiz and jase.
HSA's are yet another quiver to hopefully add some stability in pricing and care while other fish get fried.
I agree totally with fiz on preventitive care. I don't know what type research you have done in that area fiz but your routine examines, physicals etc are covered up front.
So essentially your basics are good.

The current system, yes, needs to be revamped.
But lets not use Spain or France. Those countries pale in population and are nowhere as culturally diverse as the US. There are unintended consequences of being that open of a societey.
One of which is health care. Stwall said earlier about just the hospital he is at LOSES 18 million a year!! ONE hospital for indigent care.
So that costs gets eaten or passed on to someone else.
For me I say you tackle that issue by creating metrics. WHO is NOT paying those bills? WHAT type of treatment/visits keep that going?
The double edge sword is to never turn someone away period, but then the trick is the costs afterwords.

Here is what I have said a ton of times for HC and other items.
Create a saftey net tax choice(oxymoronic I know) of allowing people to choose a set dollar amount to allocate to lets call them cost bottlenecks.
Take a county of 400k. 200k pay taxes. There is no way all 400 are going to the hospital each year. In fact 200 might barely being going.
So each person that pays taxes has an option to pay into 3 greater good canals.
One is health care, one is education, one could be law enforcement/fire.
It would be areas that the overall population uses and benefits from. Simple assumption I think.
The county/state would apply the directed funds accordingly but still maintain its own budget.
Some might say they want to pay more toward school because they have kids or grandkids or nieces and nephews. Others might not have any young in school and say law enforcement.
While another group may say they understand the need for healthcare.
Like some toll roads that cost a little more but the use of it is a progressive tax, you use this canal system to create a small net.
When you build models based off taxation you limit yourself. When you build it where taxation is PART and not the whole, you create flexibility.
Many states are low on funds because of unemployment and no tax revenue from foreclosures you have to take a step back realize that is backwards.
Let me let me let me get an upgrade.

Edited by pstall, 15 February 2009 - 10:12 PM.



Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com