General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
AbortTheFetus
 
AbortTheFetus's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElectribeCyanide View Post
Both have their negatives and positives, but why I would specifically choose socialized welfare over privatized is that in Private medication fields, it's all about the dollar. Especially when you talk about HMO/Insurance. Yea Socialized might not be as good or yea it might screw you on taxes, but I'd rather have a semi decent health care system out of my money than having a private organization with stockholders whose main business goal is to cut expense costs and increase profits. Profits should not be incorporated when human lives are at stake, especially when the profits don't go back into R&D or Admin costs but straight into the stock.

so you ship all your packages via USPS instead of UPS, FedEx or DHL/worldwide epxress then? not that I disagree with your argument about corporate priorities, I'm just saying, asking the government to handle it is asking to get fucked in the ass by a 900 lb gorilla(exactly 900 lbs). Gov. has issues with doing things properly and they're no less untouchable than corporations, whether it's a lobbying group or stockholders, both will be influenced to make decisions that are less than the overall best.

I doubt you help your neighbor with his mortgage payments, or paying for groceries, so why do you want to do it in a less transparent way where the government will take their cut for managing all of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
It is somewhat of a false dilemma, but I'm honestly curious how you expect anyone in a position of authority to start cutting health care to the elderly and the poor. You really think that's going to go over well?

We need to reduce costs and universalizing it seems like the best way to do this (see every other developed country in the world) without pissing off a huge proportion of our country.

it's true that we spend a ridiculous amount of money on administrative costs however we also spend a great deal more money on the purely medicinal aspect of healthcare, the cost to treat someone here due to hidden costs associated with those who cannot pay, and the higher costs of malpractice insurance, the higher costs of medical school and other related costs where somehow we end up paying more and you can see that really no other country spends as much per person on the purely medicine aspect of healthcare and if the government truly wanted to do something about it, they'd implement reforms to bring those costs in line with the rest of the world. Simply changing the way in which we manage insurance isn't really going to solve the problem if everything still costs more.
__________________
www.Thatgermanguyisafaggot.com
Old 03-08-2009, 09:41 PM AbortTheFetus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#16  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The issue here is the false dilemma.

We all need to face the fact that Healthcare cannot continue to operate as it does now.
We've been presented the choice of universal versus as-it-stands: thus the false dilemma. These are not our only choice.

Another option we need to consider is further privatisation. Health care expenses are high in part because of the high amount of write-offs required by health care providers who treat those they know are unable to pay.

Additionally, the evident lack of legal protections for providers increases the inherent risk of practicing.

Furthermore, our high cost of health care is also reflective of the availability of health care. It is far easier for people here, who can pay, to get surgeries they need in a timely manner.

or just notice the fact that the rest of the industrialized world has better systems than we do, one or the other.
Old 03-08-2009, 10:28 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#17  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrum View Post
Explain it to me please.

Why not just socialize and improve health care for the destitute, the elderly, veterans, and say students while keeping it private for the middle and upper classes? Why insist on spending all this money to have coverage for everyone, when the majority of Americans seem to have little trouble paying for their own insurance outright or through their employer? What would be wrong with this hybrid? Seems like a win win to me.

Because it gives the government "the right" to proscribe anything that is not prescribed. Smoking puts a heavy load on Public Health Brigade Services. Smoking is outlawed.


Drinking

Rock climbing

Skiing

Scuba diving

Swimming


Sunbathing raises risk of skin cancer. Outdoor recreational activities are outlawed.

Computer gaming leads to sedentary lifestyle increasing heart disease risk. Recreational use of computers will be outlawed.

Your bio monitor says you have skipped your daily exercise regime for three days. You will report to a reeducation facility at 0700.


Etc etc.


Of course Jack Williamson covers this much better in his Sci Fi novel The Humanoids.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-09-2009, 10:37 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#18  

9mmCensor
 
I live in Canada where I get free health care, so I am stating my bias.

To me I feel that having a healthy population benefits everyone as we live in communities that are not segregated by race, so serious health issues effect the whole population, thus even if certain groups (the people with more money) pay more for healthcare (for the less monied people) then they are not paying for "other peoples healthcare", but rather those with the extra cash pay taxes which keep the overall population healthy thus making life better and less risky in terms of contracting illness. A healthy population also offers more people to work, and because they need fewer sick days, the general working population is more productive thus making more profit for those that shoulder the major burden of health care.

If I were rich, I would not want millions of people who are poor and unable to get proper medical attention, and thus sick, infecting the general population which would make me more likely to contract illness. I would also relish the fact that there is a healthy workforce for me to hire and exploit.
Old 03-09-2009, 11:58 AM 9mmCensor is offline  
Reply With Quote
#19  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9mmCensor View Post
I live in Canada where I get free health care, so I am stating my bias.

To me I feel that having a healthy population benefits everyone as we live in communities that are not segregated by race, so serious health issues effect the whole population, thus even if certain groups (the people with more money) pay more for healthcare (for the less monied people) then they are not paying for "other peoples healthcare", but rather those with the extra cash pay taxes which keep the overall population healthy thus making life better and less risky in terms of contracting illness. A healthy population also offers more people to work, and because they need fewer sick days, the general working population is more productive thus making more profit for those that shoulder the major burden of health care.

If I were rich, I would not want millions of people who are poor and unable to get proper medical attention, and thus sick, infecting the general population which would make me more likely to contract illness. I would also relish the fact that there is a healthy workforce for me to hire and exploit.


Interesting point. It's like say, the farmer keeping his sheep healthy so he makes more money.

Only problem is in america the health care would be going to the dingo and coyote as well as the sheep.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-09-2009, 12:02 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#20  

Xayd
 
no, in america the sheep wander through life with their checkbook in one hand and pen in the other. the dingos and coyotes just compete for who gets the most checks.
Old 03-09-2009, 03:31 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#21  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
no, in america the sheep wander through life with their checkbook in one hand and pen in the other. the dingos and coyotes just compete for who gets the most checks.

well as long as the bottom feeders like you get to suck the muck for decaying bits it's all good right
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 03-09-2009, 03:34 PM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#22  

Sarah Palin
 
Sarah Palin's Avatar
 
I work in the healthcare industry and I can't see how socializing it is going to benefit anyone except the really poor or the really lazy who already have both hands out to the government and just want more.

You have to keep in mind that we live in a capatalistic society, so people want to make money, they want to be wealthy and work for it, others see what wealthy people have and want it for themselves but don't realize they should work for it and earn it for themselves, rather than expecting the government to give it to them.

Take doctors. It used to be that you became a doctor to become rich. You go through medical school, you put in time for specialized training, you go through the expense of setting up your practice and you make money. Nowadays, it's a struggle to make ends meet. With the rising costs of insurance premiums, and unbelievable malpractice premiums, it's hard to make ends meet let alone become wealthy.

Who becomes wealthy now? The insurance companies. They charge astronomical rates for premiums and then when it comes time to cover services.. they pay pennies to the providers. It's not unusal for our practice to perform a specialized test on a person using a specially trained person and specialized equipment (all which cost big money) only to receive $30 reimbursement from the insurance companies. On average, you're doing very well if your practice can collect 48% of what you bill. Where does that other 52% go? It's not write offs to bad-debts, it's write-offs to insurance companies who pay a fraction of what is billed.

Now, if you take away the ability for a doctor to make money and become wealthy, then who becomes a doctor? Who is going to go through the expense of medical school, the decade of training and then the expense of setting up shop when theres no money in it?

On top of that, you then have efficiency healthcare, where everything is run by the dollar. You use the most cost effective treatments rather than the most effective treatments. If someone has a poor prognosis, forget treatments to extend life, they get cut off. Sure this socialized healthcare thing may look good on paper or when you look at the numbers, but when you really sit down and look at how it actually effects people and healthcare, it's ridiculous. You're going to have a flawed system dishing out sub-par treatments by sub-par practitioners... if theres no money in it, people aren't going to do it. This is, after all the United States of America.
Old 03-09-2009, 03:48 PM Sarah Palin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#23  

Fuckyouformakingmeregister
wall candy eating retard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
I work in the healthcare industry and I can't see how socializing it is going to benefit anyone except the really poor or the really lazy who already have both hands out to the government and just want more.

So Europe has less poor and lazy people? Is that the argument you're trying to make here?
Old 03-09-2009, 03:52 PM Fuckyouformakingmeregister is offline  
Reply With Quote
#24  

Sarah Palin
 
Sarah Palin's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuckyouformakingmeregister View Post
So Europe has less poor and lazy people? Is that the argument you're trying to make here?

I happen to think that our privatized healthcare system is better than Europes nationalized. I have a person whose parents lived in Europe and the father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Now there were treatments available to prolong life but they were denied under the system because it wasn't cost-effecive, the guy wasn't eligible for the treatment so his treatment plan was to be made comfortable and face death. Luckily for this guy he was very wealthy and could afford to pay privately for treatment and he lived for a few more years...

That is the kind of thing that scares me. I mean the big complaint right now is that only the wealthy get treatment, but what I see happening is limiting quality healthcare to MORE people in the long run.
Old 03-09-2009, 03:56 PM Sarah Palin is offline  
Reply With Quote
#25  

Bradd
I THOUGHT GOOGLE IS WHAT MY FATHER DOES TO ME EVERY NIGHT!
 
Bradd's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
I have a person whose parents lived in Europe and the father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Now there were treatments available to prolong life but they were denied under the system because it wasn't cost-effecive, the guy wasn't eligible for the treatment so his treatment plan was to be made comfortable and face death.

Can you be more specific about the illness and the treatments that were avaliable but denied?
Old 03-09-2009, 04:19 PM Bradd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#26  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
The issue here is the false dilemma.

We all need to face the fact that Healthcare cannot continue to operate as it does now.
We've been presented the choice of universal versus as-it-stands: thus the false dilemma. These are not our only choice.

Another option we need to consider is further privatisation. Health care expenses are high in part because of the high amount of write-offs required by health care providers who treat those they know are unable to pay.
lol. Yeah I guess if poor where shafted even worse then it probably would be cheaper. It's like that song Kill The Poor except not ironic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Additionally, the evident lack of legal protections for providers increases the inherent risk of practicing.
How much stronger are legal protections in countries with UHC?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Furthermore, our high cost of health care is also reflective of the availability of health care. It is far easier for people here, who can pay, to get surgeries they need in a timely manner.
Reflective of the availability to the upper classes.
Old 03-09-2009, 06:16 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#27  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
Now, if you take away the ability for a doctor to make money and become wealthy, then who becomes a doctor? Who is going to go through the expense of medical school, the decade of training and then the expense of setting up shop when theres no money in it?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/334/7587/236.pdf
Yeah there's totally no money it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
On top of that, you then have efficiency healthcare, where everything is run by the dollar. You use the most cost effective treatments rather than the most effective treatments. If someone has a poor prognosis, forget treatments to extend life, they get cut off.
This happens extremely rarely. It's obvious that people don't actually know shit about most UHC systems when they use this argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
Sure this socialized healthcare thing may look good on paper or when you look at the numbers, but when you really sit down and look at how it actually effects people and healthcare, it's ridiculous. You're going to have a flawed system dishing out sub-par treatments by sub-par practitioners... if theres no money in it, people aren't going to do it. This is, after all the United States of America.
Yeah, like all these statistics showing people are healthier, go bankrupt from medical problems far less, and the much lower cost of healthcare in UHC systems really shows how much of a winner our system is.
Old 03-09-2009, 06:28 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#28  

Escaped Gorilla Genitals
Jim Morrison
Hey, Jim <3 ules, You didn't deserve this because you can't guess numbers but anyways BREAK ON TH
 
Escaped Gorilla Genitals's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
I happen to think that our privatized healthcare system is better than Europes nationalized. I have a person whose parents lived in Europe and the father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Now there were treatments available to prolong life but they were denied under the system because it wasn't cost-effecive, the guy wasn't eligible for the treatment so his treatment plan was to be made comfortable and face death. Luckily for this guy he was very wealthy and could afford to pay privately for treatment and he lived for a few more years...

That is the kind of thing that scares me. I mean the big complaint right now is that only the wealthy get treatment, but what I see happening is limiting quality healthcare to MORE people in the long run.
I know a guy who had his dick chopped off and sold to Russians because he was poor and had to go to a back alley surgeon :(
Old 03-09-2009, 06:32 PM Escaped Gorilla Genitals is offline  
Reply With Quote
#29  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah Palin View Post
I happen to think that our privatized healthcare system is better than Europes nationalized. I have a person whose parents lived in Europe and the father was diagnosed with a terminal illness. Now there were treatments available to prolong life but they were denied under the system because it wasn't cost-effecive, the guy wasn't eligible for the treatment so his treatment plan was to be made comfortable and face death. Luckily for this guy he was very wealthy and could afford to pay privately for treatment and he lived for a few more years...

That is the kind of thing that scares me. I mean the big complaint right now is that only the wealthy get treatment, but what I see happening is limiting quality healthcare to MORE people in the long run.

We honestly need to look at our philosophy of facing death. We spend SO MUCH money to keep people alive and miserable for a few more weeks or months, and with full knowledge that they're still going to die. If you can get a few more years of reasonable quality life, maybe it's worth it to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars, but we see way too many people who are just afraid of letting go, or even worse, too many families who can't let go of loved ones.

I mean, we can treat a whole lot of people who will recover for the price of giving one terminal cancer patient another five months of misery.
Old 03-09-2009, 07:00 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#30  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.