…
2 Likes
First, he asked about the device you are posting with (the phone / computer), not the Internet.
Second, can you clarify what you mean re: the Internet being developed by the public sector?
It was originally a defense department project iirc.
The internet is not a device or piece of hardware. Don’t you know Al Gore singlehandedly invented the internet? Also it was developed by DARPA before the private sector took it and put it on crack. So it’s not the type public sector that you like. It’s the “Military Industrial Complex” (sinister music for effect).
If you are posting on a phone it was either made by apple which is the largest market cap company on earth… essentially the most “capitalist” or Samsung.
The point I’m trying to make is that profits aren’t bad, they can only happen when a company has created value for the marketplace. Unless there are market distortions and coercion by government.
Capital markets allow anyone to own a share of the equity or debt of the best companies on earth. A huge share of these “evil” corporations is owned by school teachers, unions, pensioners etc… Hardly the work of mustache twirling villains.
Also I don’t listen to talk radio, too much filler not enough news. But it shouldn’t matter if I did. You make personal attacks as if they bolster your argument. I could make fun of you for being a pot head every time you post… But that’s not particularly interesting.
2 Likes
Enlightening, though.
The feel when a American says your healthcare is good yet it takes 6 years for your child to get a screening for Autism.
Funny you mention bankruptcy and costs. For all of the people who die because their treatmemt was denied (rationing) or waiting for results, waiting for surgeries or even die of thirst in socialized hospitals the costs are infinite.
Most normal income people don’t have the cash to go outside the system and pay private doctors in those countries. If it’s not outright illegal to pay a Dr. Directly. They have no choice. But hey, at least the care was “free” and nobody made a profit.
Don’t give me the “it will work better here” argument either. VA Hospitals anyone?
Sounds like someone’s ox is getting gored.
Anecdotes aside (every health system is chock full of 'em), it doesn’t change the fact that, per empirical studies, Brits and Canucks are overall satisfied with their HC.
Not proposing a VA-type system, so this is irrelevant.
Most people in this country don’t have the cash to do so, either.
Precisely because the system of middlemen paying for healthcare has driven up costs exponentially since WW2. Employers offering health insurance as a benefit is a direct result if wage freezes imposed during WW2. Any time you are spending someone else’s money it creates an agency problem. Nobody shops. It doesn’t help that the AMA worked very hard to limit the number of doctors to increase their salary.
Then what the hell do you propose? You don’t like single payer. The ACA is a train wreck with government mandates meeting private insurance on regulated exchanges. Medicaire and Medicaid cost billions in fraud alone every single year.
The NHS promised their citizens they would meet their 18 week wait time for surgery and they are failing dismally at it. 193k people per month miss the target date. That is 2.3 million people per year who wait longer than 18 weeks for surgery. The UK is only 65 million people. I’m not sure what percentage of a population has surgery in a given year, but a full 3.5% of the population gets shafted with late surgeries every year.
I know the central planners just take that as a cost of doing business. Let them eat cake. They are just pawns anyway. But if you need non-emergency surgery 18 weeks is a long assed time to wait. The average person is fine with NHS care, unless they have to use it.
Feels more like my ox is getting the proverbial shaft.
Not really. The reason is that there has been an explosion in HC innovations since WW2. ICUs, MRIs, heart caths, organ transplants, immunomodulatory drugs, dialysis–the list goes on and on. I’ve told the story before about how President Eisenhower’s heart attack was treated–his doctor told his wife to take him home, get in bed with him and keep him warm. If medical care was still at that level, we could all pay out of pocket for it.
This is why rationing is so important.
Basic universal care for all, capped at a certain amount. Many things would not be covered. Dialysis in the final weeks of life, for example. Extensive ICU stays for individuals with advanced terminal diseases. Viagra.
But–and this is key–individuals would be free to purchase supplemental insurance to their heart’s content. Also, people would be able to pay for medicine on a fee-for-service basis.
So, everyone would have basic coverage, but people who could afford it could buy better coverage.
So some people must be forced into paying for a healthcare system which they wouldn’t even use since it would inevitably be worse?
And the computer revolution would have happened without the internet? Everything computer related followed the internet and for you to pretend it wouldn’t is totally disingenuous.
The Internet got its start in the United States more than 50 years ago as a government weapon in the Cold War.
Bottom line is that it was developed by the dynamic public sector not the private one that you attribute all sorts of magic to. A whole lot of technology wouldn’t have existed if not for the public sector developing the internet.
And I rarely smoke pot.
You’re thinking like a non-American. Universal coverage here would involve the same doctors and institutions who see everyone; there wouldn’t be a separate HC system for the govt-option folk. Thus, everyone would ‘use’ the same HC system, so there would be no difference in the quality of the care received.
Question: Where does the public sector get it’s money from?
?? Explain
I’d like to see more detail on such a plan. Here’s the problem I see. Even if you could empirically prove this is the most efficient way to do government healthcare with the absolute best outcomes… it is politically toxic.
Reps and Dems can’t even propose amendments to Medicaire without screams of “they’re taking your coverage away!”
Imagine the outcry of “death panels!” and “they’re going to let grandma die!”
I can’t see presenting this as equitable either. Take two identical twins. They both pay 40% all-in taxes for 50 year careers. Twin A gets diagnosed with terminal cancer, he gets chemo and lives a bit longer. Twin B gets diagnosed with late stage renal failure, we let him die without any attempt at dialysis… Because it’s not an efficient use if society’s resources.
That’s stone cold, and a hard sell in the most prosperous nation on earth.
Quality of coverage =/= extent of coverage.
Yes. Unfortunately, the history of entitlement reform indicates that whichever party is not in control will demagogue suggestions by the in-party to limit entitlements. (I find this more hypocritical when the GOP does it, but that’s a separate issue.)
Without addressing the specific situation you outline above, it is certainly true that very difficult, very contentious decisions would have to be made regarding what would/would not be covered by the govt’s ‘Chevy’ level of care.
Not if it both parties can resist the urge to score cheap political points via demagoguing it. And remember, individuals would be free to buy as much supplemental coverage as their heart’s desire.
So some people are not allowed coverage for certain things whilst others are.
Just tell people not to get renal failure and die then. Good idea.