[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t remember where you did. Please supply this information. [/quote]
So you admit that you post utter bullshit, and make up things that didn’t happen then?
Good to know, and glad you confirmed it.
This will likely be my last post on the subject:
It is beyond lazy and arrogant to assume that because Solution A is cheaper with population X in Situation 1 than Solution B is with population Y in Situation 2 the following: (Which is what is being done by some here)
a) That Solution A is automatically better than Solution B because the cost is lower. There is much more to quality than input costs.
b) That Solution A will remain cheaper once applied to the same population and Situation as Solution B
c) That Solution A is in fact the reason in-and-of-itself it is the costs are lower
And I’m sorry, if someone can’t reason the importance of knowing the causes of the difference between prices in the two models, then they are simply spouting feel good talking points without regard to consequences that follow all policy implementations.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
you can hold on to your infantile fantasy [/quote]
Pot meet kettle.
God you are horrid to try and have a fruitful discussion with. Talking points, projection, and lazy thinking is ALL you ever offer in an exchange, outside of random spots of rational thought, which I’m convinced at this point are an accident, you barely even address what someone posts in your response. Let alone stay on the topic of any one of your posts that came before.
I give up… For now. This is hopeless.
I just wish other countries had tried communism before so we could see if it works better… Oh wait.[/quote]
Too bad for you that government run healthcare hasn’t had the same effect as communism… Oh wait!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can’t remember where you did. Please supply this information. [/quote]
So you admit that you post utter bullshit, and make up things that didn’t happen then?
Good to know, and glad you confirmed it. [/quote]
Your reply is an evasion as it has nothing to do with what I posted. I asked if you could provide evidence for your arguments and since you can’t you reply with something that has nothing to do with what I asked of you. You do not post evidence and assume others will follow your basic arguments but chide others that assume you will do the same. You are a class A hypocrite who doesn’t have a defense of his thought other than a playbook from the right-wing establishment.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
This will likely be my last post on the subject:
It is beyond lazy and arrogant to assume that because Solution A is cheaper with population X in Situation 1 than Solution B is with population Y in Situation 2 the following: (Which is what is being done by some here)
a) That Solution A is automatically better than Solution B because the cost is lower. There is much more to quality than input costs.
b) That Solution A will remain cheaper once applied to the same population and Situation as Solution B
c) That Solution A is in fact the reason in-and-of-itself it is the costs are lower
And I’m sorry, if someone can’t reason the importance of knowing the causes of the difference between prices in the two models, then they are simply spouting feel good talking points without regard to consequences that follow all policy implementations. [/quote]
You may have valid points if this didn’t happen in every case but since it does you are just holding on to an infantile fantasy. Please don’t stop back until you can find something to back up your economic points. And you can’t because the overwhelming evidence is the opposite of your talking points. Have fun living in your fantasy land. No wonder you are a right winger. More in love with a theory instead of it’s real world application.
The epitome of ridiculous may just be when a liberal/communist/socialist brings up an idea as though it is original. The ideas they espouse are ancient and have been unsuccessful time and time again throughout history.
Zeppelin, what country in the world has a free market healthcare system? None that I am aware of. That is why someone brought up cell phones(I think-whatever electronic gizmo it was) earlier. That is still a relatively free market in the U.S. That showed what the free market is capable of. If you compare U.S. healthcare to foreign healthcare, all you are doing is comparing one managed system to others. If you believe U.S. healthcare is inferior, I suppose you can say that our government is doing a worse job managing our system than other countries’ governments.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Too bad for you that government run healthcare hasn’t had the same effect as communism… Oh wait!
[/quote]
Your “Oh wait!” implies that government-run healthcare HAS had the same effect as communism. You must be coming around…or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…you surely at least understand that communism includes government-run healthcare, right?
[quote]NickViar wrote:
or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…[/quote]
This. He has no original thought. He’ll bring up unrelated points and topics to avoid the issues he is challenged on, and then like as if magic, post a darealnewz.omg video about that very same off topic issue a day later.
He works for them, this is beyond obvious at this point.
Why do I continue to argue with him? Well… That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun.
I have a feeling he somehow gets a hold of a computer with full internet access while in his ESL class.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun. [/quote]
It is only a debate when both parties have intelligence. What you are doing is a beat down.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
The epitome of ridiculous may just be when a liberal/communist/socialist brings up an idea as though it is original. The ideas they espouse are ancient and have been unsuccessful time and time again throughout history.
Zeppelin, what country in the world has a free market healthcare system? None that I am aware of. That is why someone brought up cell phones(I think-whatever electronic gizmo it was) earlier. That is still a relatively free market in the U.S. That showed what the free market is capable of. If you compare U.S. healthcare to foreign healthcare, all you are doing is comparing one managed system to others. If you believe U.S. healthcare is inferior, I suppose you can say that our government is doing a worse job managing our system than other countries’ governments. [/quote]
The U.S. system is market-based pay for fee, where we spend twice as much as any other country. It is the number 1 reason for bankruptcy in this state. You don’t think that maybe it’s broken and that we ought to try a system where we don’t have to financially ruin peoples lives and the cost can be cut in half?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun. [/quote]
It is only a debate when both parties have intelligence. What you are doing is a beat down.[/quote]
If intelligence had anything to do with posting you wouldn’t be allowed here.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…[/quote]
This. He has no original thought. He’ll bring up unrelated points and topics to avoid the issues he is challenged on, and then like as if magic, post a darealnewz.omg video about that very same off topic issue a day later.
He works for them, this is beyond obvious at this point.
Why do I continue to argue with him? Well… That is why I post here, lol. To debate stuff. I find it fun. [/quote]
I provide the Real News info as you will not get this point of view from the corporately owned media. You seem to think you know it all so why do you need to hear another one’s point of view as Faux has already decided what the truth is based on fiction and you follow in lock-step.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Too bad for you that government run healthcare hasn’t had the same effect as communism… Oh wait!
[/quote]
Your “Oh wait!” implies that government-run healthcare HAS had the same effect as communism. You must be coming around…or you don’t understand the meaning of things you read and write…you surely at least understand that communism includes government-run healthcare, right?[/quote]
Label it whatever you want but the evidence speaks in spite of your knee-jerk reactions. Is Australia communist?
“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”
“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”
“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”
“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”
Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.
Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.
Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.
Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…
Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.
It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.
This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work…
Quit posting facts and backing it up with truth. It does not fit the crap coming from darealnewz.
On 06/07/13, in this very thread Zep posted the following in response to Aragorn, totally irrelevant to the point of any post before it…
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
As far as hijacking my own thread maybe I should give you an example of the bad news of corporate control over media sources. In the late mid to late 70’s Indonesia invaded East Timor. The U.S. backed Indonesia’s …[/quote]
Then on 06/12/13 posted this thread:
Which is a link to darealnewz.omg who in turn uploaded a youtube video from Democracy Now. (Which is just another arm of the Soros media empire, lulz, wonder if he funds darealnewz.omg http://www.mrc.org/commentary/soros-funded-lefty-media-reach-more-300-million-every-month )
So then we have:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I provide the Real News info as you will not get this point of view from the corporately owned media. You seem to think you know it all so why do you need to hear another one’s point of view as Faux has already decided what the truth is based on fiction and you follow in lock-step.[/quote]
So no, you don’t provide anything. You link to your pet website to drive up clicks. You don’t not have a single substantive argument that you back up with any external source oother than your pet website.
I don’t watch Fox news, nor do I read their articles other than when linked to them, which isn’t often, but nice try at the logical fallacy. 2 points for almost having enough originality to go beyond stale talking point into Alynski tactic…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”
“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”
“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”
[/quote]
lol, get out of here with this. I’ve only been trying to explain this for a couple fo pages now. He will change the subject to either a) Bush 43 b) Wall Street getting rich “off the poor” b) whatever other video is at the top of darealews.omg homepage…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”
“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”
“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”
[/quote]
lol, get out of here with this. I’ve only been trying to explain this for a couple fo pages now. He will change the subject to either a) Bush 43 b) Wall Street getting rich “off the poor” b) whatever other video is at the top of darealews.omg homepage…
[/quote]
You forgot deregulation of banks…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Universal health insurance does not necessarily mean universal access to health care. In practice, many countries promise universal coverage but ration care or have extremely long waiting lists for treatment. Those countries that have single-payer systems or systems heavily weighted toward government control are the most likely to face waiting lists, rationing, restrictions on the choice of physician, and other barriers to care.”
“Those countries with national health care systems that work better, such as France, the Netherlands and Switzerland, are successful to the degree that they incorporate market mechanisms such as competition, cost-consciousness, market prices, and consumer choice, and eschew centralized government control.”
“While other countries spend considerably less than the U.S. on health care both as a percentage of GDP and per capita…the average annual increase for per capita health spending in European countries was 5.55 percent, only slightly lower than the United States? 6.21 percent. As the Wall Street Journal notes, Europeans face steeper medical bills in the future in their cash-strapped governments. In short, there is no free lunch.”
“While no country with universal coverage is contemplating abandoning a universal system, the broad and growing trend in countries with national health care systems is to move away from centralized government control and to introduce more market oriented features. As Richard Saltman and Josep Figueras of the World Health Organization put it, The presumption of public primacy is being reassessed. Thus, even as the U.S. debates adopting a government-run system, countries with those systems are debating how to make their systems look more like the U.S.”
Horizontal inequity in healthcare access under the universal coverage in Japan; 1986?2007.Authors:Ryo Watanabe
Hideki Hashimoto∗.
Affiliation:Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology Research, The University of Tokyo School of Public Health, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan.
Source:In Social Science & Medicine October 2012 75(8):1372-1378.
Publisher:Elsevier Ltd.
Abstract:Universal coverage of healthcare aims at securing access to appropriate healthcare for all at an affordable cost. Since 1961, Japan?s national health insurance has provided an equal package of benefits including outpatient, inpatient, dental, and pharmaceutical services. Reduced copayment and other welfare programs are available to the elderly. However, social health insurance may not be a panacea to achieve healthcare for all, especially when facing household impoverishment due to economic stagnation. Using time-series cross-sectional data of a nationally representative survey of Japan, we assessed the degree of inequity in healthcare access in terms of the ?equal treatment for equal needs? concept, to identify the impact of changing economic conditions on people?s healthcare access. Concentration indices of actual healthcare use (CM) and standardized health status as a marker of healthcare needs (CN) were obtained. We decomposed CM to identify factors contributing to inequalities in healthcare use. Results showed that horizontal inequities in healthcare access in favor of the rich gradually increased over the period with a widening health gap among the poor. The inequality in favor of the rich was specifically observed among people aged 20?64 years, whereas high horizontal equity was achieved among those aged >65 years. Decomposition of CM also demonstrated that income and health status were major contributors to widening inequality, which implies that changes in household economic conditions and copayment policy during the study period were responsible for the diminished horizontal equity. Our results suggest that the achievement of horizontal equity through universal coverage should be regarded as an ongoing project that requires continuous redesign of contribution and benefit in the nation?s healthcare system…
Document Type:Article.
ISSN:0277-9536.
DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.006.
Accession Number:S0277953612004844.
Copyright:Copyright Ã?© 2012 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved…
Database: ScienceDirect.
It appears to me that universal health insurance does not, “level the playing field,” like so many think it does. As the first article points out, nations using a universal system are modifying thier approach to include free market mechanisms to better the system.
This issue reminds me a lot of the China. A governement controlled economy that in recent years/decades has shifted to, gasp, many free market principles. Why do they do this? Because they work… [/quote]