[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What if you can’t afford food?
You don’t have people who require ultra-expensive foods that they can’t afford.
Some people, on the other hand, have diseases and illnesses that are treatable/curable but unaffordable for them.
Your response is “Find a charity to help you or endure?”
There are plenty of charities that provide eyeglasses for the poor.
How would they afford the helmet?
Helmets are cheap. Health care, much less so.
Helmets are cheap because they are competitively produced. Health care is cheap when competition is allowed, such as the case with eye doctors.
I believe in society helping in the health care arena in catastrophic situations, not for the standard every day stuff like eyeglasses and most doctors visits.[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Interestingly when that is required people often leave the socialized medical systems and come to the US for treatment.
Often? Hardly.
[/quote]
Often. Look at the hospital parking lot in Watertown, NY. Full of Ontario and even Quebec plates. They are not there for the cafeteria food.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Interestingly when that is required people often leave the socialized medical systems and come to the US for treatment.
Often? Hardly.
Often. Look at the hospital parking lot in Watertown, NY. Full of Ontario and even Quebec plates. They are not there for the cafeteria food.[/quote]
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Interestingly when that is required people often leave the socialized medical systems and come to the US for treatment.
Often? Hardly.
Often. Look at the hospital parking lot in Watertown, NY. Full of Ontario and even Quebec plates. They are not there for the cafeteria food.
That’s not often either.
You’re not a “big picture” kinda guy, are you?
[/quote]
Often. Everyday. More than once. Many. Continuously. Constantly. All the time.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
I bet her vibrator is going to be her running mate, so long as it has batteries.[/quote]
I have a theory that Hillary is particularly hated by the republicans because they are unable to indulge their homosexual fantasies while thinking about the President if she’s a woman.
To test the theory, you look at which of the current running repubes candidate would make the best “actor” in a rich fantasy dreamworld… and you get the one most often mentioned as likely to get the nod: Rudy. No because of his policies, or because he’d make a particularly good president, but mostly because his base can download pictures of him in drag.
My guess is that if they were somehow forced to vote for a Democratic candidate, they’d go for Edwards.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
I am just curious if there is anyone on this board that supports and actually plans on voting for this candidate. I ask because I find her and her views reprehensible. I think that based on her history and her current positions she is the person most likely to erode our personal freedoms. She is pro-CODEX, likely to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, and is part of the crowd that wants to jail people for not submitting to vaccines. These are just some of the many reasons. Are people really this stupid? “Hey I recognize her name and stuff”
So sorry if I just called a supporter stupid but I am interested to hear what the possible reasons could be that someone would support her.[/quote]
But you voted for the chimp right? You didn’t see a problem there, did you?
[quote]pookie wrote:
I just think that calling universal health care “a great evil” vastly overstates - to the point of ridiculousness - the problems such a system can have.
If you think Americans are too stupid and irresponsible for such a system to work there, who am I to argue?
[/quote]
The idea of healthcare is not evil. The evil is the amount of money and power we will be handing over to a completely inept and bloated bureaucracy. There is no need to turn over 1/7th of the economy to the fed.
But if you guys can’t even figure out how to take a piss - I doubt we should be modeling much after you.
If you think Americans are too stupid and irresponsible for such a system to work there, who am I to argue?[/quote]
Too stupid and irresponsible to handle a system that is fundamentally inefficient, induces moral hazard, has a built-in paradox that as people get healthier costs actually go up without a mechanism of containment, and invites even more regulation over personal behavior?
I don’t think being able to make a system like that “work” is much of a badge of honor, any more than I would beat my chest about being the CFO at a company nearing bankruptcy.
America has its own unique set of health problems - obesity, for one, and an illusion that a pill or supplement can cure any condition we get, for two - nor have we enjoyed the “defense subsidy” that other nations have, so a one-size-fits-all European-model UHC isn’t the answer - and rejecting the idea has nothing to do with stupidity or irresponsibility.
America has its own unique set of health problems - obesity, for one, and an illusion that a pill or supplement can cure any condition we get, for two - nor have we enjoyed the “defense subsidy” that other nations have, so a one-size-fits-all European-model UHC isn’t the answer - and rejecting the idea has nothing to do with stupidity or irresponsibility.[/quote]
I like the point you make (sort of) about different strategies being needed to combat the unique problems facing individual countries. However, I wish more respect could be given to countries that select models that work very effectively for them, regardless of your own personal philosophies.
Rejecting the idea of UHC in America isn’t necessarily stupid on the part of policy makers and the intellectual class (this includes you); it may be coldly pragmatic. We can’t have these feeble individuals that are incapable of controlling their own behaviors weakening our great nation, or our species, can we? But with such overwhelming prevalence of of these destructive behaviors, one must examine the socialization process of these individuals.
There are indeed those significant health crises that you list, but to think of them primarily as health problems, misses the point entirely. These are cultural problems (I gathered that you’re aware of this). If, in fact, a sizable portion of Americans did indeed start behaving even worse than they do currently and began to enjoy milking every cent they could out of their new UHC system despite living miserable existences, it wouldn’t be the system’s fault. It would be the fault of the people that selected the wrong model for the given society. Now, if that society is incapable of controlling its own destructive behaviors just because a safety net exists, it is logically due to cultural deficiencies.
[quote]thunderbolt23 rode in on his cute little new horsy and wrote:
Too stupid and irresponsible to handle a system that is fundamentally inefficient, induces moral hazard, has a built-in paradox that as people get healthier costs actually go up without a mechanism of containment, and invites even more regulation over personal behavior?[/quote]
Inefficient? Where’s the efficiency in a system where private insurance companies skim billions in profits each year?
I’m sure all those Americans being denied care are glad to hear they are simply experiencing a well oiled mechanism of containment. They can suffer and die with their mind at ease.
As for regulations over personal behavior; as I’ve asked repeatedly of mikeyali: Give me some examples please.
So you beat your collective chest for NOT being able to make it work? I’ll give you that, American failures are without peer.
Well I was being facetious, at least in part. You let the insurance companies lobbies dictate how your health spending are distributed. There’s an enormous amount that never gets near the health providing system. For all your cries of “government control” and “bureaucrat intervention”, you do the same, only you surrender your care decision to corporate drones who are paid bonuses if they can keep costs down. You spend more per individual, but get less.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
We can’t have these feeble individuals that are incapable of controlling their own behaviors weakening our great nation, or our species, can we?[/quote]
Inefficient? Where’s the efficiency in a system where private insurance companies skim billions in profits each year?[/quote]
The fact that insurance companies make profits is a sign of inefficiency to you? Quite the opposite.
Insurance companies pool risk and make money in the interim. Part of the “billions” of profits they make go toward underpinning the ability to pay out claims - and since they invest aggressively, they do it far better than a government agency.
I don’t think insurance companies are perfect, by any means - but “inefficient”: hardly. In fact, that is why many critics whine about them - they too good at what they do.
Odd, to, this coming from you. A defender of market economics in other aspects, you seem quite sniffly over private actors handling health care responsibilities in society.
And, by the way, we all get it - you define yourself by trying to insult Americans. At first, funny - now it looks like a whiney grudge because you got picked on as a youth. Move on.
Of course, this eye-rolling dramatization is nowhere near the truth - people simply don’t get turned away from the system.
This doesn’t even make sense, but it is not very hard to see why: you want to substitute sarcastic bombast in lieu of making sense. Good for the self-esteem issues, no?
Here is the point: no one is beating their chest for not being able to make UHC work. That’s just stupid. Choosing not to use a UHC is a matter of weighing the cost-benefits and deciding it ain’t for us.
And, we don’t even know if we could make it work - we haven’t tried. That is the entire point - we are risk-averse toward the project because of the trade-offs.
“But…but…that makes you stupid! And weak!!”
No, it makes us wise not to jump into a wholesale social policy change that relies on government if we have seen the UHC in action and think its costs may outweigh its benefits.
First, the higher expense comes from demand-push effects on pricing - and that relates back to the comments I had w/r/t unique American problems.
Second, this myth that legions of people are turned away is just that - a myth.
Third, as government isn’t much good at controlling costs, over time, the UHC would continue to eat up more and more of GDP - that has large economic consequences. While keeping costs contained seems, well, just mean…
…“Americans are just…well…mean!”…
…such an approach is important aspect of reminding people that health care is, at its base, a function of individual responsibility, and individuals must realize safety nets are sometimes removed when they don’t hold up their end of the deal.
That brings me to the moral hazard that a UHC ultimately encourages. That is bad for any system, and it can actually negatively impact public health, costs of health care, and political popularity of UHC.
I have an uncle in France who resents every penny paid into the public health care system because he eats right, exercises, and takes care of himself - when he knows for every one of him, there are maybe three more who do none of the above. How long would a system like that last politically, in America? For a UHC to work, it would need sustained popular support - and after a few years of seeing costs skyrocket and less personal responsibility for health care, Americans - who, by and large, have an ethic of “I take care of myself and my family, and so should you” - I suspect it would meet a political doom in short order.
It has nothing to do with “weakness”, “stupidity”, or any of the other slurs you want to level at Americans - it has to do with being realistic about UHC fitting in and working in American society. Not Canadian, not European, not Brazilian.
[quote]pookie wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
We can’t have these feeble individuals that are incapable of controlling their own behaviors weakening our great nation, or our species, can we?
Un-fucking-believable.
[/quote]
Sarcasm Pookie. My dog’s original name was Pookie (now Poko a.k.a Lumpy) and he didn’t catch it either (Sorry, couldn’t resist).
I was trying to mirror the pragmatic attitude of a social planner that feels he needs to exercise some tough love. Sometimes its hard to tell when I’m acting that way.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The fact that insurance companies make profits is a sign of inefficiency to you? Quite the opposite.
Insurance companies pool risk and make money in the interim. Part of the “billions” of profits they make go toward underpinning the ability to pay out claims - and since they invest aggressively, they do it far better than a government agency.[/quote]
You’re measuring the wrong parameter. Of course they’re good at making profits; but the measure of success shouldn’t be measured in profit, but in care provided to those who need it.
They don’t derive profit simply from investing aggressively, they also derive it from paying out the least amounts possible. Either by denying “experimental” treatments; having pre-approval requirements or simply looking for trivial details a customer might have omitted.
[quote]I don’t think insurance companies are perfect, by any means - but “inefficient”: hardly. In fact, that is why many critics whine about them - they too good at what they do.
Odd, to, this coming from you. A defender of market economics in other aspects, you seem quite sniffly over private actors handling health care responsibilities in society.[/quote]
That’s because, as I just stated, the goals of maximizing profit while providing the best care are at odds with each other. The company who manages to pay out the least will have the most money for investing, etc. Success is measured by making the shareholders happy, not the beneficiary.
And before you claim that unhappy customers can always shop elsewhere, this is also not applicable in this case. Not only do all the companies operate in extremely similar ways, leaving one company has you trying to get reinsured with now a history of ill health and making claims. Any new company will charge the unhappy former customer according to his now worse history.
Oh, get off your high horse and relax a bit. We’re discussing American health care and I’m not smart enough to fit New-Zealander jokes in there.
[quote]I’m sure all those Americans being denied care are glad to hear they are simply experiencing a well oiled mechanism of containment. They can suffer and die with their mind at ease.
Of course, this eye-rolling dramatization is nowhere near the truth - people simply don’t get turned away from the system. [/quote]
That’s completely false. A bit of searching on the internet will net you tons of stories about treatment being denied or bills being refused payments, often for the most trivial of reasons.
And if anecdotal accounts don’t phase you, there are plenty of world studies done on health care which generally show the US rivaling the top third world nations.
The perfect system you seem to be defending sounds great, but it doesn’t exist in reality.
[quote]This doesn’t even make sense, but it is not very hard to see why: you want to substitute sarcastic bombast in lieu of making sense. Good for the self-esteem issues, no?
Here is the point: no one is beating their chest for not being able to make UHC work. That’s just stupid. Choosing not to use a UHC is a matter of weighing the cost-benefits and deciding it ain’t for us.
And, we don’t even know if we could make it work - we haven’t tried. That is the entire point - we are risk-averse toward the project because of the trade-offs.[/quote]
Well, every other western nation has managed to make it work. You’d even have the advantage of being able to learn what works best and what works not so well from the experience of others.
Here again, you’re evaluating the system purely on a cost/benefit trade-off, as if health of your dollars was more important than the health of your citizens. There’s something wrong somewhere in that analysis. That factor - human health - is never part of the evaluations.
No one has claimed that you need to put in effect without planning tomorrow morning. Don’t argue against points not made.
[quote]First, the higher expense comes from demand-push effects on pricing - and that relates back to the comments I had w/r/t unique American problems.
Second, this myth that legions of people are turned away is just that - a myth.[/quote]
Well it’s not “legions” obviously; but it is a number significantly higher than “no one” as you claim.
[quote]Third, as government isn’t much good at controlling costs, over time, the UHC would continue to eat up more and more of GDP - that has large economic consequences. While keeping costs contained seems, well, just mean…
…“Americans are just…well…mean!”…
…such an approach is important aspect of reminding people that health care is, at its base, a function of individual responsibility, and individuals must realize safety nets are sometimes removed when they don’t hold up their end of the deal.[/quote]
The problem with health problems is that they’re not distributed equally among the population. Some people will require more heath care, and other much less or even none. In an ideal world, they would all plan for the worse and would all be properly insured to face anything that might get thrown their way.
But because a lot of people don’t plan perfectly even part of the time, you end up with a lot of sick people who aren’t able to afford the care they need and simply go without it as best they can.
Now, in most cases I’m all for personal responsibility; if you can’t afford a big house and a car, well then you live in a basement and drive a bicycle or take the bus. But when health is concerned, I think that a kind, just and fair society that can afford to keep its citizens healthy must do so. A poor guy can decide to work harder or start a business and pull himself out of poverty. A poor, sick guy who can barely move or think and cannot get care can hardly be blamed for not being able to work himself out of his situation.
Your uncle might still be hit by a car while crossing the road or develop a heart condition simply because of genetic factors.
The point is: Even the most responsible and careful person cannot predict when he’ll need health care.
While your scenario of a rapid political doom might be correct, I suspect it would have much more to do with corporate lobbyist working overtime to get rid of it and get back their cash cow.
It’s very hard to avoid the word “stupid” when you’re telling me that while the US can dominate nearly every technological, economical and political arena she decides to participate in; that while you can put people on the moon, explore Mars and beyond; create the internet, drive physics and modern technology in an astounding way; you’re somehow unable to provide health care for all your citizens. A feat that has been done time and time again the world over.
Personally, I think the US could do it if it wanted to, but that many rich and very influential people like the system just as it is, sick citizens be damned. The fact that they’ve managed to convince that large a portion of the population that UHC is “a great evil” tends to support the notion that Americans are… well… not that smart.
It’s been a while since I looked at a bill from a private health care provider. Do they break down the factors that make up the given price like the gas station does with it’s pie charts? It would be interesting to know much of my bill went to cover executive salaries, marketing, advertising, board rooms, political contributions, and having Wilford Brimley and Andy Rooney put a trustworthy face on it all.
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
Sarcasm Pookie. My dog’s original name was Pookie (now Poko a.k.a Lumpy) and he didn’t catch it either (Sorry, couldn’t resist).[/quote]
If you dilute sarcasm too much, it doesn’t read sarcastic anymore.