|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Silly, ain't it? Yes you are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Silly, ain't it? That's 50% of America's youth. Let's get the diabetes medicine ready, we're going to need it. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: I ate an industrial sized Thai curry for lunch and am currently a bit drunk at work. Dark Oni writes: I hope you go for a nice jog tomorrow. Actually - I probably will.
Dark Oni writes: Disgusting. That is what Missus Straggler says about my post jog sweatiness. It's all a matter of perspective....
Oni writes: Under my plan the older people would be as healthy as anyone else. You've discovered a cure for aging? Immortality awaits us all!!! Praise Dark Oni....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2951 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Actually - I probably will.
Good job. Me too.
That is what Missus Straggler says about my post jog sweatiness. It's all a matter of perspective....
Well a healthy man is better in bed, she'll be ok with the sweatiness.
You've discovered a cure for aging? Immortality awaits us all!!! Praise Dark Oni....
You can age and be healthy at the same time. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Dark Oni writes: Well a healthy man is better in bed, she'll be ok with the sweatiness. Dude - Seriously - She has the nose of a fucking sommelier (a "wine taster" to me and you). A bit of fat - No prob. A bead of sweat - WHOOP WHOOP WHHOOOOP. Alarm bells and no Straggler lovetime fun.
Oni writes: You can age and be healthy at the same time. "Age" is just a euphemism for "approach death". By definition you cannot be healthy as you approach death. Death is unhealthy. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
In the UK we have a good number of specialist research hospitals that also provide care. In fact providing care to those whose medical conditions they specialise in would seem rather fundamental to their research activities.
I am not sure what the hell CS's point is on this....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
You can age and be healthy at the same time. ...not really. Health inevitably declines with age. A healthy lifestyle can delay the inevitable, but entropy always wins in the end. Exercise all you want, eat only a perfect diet, cut out everything bad for your health, and you'll still eventually require medical care as your body starts to wear out. A healthy lifestyle reduces risk factors, but it does not eliminate them. A person who exercises properly and regularly and eats right will be less likely to get sick or injured, but I recall a certain Tour de France winner who still got cancer. I once knew a girl who, as a child, was scratched by a neighbor's car. She got an infection, which led to a fever, which was high and prolonged enough to cause minor brain damage. While she was fortunate enough to retain her full cognitive ability, she suffered from epilepsy, with constant grand mal seizures until she received proper medication. Even with medication, she would still suffer multiple petite and grand mal seizures every month. She exercised. She tried multiple diets as directed by her doctors, ranging from full-on Atkins (before it was called Atkins, high-protein zero-carb) to vegetarian. Her epilepsy persisted. A healthy lifestyle did nothing for her. I know personally several people with a range of illnesses today, ranging from general anxiety disorders to bipolar disorder to HIV and one with a terminal neuro-muscular disorder whose name I cannot recall. Healthy lifestyles did nothing to prevent these illnesses. One was a genetic disorder from birth (he's been confined to a wheeelchair since childhood and can barely eat on his own today, and it's doubtful he'll live past 30 as his entire muscular system continues to atrophy and he eventually stops breathing). My late grandfather had cancer, twice, despite living a very healthy lifestyle. My other grandfather always got plenty of exercise - so much so that now he has artificial knees and hips. I could keep going. A healthy lifestyle only reduces health risk, it does not eliminate it. Universal healthcare is mandatory, regardless of the diet and exercise of the population. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined:
|
quote: Just had a quick look for numbers and you may have a point. Found a ranking of top hospitals around the world and it seems like they are looking at research hospitals in particular. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...
List of hospitals Seems like a huge a huge difference. It occurred to me to compare per capita, so...
Populations by country Using these two lists - top 1000 research hospital per capita... Taiwan - 1/407454Canada - 1/706231 US - 1/734626 UK - 1/958461 Australia - 1/1630057 Germany - 1/1994341 Just a quickly sketched out, ultra-broad indicator but interesting. I've not done the maths on the whole list, just eurocentrically selected a few. The US clearly leads in absolute numbers but the list changes when you look at it on a per capita basis. There is some credence to your statement. When you look at costs to the taxpayer, you'd expect Canadians to have to pay more but they don't. None of this holds any great weight - there are so many factors ignored but it's kept me busy for 15 minutes I'm really surprised that Taiwan is on top of this list.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Yes here in the US also. Not sure where the whole higher cost idea comes from.
I am not sure what the hell CS's point is on this....
And if you ask for the point he lashes out with a juvenile response.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Just had a quick look for numbers and you may have a point. Found a ranking of top hospitals around the world and it seems like they are looking at research hospitals in particular. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong...
List of hospitals Seems like a huge a huge difference. Holy shit... so out of the top hospitals in the world, no matter how you slice it, the US has almost half of them, and then the next groups down are about 10% of that. As I said:
quote: Its not as simple as "they're socialized and cheeper ergo we should socialize too".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Its not as simple as "they're socialized and cheeper ergo we should socialize too". I know of no serious proposal for socialized medicine in the US. Universal Healthcare does not equal socialized medicine. That being said I do not think there is a problem with socialized medicine. If everyone is so against socialized things how about we privatize all the roads, police and fire protection and also the military. I mean socialism is evil isn't it?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
quote: Not quite - of my instant list, both Taiwan and Canada have more per capita. Taiwan has almost twice as many as the US. Seeing as we are talking about costs vs. benefit to the taxpayer, per capita is more useful than per country totals. It matters a lot how you slice it. Don't forget that I only tried a handful to figure out; hardly comprehensive. Edited by Warthog, : missed a spot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not quite - of my instant list, both Taiwan and Canada have more per capita. What does that imply?
Taiwan has almost twice as many as the US. Is Taiwan a part of China?
Seeing as we are talking about costs vs. benefit to the taxpayer, per capita is more useful than per country totals. It matters a lot how you slice it. That's not what I meant by slicing, but your point isn't lost. How does dividing it per capita help determine how much it costs to run the whole thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3968 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
quote: It is simply about the real cost to the individual. As we are talking about the costs of healthcare, whether privatised like in the US or universal/subsidised/socialised like a fair chunk of the world, we need to look at costs to the individual i.e. per capita. A country like the US with 300 million people will, of course have more hospitals than say Canada, with 33 million. If you consider the number of service users, Canada has more research hospitals than the US. You made the point that health care in the US could be more expensive because of the amount of research being done there. I am simply showing that it is more complex than that. Overall, it doesn't seem to hold up as the results from the US (new discoveries) isn't greater than other countries (especially if you consider the number of researchers/facilities) and the number of research hospitals, although greater in the US is less per user/taxpayer than some other countries.
quote: The same way purchasing co-ops are set up to minimise costs - the more people paying for something, the less it costs each individual. The reason it works like this is because (almost) everything done on a large scale is more efficient i.e. cheaper per user than if everyone pays for themselves. This is more about economics than just health care. The important part of all of this is how much it will cost you as an individual to have universal vs privatised healthcare. i.e. the cost per capita. This seems to me to be a core factor of the debate.
quote: This depends on whether you ask the Chinese or the Taiwanese. Complex politics here - it's way off topic to get into it, so I've avoided Taiwan in my reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It is simply about the real cost to the individual. As we are talking about the costs of healthcare, whether privatised like in the US or universal/subsidised/socialised like a fair chunk of the world, we need to look at costs to the individual i.e. per capita. But not every individual has insurance... The cost isn't divided by everyone, and neither is the quality.
A country like the US with 300 million people will, of course have more hospitals than say Canada, with 33 million. Even just the total number of people is going to affect the cost of healthcare for an individual... I guess I just don't see any value in comparing another country's cost to ours in considering only one variable: whether its socialized or not.
You made the point that health care in the US could be more expensive because of the amount of research being done there. That wasn't really the entire point, that was an aside to the point that the cost of US healthcare has other things going on that don't always get factored in when assessing the price.
The important part of all of this is how much it will cost you as an individual to have universal vs privatised healthcare. i.e. the cost per capita. This seems to me to be a core factor of the debate. Maybe I'm looking at it differently. Straggler said the cost of US healthcare was unjustifiably expensive. I was considering the total cost of healthcare in general and thinking that we do a lot of stuff at our hospitals that can drive that cost up (research, etc.). That's going to lead to an increase in cost to the individuals who are paying into it. On the surface, dividing that cost by more people should lower the cost for everyone. But just because another country's costs is lower, while everyone is paying together, doesn't mean that the cost in the US isn't still going to be a lot higher because of all the other stuff that goes into the costs of the hospitals. Even if we were to socailize it, it still might cost a lot more than other countries and look unjustifiably expensive.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024