|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Irrefutable Public Health Care Thread | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
You sound like one of "Bill Hicks's Non-Smokers"
Do you go up to cripples and dance too? I should mention that I do like your point that its silly for people to abuse the shit out of their bodies and then demand free healthcare. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That's all's I'm saying. Um, you have said a bit more than that...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Firstly it’s not free. Nothing is "free"... but its free in the sense that they don't have to "pay" for it.
Healthcare is free in the UK. So you know what I mean. Isn't this where you would berate me for being inconsistant?
Those of us who advocate universal healthcare are not doing so on the basis of demanding the right to have society pick up the bill for our personal lifestyle choices. We are advocating universal healthcare because we believe it is part of a sane and civilised society. That's beside the point. Regardless of why you're advocating for it, there's still the issue of it being silly to trash your body and then expect to have someone fix a problem that arrises without you paying for it. Too, there's the moral hazard of this.
As an outsider the present US system seems to be unjustifiably expensive and barbarically non-inclusive. Its been working fine for me. It is a little pricey, but we do a lot of innovation and inventing here too. That's gotta be factored in.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
This of course applies to ALL insurance schemes. Not just universal ones. ALL insurance schemes consist of a central pool of contributions being allocated out on the basis of need (in the form of claims or provision). Any member of any insurance scheme who acts in a way such that their costs will have to be covered by the central pool is behaving in a way that is unfair on the rest of the contributors to that scheme. This isn't specific to universal health insurance. It's true for all forms of insurance. Universal insurance would increase the number of people who get free healthcare.
By this logic your healthcare is also "free" if it is paid for by an insurance company. I pay for my insurance out of my paycheck.
Are insurance companies paying for that research? Why do you think a universal health care system would stop that research? Do other countries with socilialised health not do medical research? The research just adds to the total costs. I don't think it would stop. I think other countries do significantly less than we do and people don't factor that in when talking about the cost of healthcare in the US vs the socialized version in another country.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So do I. Yet apparently mine is "free" and yours isn't Huh? Its not free for you if you're paying for it. Its free for the guy who isn't.
It would also increase the number contributing to the central pool. That doesn't make it any less silly for the fatties to cry for free healthcare.
Then I guess the rest of us should cheer the fact that many Americans have such shit healthcare provision as the cost of providing medical advances for the rest of the world. I don't subscribe the quality of our healthcare to our provisions, but I do think they help justify the cost.
Do you have any foundation for your claim or is it a post hoc justification for your opposition to universal healthcare? I'm not opposing universal healthcare.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Just for the record, The US hardly dominates in medical innovations. From what I can find, it's about the same as the UK, Canada and Australia - all countries with universal health care of some sort. e.g.30 Significant Medical Achievements and Their Country of Origin | Reach and Teach's Just Lists I'm not saying we dominate in medical innovations, nor that we've made the most significant medical achievements; I think that we spend a lot more money on research at the facilities that also provide the healthcare and that that drives up the costs in ways that it doesn't in other countries. Welcome to EvC by the way. How'd you find us?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I pay for my insurance out of my paycheck. With universal healthcare you would pay for insurance through your taxes. Your point is? My point was that I pay for my healthcare... Do you have a point or are you content in being pointless?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Nope.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you would stop letting your disdain for me from clouding your ability to reason you would see that my post in relation to the conversation makes my point quite self evident. Ditto.
Still trying to figure out why you claim you pay for your insurance and those that ahve universal healthcare do not. I don't claim that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Children. Disabled people. The elderly. Terrible..... They don't have anything to do with it being silly for a fatty to cry for free healthcare.
Show me these "fatties" crying for free healthcare. Silly, ain't it?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. I've seen it in universal healthcare discussions where people will say something like: "Look at this country, they have socialized healthcare and the costs is waaay lower than in the U.S. So we should socialize ours to reduce the cost!" So yeah, but that's a whole 'nother country. I don't think it considers all the right factors. It just seems to me that we do a lot of medical research here at hospitals that also provide care. That's gotta drive up the cost. If those other countries have hospitals that aren't also research facilities, then that would play a part in their cost being lower. This isn't something I've really spent time delving into tho, I could be way off base. It was something I was jst saying in reply to our healthcare being "unjustifiable expensive".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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".
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Nobody. Yes. Do whatever you want.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024