Health Care [Merged]

Originally posted by KidRock
How do you make money to pay? By working hard...crazy theory I know, right? The government should just give us everything "for free".

Or get born into a rich family.
Or stumble onto a lottery.

Hard work doesn't necessarily get you jack shit. You're entire view of economics is based on some absurd notion that life is fundamentally fair to everyone. Having the right social class means that you can work a fraction as hard as most people for several times the profit and you don't have to do anything to get it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Exactly, they can just operate in the red with no incentive to be efficient.

Low on cash? Raise taxes or just put us more into debt. It has happened time and time again with government programs.

I had no idea raising taxes RAISED the national deficit. And here I was under the wild impression that profit is determined by costs and revenue. Taxes=government's revenue.

Originally posted by KidRock
How do you make money to pay? By working hard...crazy theory I know, right? The government should just give us everything "for free".

Someone PLEASE explain to me HOW can possibly raising taxes increase countries debt?

Which economics is that rubbish from?

And King Kandy, stop exposing Europeans and that we fake our economics. That's supposed to be secret, you know.
Noone works in Europe, people there live off money government gives them after it picks it off trees and sometimes, like in Norway, it just pulls it out if its own ass.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When companies agree not to engage in meaningful competition, they win and we lose. No company will ever engage in better practices, as it would reduce their short term profits... and shareholders only care one quarter ahead.

Yes, I agree.

I agree. In order for capitalism to work they way it's supposed to, they have to compete.

Not competing, though, is still capitalism.

*Sighs*

I probably should read some Rand.

No large company in america is willing to take short term losses in order to make long term gains. Shareholders only care about the profits of the next quarter. A company will collapse if it allows itself to take hits, even if they will potentially pay off. So health care companies will never significantly undercut one anothers prices.

Natural monopolies work, are government run, and should be government run. My whole argument and the view of every other country is that health care is a natural monopoly, just like water, power, gas, etc.

Even the term health insurance is misleading. Insurance is something consumers or society buys as a whole to pool its resources to prepare for unforeseen emergencies. You buy car insurance because of the off chance you'll get into an accident. You buy fire insurance because of the off chance that your house catches on fire. You buy renters insurance due to the off chance that your stuff gets stolen or destroyed. Health isn't insurance because everyone needs to see a doctor on a regular basis, everybody needs to see a dentist, an optometrist, and with the stress in most peoples' lives, maybe a masseuse or chiropractor too. It's not insurance because most people are going to see a doctor more than the three or four times in their lives when it's an emergency.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No large company in america is willing to take short term losses in order to make long term gains.

This is factually incorrect.

See Verizon's FIOS roll-out plan as a very large example of contradiction to your statement.

However, this doesn' mean that I didn't get your point. I got it. I'm just being a jerk. 😄

Originally posted by King Kandy
Shareholders only care about the profits of the next quarter.

I'm trying to remember the rule of thumb...it's like.....18 months or something. 18 months being the longest a shareholder can be expected to wait for an investment turn around.

Originally posted by King Kandy
A company will collapse if it allows itself to take hits, even if they will potentially pay off. So health care companies will never significantly undercut one anothers prices.

Like you mentioned earlier, though, that's the fault of the shortsighted shareholder and the social conditioning of the market. People are expected to produce results, yesterday. Impossible when good results take a crapload of money.

Of course, that's just one facet of market dictation. There's the stupid consumers, stupid voters, stupid politicians, corrupt politicians, corrupt businesses, etc. You could probably think of a million reasons just like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is factually incorrect.

See Verizon's FIOS roll-out plan as a very large example of contradiction to your statement.

However, this doesn' mean that I didn't get your point. I got it. I'm just being a jerk. 😄

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm trying to remember the rule of thumb...it's like.....18 months or something. 18 months being the longest a shareholder can be expected to wait for an investment turn around.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Like you mentioned earlier, though, that's the fault of the shortsighted shareholder and the social conditioning of the market. People are expected to produce results, yesterday. Impossible when good results take a crapload of money.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Of course, that's just one facet of market dictation. There's the stupid consumers, stupid voters, stupid politicians, corrupt politicians, corrupt businesses, etc. You could probably think of a million reasons just like that.

Originally posted by KidRock
America has the best 5 year survival rate for cancer patients.

cool 🙂

not trying to take away, but you think that is the best measure of the state of a health care system? I'm not saying it isn't a good one.

Originally posted by KidRock
What is the point in having health care if it isn't good enough to keep you alive?

I don't think anyone would argue that America has the best care in the world, provided you can afford it.

Its not the haves, its the have nots, where people criticize it.

You are totally right to criticize public systems when they can't provide high end care, and to get on a soapbox, a private public partnership on health care seems ideal, imho. Opening up clinics for those with the money also opens up opportunities for the government. I think it is totally wrong that the government has a monopoly on health care.

Originally posted by KidRock
But..it really doesn't appeal to the rich.

you asked why people from all over the world come. The answer is that they have the money. If I had the money, I'd go to America to get treatment.

Originally posted by KidRock
It appeals to those who work. There is a big difference.

yes or no: everyone in America who works can get the health care they require?

If they have employer provided health care or have no family and make over $40,000 a year and have no pre-existing conditions and don't get seriously ill, than yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
a private public partnership on health care seems ideal, imho.

I would say that it's not really your opinion as much as it is a fact.

The best healthcare "nations" are the ones with private and public hybrids.

Yes, where all primary and emergency care is public and luxuries and cosmetics are private.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, where all primary and emergency care is public and luxuries and cosmetics are private.

No. That's not it at all.

But that doesn't sound half bad.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, where all primary and emergency care is public and luxuries and cosmetics are private.

I think he means where the govt provides for a certain minimum of care for everyone and private companies offer the chance for better coverage if you have the money. It takes away their strangle hold on people without giving the govt a proper monopoly.

Well, I'm saying that in those system, the government will pay for all of it. They just won't pay for boob jobs and nose jobs unless they're medically necessary (breast cancer, sinus infections, deformities etc.) , and they won't pay for the hospital room with the lobster dinner and satellite tv, unless you want to pay extra out of pocket or have additional private insurance, the government pays for basic cable and green jello.

my thoughts about PPPs in healthcare are basically that they will bring more high end services to a nation, which benefits everyone. It frees up wait lists for people who can afford to go to a private clinic, and allows the government to subsidize necessary treatment in private clinics for people who can't afford it.

More MRI machines are more MRI machines. The government can't afford to build tons, but if private clinics want to, the government can help in the case of emergency MRIs.

Yes but people are looking at Canada and somehow making the conclusion that if medicine in the US was socialized, our MRI machines and medical equipment would all somehow disappear, erased from time and space.
I'm sure this is because conservatives are convinced that there's a rider attached to any and all universal health care bills by Kucinich requiring that $700 million be allocated to a military project to "retrofit vice-president Biden's Delorean". You see it has always been Biden's plan to use healthcare reform to get the american people accustomed to a system where there is supposedly a deficiency of diagnostic equipment so that he can steal imaging equipment and use the equipment's electromagnets to build a giant rail gun inside his secret volcano lair inside Mt. Ranier where he will use this doomsday weapon to threaten the world until they give him gold so he and his holywood minions can replenish their goo!!!! Precious goo!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

But perhaps I've said too much...

In any case, the image of Joe Biden wearing colorful spandex and neoprene tights should convince at least some of you of the ridiculousness of the idea that health care reform will somehow make medical equipment disappear.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes but people are looking at Canada and somehow making the conclusion that if medicine in the US was socialized, our MRI machines and medical equipment would all somehow disappear, erased from time and space.

indeed, likely the fact that I am Canadian has something to do with this

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm sure this is because conservatives are convinced that there's a rider attached to any and all universal health care bills by Kucinich requiring that $700 million be allocated to a military project to "retrofit vice-president Biden's Delorean". You see it has always been Biden's plan to use healthcare reform to get the american people accustomed to a system where there is supposedly a deficiency of diagnostic equipment so that he can steal imaging equipment and use the equipment's electromagnets to build a giant rail gun inside his secret volcano lair inside Mt. Ranier where he will use this doomsday weapon to threaten the world until they give him gold so he and his holywood minions can replenish their goo!!!! Precious goo!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

But perhaps I've said too much...

source?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
In any case, the image of Joe Biden wearing colorful spandex and neoprene tights should convince at least some of you of the ridiculousness of the idea that health care reform will somehow make medical equipment disappear.

well, like, its the opposite problem in America as exists in Canada. Here there is too much reliance on the federal gvt, and not enough personal option for those who can afford it. America is the opposite. I'm sure a PPP offers benefits in so much as it releases the insurance companies from the monopoly they have on health, adding more basic and low end care.

Canada needs more MRI machines, so it was a salient example for me, /shrug

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he means where the govt provides for a certain minimum of care for everyone and private companies offer the chance for better coverage if you have the money. It takes away their strangle hold on people without giving the govt a proper monopoly.

Bingo. 👆

Originally posted by inimalist
indeed, likely the fact that I am Canadian has something to do with this

source?

well, like, its the opposite problem in America as exists in Canada. Here there is too much reliance on the federal gvt, and not enough personal option for those who can afford it. America is the opposite. I'm sure a PPP offers benefits in so much as it releases the insurance companies from the monopoly they have on health, adding more basic and low end care.

Canada needs more MRI machines, so it was a salient example for me, /shrug

I wasn't necesarily directly responding to you. People here are claiming that adopting universal healthcare will somehow making medical and diagnostic equipment go away or disappear. I was mocking that arguement in the most gaudy, over-the-top, outlandish way possible.