| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Padraic 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
 Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:24 |
 Negoba wrote:
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
|
This is what I've been thinking about lately. It's one thing to claim we should go single-payer, but our country has been operating in the insurance paradigm for so long that it's a highly non-trivial task to re-make the entire method by which health care is delivered. I'm not using this to argue against going that route, merely that single-payer national health systems in Europe and elsewhere were set up long ago when there wasn't a competing massive infrastructure to tear down and remake. Perhaps that's why we have the current reform bill that is hated by the far left and far right alike (for different reasons, of course).
|
 |
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:22 |
|
I have no idea how the US health system works, so I'll only address one minor issue that hasn't been touched, yet. From what I hear, the costs of health care in the US are extraordinarily high, in a manner that can not be rationally explained. I mean, the full cost of a particular heart surgery that can be done in the top-of-the-line Paris hospital where my girlfriend works is around 7000 euros; the full cost of the exact same surgery done in the States is 150000 dollars. WTF? It's a mystery, none of the possible explanations I've heard can fully cover this difference (which is not a difference in quality, though). So if this ratio applies to all or most of the health care provided in the US, I'm not surprised it all by the situation looking quite extreme for those without a lot of money.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:22 |
The T wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Negoba wrote:
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.
Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.
We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.
|
That reminds me of a joke. Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries. The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work." The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work." The doctor from the US says "That's nothing. In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."
Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.  |
That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas? 
|
Who was it originally created for?  |
I have no idea. Damn funny either way though. 
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:21 |
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Negoba wrote:
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.
Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.
We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.
|
That reminds me of a joke. Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries. The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work." The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work." The doctor from the US says "That's nothing. In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."
Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. |
That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas?
|
Who was it originally created for?
|
|
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:20 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. |
I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.
|
Man, it's because, outside of a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh opiate dream, I don't know where you could have read that men with guns force money off people who have earned it.... Please READ about other places. The world is much bigger than just this country and one tv channel! |
Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.
|
ONE MORE TIME: what have you been smoking? Or is your individualism and selfishness so incredibly strong and overwhelming that you really think when you pay taxes you're being robbed?
Obviously the discussion is useless. Go save more money under your mattress man. Hope it serves you well one day where you're damned sick and nobody lifts a finger to even help you count your goddamn hard-earned money that you so heroically managed to keep off the government's hands....
Edited by The T - March 19 2010 at 13:20
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:17 |
The Doctor wrote:
Negoba wrote:
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.
Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.
We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.
|
That reminds me of a joke. Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries. The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work." The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work." The doctor from the US says "That's nothing. In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."
Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread. |
That's a good joke, but why'd you change it from New York to Texas?
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:12 |
Negoba wrote:
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.
Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.
We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.
|
That reminds me of a joke. Three transplant specialists from three countries (France, England and the U.S.) are discussing the success of recent transplants in their respective countries. The doctor from England says "In my country, we took the heart from one man, put it in another man, and the next day the transplantee was out looking for work." The doctor from France says "That's nothing, in my country we took a lung from one man, put it in another man, and the next day they were both out looking for work." The doctor from the US says "That's nothing. In my country we took an a**hole out of Texas put him in Washington, and the next day everybody was out looking for work."
Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:12 |
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. |
I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.
|
Man, it's because, outside of a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh opiate dream, I don't know where you could have read that men with guns force money off people who have earned it.... Please READ about other places. The world is much bigger than just this country and one tv channel! |
Because that's what taxes are! I don't know how anyone can not understand that. One more time: income tax is money collected by force (if necessary) from citizens based on how much they earn.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:10 |
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. |
I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.
|
What you said is actually quite evil. It's beyond uncivil. It is truly evil.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:08 |
thellama73 wrote:
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. |
I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.
|
Man, it's because, outside of a Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh opiate dream, I don't know where you could have read that men with guns force money off people who have earned it.... Please READ about other places. The world is much bigger than just this country and one tv channel!
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:07 |
The answer to the initial question: the health care system long ago outgrew the institutions that were developed to support it. Unfortunately, institutions are like living things and don't like to die.
Insurance is not a viable model for paying for modern health care. Period. An insurance model assumes that most people don't need care except in emergencies (like Rob said, catastrophic). In fact, everyone needs some regular medical care. And the ones who need the most aren't the ones who work (elderly, children, the sick). So we HAVE to take money from those who work and use it to provide health care to those who don't work. It's just what institution does the distributing of the money.
Even if a private entity administered health care, it can't do it under an insurance model. But we've already done that. It's called managed care.
We already have public systems in place for the elderly and (and many children and mothers). Sick adults, whether they have chronic illness or even a temporary injury, are the ones in limbo. Right now, there are ALOT of able-bodied Americans out of work and without insurance. They would pick up a job if there was one, but there isn't. There have been massive layoffs over the last 18 months. Everyone is looking.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:06 |
Negoba wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being. |
I guess I am a sorry excuse for a human being then... Thanks for keeping the debate civil.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 13:00 |
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:58 |
Padraic wrote:
Pekka wrote:
Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen? |
It's tough to answer because there's taxes at the federal, state, and local level. A $24000/year salary puts you in the 15% federal income bracket.
|
And then you've got about twelve dozen hundred other variables. 
|
|
|
|
The Doctor
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:58 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Ok so where is the affordable heath care that people with no insurance can go to? Because there should be alternatives. It's only "insurance" after all. Therefore, people could opt out and go get their own heath care. Of course, if you have thousands of dollars. |
I don't have too much more to say about this, but one final point:
You clearly think that health care is a right that everyone should have free (or at least very cheap) access too. That's fine, but the money has to come from somewhere. I'm going to assume that you think doctors deserve to be paid for their work, since they spend upwards of $100,000 and eight years of their life in med school. So who is going to pay the doctors? If you force the insurance companies to do it without collecting high premiums, they will quickly quit and find more profitable industries in which to work. So the only other option is government run health care.
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
Add to that the historically proven incompetence and inefficiency of the federal government, and I think you can see why I think it's a bad idea.
|
I have no problem with this. Whether you agree or not, there is a cost to society, and a responsibility on the part of each member of society to contribute to that society. Those who get the most benefits from society, (i.e. the rich, corporations) should be required to contribute the most to society. And let's face it, without an existing social structure, it would be well nigh impossible to accumulate any wealth. Only the existence of a social structure allows people to become wealthy. You may not agree on the amount or the way government spends its money, but taxation is necessary and a certain amount of wealth redistribution is not only fair, it is also necessary to maintain the social structure. Unless you'd prefer to have for-profit companies run every aspect of our society and provide the needed social structure on the backs of the poor and down-trodden. Serfdom anyone?
|
|
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:57 |
Pekka wrote:
Just out of curiosity, in the US approximately how big a percent of let's say a 2000 dollar monthly paycheck is taken away by the gunmen? |
It's tough to answer because there's taxes at the federal, state, and local level. A $24000/year salary puts you in the 15% federal income bracket.
|
|
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:56 |
|
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:55 |
thellama73 wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. Many people are okay with this plan and think it is fair. I don't. That's just where we disagree. I only wish people would express their views in concrete terms instead of in vague generalities like "the government should take care of poor people." If you believe that, fine, but say what you really mean. The government has no money of its own. Every dime they spend has to be forcibly taken from U.S. citizens (or borrowed, but that's a separate issue.)
|
I assume you are joking. If not you are a sorry excuse for a human being.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
Being that I'm going to be poor for the forseeable future, I'm trying to get resigned to not have health care, unless my parent's insist on it (not sure I'd let them pay it).
All I know is a visit to the ICU for a day or so will make me completely bankrupt.
I am really, really starting to get pissed at this country. No wonder everyone here works themselves to death, is miserable, has to f**k anyone just to feel anything, and would sooner kill a man than have their retirement cash take a hit if you can get sick or sued at any moment and lose all your savings. Wonderful.
I was reading The Economist today in the sh*tter (where it belongs).lThat's an expensive rag for rich people who push money around to make money and pay tens of thousands of dollars to have an ad of them making fake smiles to sell their expensive services to make more goddamn money. Maybe I'll be rich one day, and by then I'll be old enough to f**k over younger generations to keep my cash (thanks a bunch Boomers!). Then I won't care. Huzzah greed (it always comes back to that).
I have a solution: give me basic health care because I am a citizen and a god damn human being who expects a government to actually serve its citizens. Making lattes for rich f**ks who can afford a $5 drink 3 times a day every day may not be a great job, but I'll take that and being a poor musician and idealist over dealing with the machine.
Maybe I'll feel different in a few years, again.
Edited by stonebeard - March 19 2010 at 12:56
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: March 19 2010 at 12:54 |
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
The T wrote:
Few people will put, in honest terms, what government health care really means, so here it is: It means that men with guns are going to take money by force from those that have earned it and give it to those that haven't. In what kind of reality has this ever happened? What kind of science fiction (with little science and a lot of fiction) have you read? If they protest, they go to jail. If they resist going to jail strongly enough, they will be killed. So much Paranoia. Too much Fox News man.
|
Laugh all you want, but that's exactly what taxes are. You don't see it much, because almost everyone quietly pays their taxes without a fuss, but you have no choice in the matter. If you tried to resist, you WOULD go to jail.
|
In a society where we all have implicitly agreed to cooperate with each other (a social pact) we should be held liable if we think only of ourselves and don't pay taxes. |
To what limit? If the government decided to tax 100% of our income, would you maintain that it's our "social duty" to obey without question?
|
I'd obey because the solution is easy - I wouldn't work.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
A health care question...
