Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 09:38:19 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Health Care (split from I am very confused.)  (Read 3804 times)
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 08:08:10 PM
 #81

Germany has 80 million people and they manage. They also manage to have one of the strongest economies in the world.
A tax burden of 40% with health services that still run at a deficit is not my idea of a successful nor sovereign country.
How is different from having less taxes BUT having to spend more in "health insurances"?

At least the public healthcare system doesn't look to make PROFIT.

Private healthcare=they will keep using old machines cause "why buy new ones and SPEND? Oh it work better? Who cares, i'm private, profit profit"
1481319499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319499
Reply with quote  #2

1481319499
Report to moderator
1481319499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319499
Reply with quote  #2

1481319499
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481319499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319499
Reply with quote  #2

1481319499
Report to moderator
1481319499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481319499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481319499
Reply with quote  #2

1481319499
Report to moderator
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 08:15:04 PM
 #82

The fact is they are there and are under Cuba's territory. They have value just being there because oil is scarce and it continues to deplete.   
The fact is those reserves have value since 2010! If you say this is what helps Cuba run their healthcare system you have to explain how this system was run in the period 1959-2010 to the effect that the lifespan in Cuba is even slightly higher than in the US?

Currently 17% of the GNP of the USA is spent for healthcare! This % has doubled during the last 20 years (continues to increase!) and is way ahead of every other nation on this Planet. Such a massive % of nation's wealth spent without any productivity is an indicator that something in the U.S. healthcare system is terribly wrong. The government should find ways to demolish this monopoly effectively established by healthcare and big pharma companies sucking taxpayer dollars. That is it and it is a big test for this Government!

The government is what is supporting the monopoly in the first place. Again, we do not have a free nor private healthcare system. We haven't had one since the 20s.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 08:17:36 PM
 #83

Germany has 80 million people and they manage. They also manage to have one of the strongest economies in the world.
A tax burden of 40% with health services that still run at a deficit is not my idea of a successful nor sovereign country.
How is different from having less taxes BUT having to spend more in "health insurances"?

At least the public healthcare system doesn't look to make PROFIT.

Private healthcare=they will keep using old machines cause "why buy new ones and SPEND? Oh it work better? Who cares, i'm private, profit profit"

Nobody would spend more in healthcare services if people paid out of their pocket. Some would have to actually work to pay for it but that should be expected. Prices would be competitive to consumer desires so your last example wouldn't happen. If old machines didn't meet people's needs, people wouldn't go to clinics who didn't update their technology. The only companies who would make profit are the ones that people like.

It worked magnificently in early 1900s America. Small groups of poor people would hire their own private doctor for pennies on the dollar of today.  However, eventually some lobbied for restriction and look at the mess we have...
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:18:26 PM
 #84

So what is the solution? Do we allow everyone that can't get employer subsidised healthcare insurance die in the streets - lose everything they own? There has to be a better solution than the one we have now.

Of course there is a better solution. I wrote extensively about the root causes of the problem. Not a single person is contesting these causes. To find a solution you have to mitigate the cause of the problem. You can't exacerbate the causes and expect it to help.


I had a gallbladder removal operation (laparoscopic cholecystectomy). During that procedure they found an unexpected tumor and needed to remove it. Then I needed to follow up with multiple treatments of varying degree and finally I was told I'm in remission for now but my future healthcare will be extremely costly and require many doctors visits. Any future occurrence will most likely be as costly or more costly than the first.  

I had employer provided 80-20 copay insurance that cost me over $400 per month for a family. My total costs out of pocket for that series of attempting to get fixed were $33,000 with pretty good insurance.

I am sincerely sorry to hear of your health problems. I am glad they were treated effectively. Clearly you are not part of the root cause of our systems problems. You took responsibility and paid for the services you received.

You probably payed more than your "fair" share because the root cause (others who felt entitled not to pay) didn't pay for their services. We should all be horrified that you had to suffer unduly for the irresponsibility of others.


I lost my job during the recession. I have worked all my life to provide for my family, been a good citizen, paid my taxes, bought a home. Now I might lose my home if I get sick again because the only thing I have left to pay the cost of medical are all of my assets that have taken me all my life to accrue.

I am sincerely sorry to hear of your employment problems as well. Again, I think you are likely suffering unduly because of the irresponsibility of others. In this case, it was likely fund managers, bankers, loan brokers, appraisers, title companies, real estate agents who acted against irresponsibly in encouraging the boom which burst into recession.


It doesn't matter how good your doctors are if you can't afford any of them.

I in no way want you to get sick again. Ever. But if that unfortunate circumstance should arise, I want your doctors to be great. Period. If you are sick, you should get the most effective treatment available. Period.

The only thing left to consider is how much of the cost for that treatment should be your obligation. I want to say a few things very clearly.
1. None of the extra overhead that comes from the irresponsibility parties should be your responsibility.
2. None of the bloat that comes from unnecessary procedures should be your responsibility.
3. No excessive markup going to anonymous insurance companies or government bureaucracies should be your responsibility.
4. No excessive service provider profits only obtainable because you had to "consent under duress" should be your responsibility.

So that just leave the true expenses that you or your family affirmatively consented to. That is the theoretical maximum cost it is even conceivable that should become your obligation to pay.

Now, let's say I was god and I could say with certainty that you will live (X) months and will incur ($Y) in above medical expenses. What should your "insurance" rate be?  Would ($Y/X) be fair?

If that is too high, who *must* be obligated to pay the remainder ($Y) and why?

I can't answer that question for you, because I don't even know you. Say I did know you. I might decide that I personally should carry some of your burden. You are indeed a worth soul and I would be honored to help out. Perhaps you are an awful neighbor who killed my dog and tormented me every waking moment. *Must* I be required to pay so you can return to torment me some more?

This is why questions of "community" weight so important. People who spend their lives benefiting others will likely have many people willing to step in. Those who spend their lives maliciously will find themselves among many hesitant to help.

Quote
I have worked all my life to provide for my family, been a good citizen, paid my taxes, bought a home.

Clearly you understand this principle already. Do you think that in a case of your extreme hardship, those people you have been "a good citizen" among will not step up?

If that is true. The government can't save us.
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:22:38 PM
 #85

Now this is worthy of a fallacy.

The "People don't care so we need government." Fallacy

If people don't give a damn, the government won't since it (should) act on the desires of the people.
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:31:40 PM
 #86

Germany has 80 million people and they manage. They also manage to have one of the strongest economies in the world.
A tax burden of 40% with health services that still run at a deficit is not my idea of a successful nor sovereign country.
How is different from having less taxes BUT having to spend more in "health insurances"?

At least the public healthcare system doesn't look to make PROFIT.

Private healthcare=they will keep using old machines cause "why buy new ones and SPEND? Oh it work better? Who cares, i'm private, profit profit"

Nobody would spend more in healthcare services if people paid out of their pocket. Some would have to actually work to pay for it but that should be expected. Prices would be competitive to consumer desires so your last example wouldn't happen. If old machines didn't meet people's needs, people wouldn't go to clinics who didn't update their technology. The only companies who would make profit are the ones that people like.

It worked magnificently in early 1900s America. Small groups of poor people would hire their own private doctor for pennies on the dollar of today.  However, eventually some lobbied for restriction and look at the mess we have...
Comparing early 1900 technology to 2011? Nice, go heal yourself with 1900 machines. No wait, they HAD 0 MACHINES back then. They didn't even discover penicillin. An infection->you are dead.

Also the bolded part is false. New machines=moar expensive=i cannot spend so much, better go to the cheaper hospital even if they use older things. Just look at how things work. Normal people doesn't know about machines and what else, otherwise they would be doctor or engineers. Hospitals are better spending money in marketing than in useful things.

The mess usa have is cause it's a mixed things of private shit and insurances. If you are poor->no one heal you. But you STILL pay a lot of taxes, for what purposes, don't know.

With a decent public system you would have a good healthcare for EVERYONE, and the money would actually be used better cause you could not make profit out of it. Of course you need to have some systems to check how much every hospital spend to avoid absurd wastes
In europe countries manage to do that and our public system is often (always?) better than a loooot of private systems of other nations (who said usa?)

In b4 greece: greece fail is a problem of corruption and incompetence but that would ruin a private system too. If the government is corrupted then how long do you think a private system would last?
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:32:52 PM
 #87

Oh and also what about middle age healthcare? Sure back then everyone died for everything but i mean, feudal system was awesome, it worked for centuries!
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:37:57 PM
 #88

I am done. There is no point in arguing anymore. None of my fellow debaters here are interested in understanding nor considering my position. I don't want to win. I want to learn and I've considered what has been said to its fullest extent. The logic boils down to the idea that the government is incorruptible and actually cares. I have yet to see that historically proven.

So I leave with an afterword by George Carlin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E#t=491s
Gabi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:42:36 PM
 #89

No system work  in a corrupted government...
I.Goldstein
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:45:17 PM
 #90

No system work  in a corrupted government...

Every government in history has been corrupted. When you have a monopoly on force there is no accountability. It's an inherent flaw in the whole paradigm.
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 22, 2011, 09:46:35 PM
 #91

In b4 greece: greece fail is a problem of corruption and incompetence but that would ruin a private system too. If the government is corrupted then how long do you think a private system would last?

Exactly! A government is too big to fail. That is why it should have as little power as necessary. Because indeed it will fail. When smaller organizations fail we a glad to be rid of them and others step into take their place.

When governments fail, like I said earlier "community" is always important. But this time it is the European Community they have to rely in to step up and help. There is no world safety net to fall back on if Greece happened to be a bad neighbor.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 03:01:42 AM
 #92

Healthcare should be not for profit. Health insurance should also be not for profit. Do you really need your kidney removed or does the doctor need to make a boat payment? That doesn't mean that you can't have hospitals and doctors that demand millions in compensation if there is a market for their talent. They can even have cash only hospitals with gold faucets and 7 star chefs preparing their soups and jello.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 03:36:33 AM
 #93

Healthcare should be not for profit. Health insurance should also be not for profit. Do you really need your kidney removed or does the doctor need to make a boat payment? That doesn't mean that you can't have hospitals and doctors that demand millions in compensation if there is a market for their talent. They can even have cash only hospitals with gold faucets and 7 star chefs preparing their soups and jello.

Places like Australia have a multi-tiered system. We have private as well as public hospitals and you can access health services through government health insurance, private health insurance or even self-pay.  We do have resort like private hospitals, but we don't have the population to support those private hospitals being tertiary care facilities even in our most populous cities.  That's why the major trauma centres and tertiary care units are all located at public hospitals - which are free to everyone (even if you're privately insured, you're not obligated to use your insurance at a public hospital or when you see a private doctor).  

Many public hospitals now private hospitals on the same grounds which means that if you have private insurance or are prepared to pay out of pocket and you don't need to be in a high dependency unit, you can opt for more luxurious accommodation during your stay.  Our private health insurance is cheaper because everyone is already insured at a basic level by the government so private insurers are only covering the "gap" between the fee for service and the government rebate.

There's nothing to stop primary care doctors here charging whatever they like for a consultation - it's just that the patient will have to cover the difference between their fee and the health insurance (government or private) rebate.  

Our system probably wouldn't scale well to somewhere with a population the size of the US.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
repentance
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 04:15:25 AM
 #94

Ok, I found nirvana. How strict are Australian immigration laws. LOL

Pretty bloody tough these days.  And housing costs are ridiculous in the major cities, whether you're looking at buying or renting.  Electricity costs have sky-rocketed here too over the last few years and those two factors combined have a definite impact on most people's standard of living.

All I can say is that this is Bitcoin. I don't believe it until I see six confirmations.
Red
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


View Profile
October 23, 2011, 04:55:06 PM
 #95

I understand your point but surly you must know you're talking about a conceptual system that can't work in reality. Healthcare is big business and the inequities will go on unchecked unless someone does something about it. You may not care about those inequities but I do. Charities can and do help people but you can't rely on the charity of others when life and limb are at stake. Pressure from the community can help in the form of law but that must be carefully drafted to ensure equality of care for all.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps insisting I didn't write this.

1) Everyone should be entitled to ACCESS to health care.
Meaning there should be no discrimination based on race, creed, color... or any damn thing. People get sick. People get care.

You don't seem to be disagreeing with me at all.

This is where we will always disagree.

I do believe that all human beings should be provided health care even if they're leaching on the fruits of my labor.

Again, you don't seem to be saying anything different from me. If people get sick, we care for them. Period.


This is only because I personally believe that needless human suffering is wrong. I wouldn't want an axe murderer on death row to sit with tooth ache until he is killed by the state because that is needless human suffering that my tax dollars are paying for. Not having the technology to cure disease is unfortunate but having the technology and simply withholding it because society considers that person less desirable is wrong.

*Why* you want to care for the sick is unimportant to me. It is nice that you care though. So do I.


To me, not providing healthcare to all people regardless of the cost is the same as dowsing a homeless person in the street with gasoline and setting him on fire because he refuses to work. It's just cruelty and suffering for no reason other than selfishness.

Again, people get sick. People get care. The responsibility of payment for services rendered should be settled afterward.

You seem rational, would you not provide healthcare for those people that were born incapable of being productive like the mentally retarded or physically handicapped. I don't believe you or anyone else is that cruel

I am not that cruel. However, you quite clearly pointed out that you do indeed know that others ARE that cruel!

I do believe that all human beings should be provided health care even if they're leaching on the fruits of my labor.

I know you italicized "my", but in reality these people are not leaching off "your" labor. They are leaching off "everyone's" labor. And conversely, they are paying nothing but lip service to the fact that the "mentally retarded or physically handicapped" aren't being cared for.

If you ask these leaches to get a job and pay their fair share to help the "mentally retarded or physically handicapped" what do you expect their response to be? How in all sanity can you expect to convince them that they are "entitled" not to pay for their own care, BUT they are *required* to pay for other's care? If you can indeed make that case, I will bow down and worship everything you write.

and if they are I want the state to build a facility somewhere that can take care of them because they shouldn't be walking around with the rest of us.

But obviously you can't, because rhetorically you think those people should be locked up. Locked up but well cared for it seems. I guess that is slightly more reasonable than dowsing these folks in gasoline and setting them on fire.

But I myself am not so cruel.

And if a Fuck Head denies his obligations all the way to his personal end. If he dies endorsing his tyrannical *entitlement* remain above any societal obligations. Well then, we as a society should posthumously and ceremonially revoke his citizenship. We should carve his name into granite on a monument of ignominy. "Here lists those who in there whole lives, were never good enough to live among us. May God Fuck Their Souls!"

Hopefully then, in the future, we will hear stories not of people who were "born poor, but made themselves rich." But we will hear stories that go, "I was born of two Fuck Heads. But I grew up and earned my own Good Character!"

You can not fix a system, without fixing the people who make up the system. There is a fix. It is called personal responsibility.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!