Health Care (split from I am very confused.)

[I.Goldstein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Cuba

Yes, Cuba does.

America only has 1.5 billion barrels in its reserve. Let's not forget the oil companies aren't under government control. We only pay less because we hold the oil standard currency and our oil is subsidized.

[1713296286]

1713296286

[rainingbitcoins]

Also, to address rainingbitcoins, they'll be healthy for now; however, the systems aren't financially sustainable.

You know the U.K. has had the NHS since WWII and Canada has had UHC since the early '60s, right?

You realize that the U.K. recently had a whole government upheaval based upon health care solvency concerns. Hello, Mr Cameron. Here are a few random links from the first google page that came up. There seem to be some current issues.

http://www.sourcewire.com/releases/rel_display.php?relid=67094
http://www.ournhsinshropshireandtelford.nhs.uk/viewpoint/110224-capsticks.aspx
http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/workforce/dh-seeks-solvency-assurances-from-nhs-employers/5014860.article

Canada in in the midst of health care reform as well. More random google results.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/10/pol-cma-report.html

The majority of respondents said they are not getting good value for money, especially compared with European countries, and they based that assessment on long waiting times for the care they need, the report said.

Discussions over private versus public health care were frequent, the report said, and support for a publicly funded system was widespread. Turnbull noted, however, that some expressed openness to private sector assistance to help alleviate some of the immediate pressures on the public system.

Participants in the dialogue agreed that Canadians need to take responsibility for their own health, but they said there is a need for "healthy public policy" to help people make healthy decisions. Better health education and support for economically disadvantaged groups were among the suggestions made and some said tax incentives should be introduced to encourage healthier choices.

Again, just look at the prices. We already pay way more than they do before you even count private spending!

[I.Goldstein]

We pay more than they do in public spending because 1) we have a larger populace and 2) our country is larger in terms of land area. This adds a lot of overhead. European countries are close, small and nearly decentralized. Of course they pay less when it comes to government services.

It's apples to oranges. Their situation won't apply to us.

[I.Goldstein]

Alright, I highly suggest we pause this and get this whole discussion moved to Politics and Society. This is really off-topic and bad for this board. Somebody report my post.

[becoin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Cuba

Yes, Cuba does.

No, Cuba doesn't. To discover an oil field and to exploit it are two quite different things! Even now (2011) Cuba is importing 100% of all the oil they consume.

[rainingbitcoins]

We pay more than they do in public spending because 1) we have a larger populace and 2) our country is larger in terms of land area. This adds a lot of overhead. European countries are close, small and nearly decentralized. Of course they pay less when it comes to government services.

Those are per capita numbers, Atlas. Larger populace doesn't enter into it. And if you want to talk population density, Australia is worse off than us in that department and still coming in at a third of our cost.

[I.Goldstein]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Cuba

Yes, Cuba does.

No, Cuba doesn't. To discover an oil field and to exploit it are two quite different things! Even now (2011) Cuba is importing 100% of all the oil they consume.

Yes; however, these oil rights enable it to run its nation mostly on credit since the oil acts as collateral. The oil reserves are highly relevant and they are keeping Cuba alive despite them not being used.

[I.Goldstein]

We pay more than they do in public spending because 1) we have a larger populace and 2) our country is larger in terms of land area. This adds a lot of overhead. European countries are close, small and nearly decentralized. Of course they pay less when it comes to government services.

Larger populace doesn't enter into it.

Yes it does. A larger populace adds extensive overhead costs at a federal level. You have to manage more names, more capitas and more bureaus while not even seeing a single face on a local level. To run a healthcare program at such a high federal level would be a disaster. If you take a look, you'll see the EU doesn't run its constituents healthcare for a reason while its trying to end its failing food relief program.

[I.Goldstein]

That's not to mention federal healthcare services would be unconstitutional.

[rainingbitcoins]

Germany has 80 million people and they manage. They also manage to have one of the strongest economies in the world.

[Red]

Again, just look at the prices. We already pay way more than they do before you even count private spending!

I understand this. However, it doesn't matter if they are paying less, when they themselves see their programs as bankrupting their government. Both do.  Following their lead will surely bankrupt ours. You can argue that it will bankrupt us slower then we are already going. But that is hardly a solution to the problem. It is merely pretending to address the problem.

By the way, which universal healthcare plan are you supporting here in the US? The one the administration recently passed? Are you claiming that gets us well down the road to 50% savings? Because the administration claims total costs will go up.

[I.Goldstein]

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.

[rainingbitcoins]

Again, just look at the prices. We already pay way more than they do before you even count private spending!

I understand this. However, it doesn't matter if they are paying less, when they themselves see their programs as bankrupting their government. Both do.  Following their lead will surely bankrupt ours. You can argue that it will bankrupt us slower then we are already going. But that is hardly a solution to the problem. It is merely pretending to address the problem.

By the way, which universal healthcare plan are you supporting here in the US? The one the administration recently passed? Are you claiming that gets us well down the road to 50% savings? Because the administration claims total costs will go up.

Somehow we're going to bankrupt ourselves by spending less than we already do. Thanks, got it.

Also, I support more of an NHS-style system. Obama's plan may have been a step in the right direction in some other time or place, but I don't trust the Democrats to take it in that direction in 21st century America. After all, there are profits to be had.

A tax burden of 40% with health services that still run at a deficit is not my idea of a successful nor sovereign country.

Yeah, yeah, taxes are slavery and everything must be done at a huge profit, we know.

[Red]

Germany has 80 million people and they manage. They also manage to have one of the strongest economies in the world.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/health/warning-signs-from-europe-3470/

National health care schemes in Germany and Switzerland (and many other countries) rely on the government’s power to cut deals with major industry groups, including doctors, to keep expenses down. European doctors who work in the statutory insurance market earn scaled salaries set in agreements with the government.

The result is a class of doctors that feels increasingly underpaid and overworked. German hospital doctors earn about one-fifth of their American counterparts — an average of $56,000 per year, as opposed to $268,000 in the states. When negotiations with the government fall short, the doctors behave like any other group of workers in Europe: They take to the streets.
The marches in 2006 were the largest in German history, triggered by government reforms aimed at controlling costs in the national health care system.

Only part of the problem was pay. Another problem, from the doctors’ point of view, were the so-called bonus-malus laws, which punished them for prescribing expensive drugs and rewarded them for prescribing generics. The idea was to keep down pharmaceuticals prices, but the doctors felt the hot breath of government on their necks. “This ethically objectionable bonus-malus legal gimmickry — akin to bribing physicians not to treat to the best of their ability — was one of the sparks of the doctor protest movement,” wrote Alphonse Crespo, a libertarian-minded Swiss orthopedic surgeon.

The reforms finally pushed through by Angela Merkel’s government gave Germany its current system, which uses a central fund to compensate insurance companies for patients according to the patients’ risk. The government dropped its bonus-malus rules in 2008. But Germany’s specific problems with its health care system are less relevant than their cause, which is the same as the cause of America’s crisis: ballooning costs. Doctor salaries are the least of it. The German system is full of administrative corruption within the nation’s many insurance companies.

So is insurance itself the problem?

Maybe.

[becoin]

The oil reserves are highly relevant and are what are keeping Cuba alive despite them not being used.

Let me quote part of your wikipedia link:

By 2010 an active leasing program for blocks of the ocean floor north and west of Cuba was underway.

Even if they have done what you're suggesting, they'd have 'a disposable income' just for the last year?! Sounds very irrelevant to what you say...

Yes because they have massive oil reserves. They have disposable income to throw at a socialized healthcare system that runs at a loss. The US doesn't have such capacity.

Cuba has a 'socialized' healthcare system since 1959...

[I.Goldstein]

Again, just look at the prices. We already pay way more than they do before you even count private spending!

I understand this. However, it doesn't matter if they are paying less, when they themselves see their programs as bankrupting their government. Both do.  Following their lead will surely bankrupt ours. You can argue that it will bankrupt us slower then we are already going. But that is hardly a solution to the problem. It is merely pretending to address the problem.

By the way, which universal healthcare plan are you supporting here in the US? The one the administration recently passed? Are you claiming that gets us well down the road to 50% savings? Because the administration claims total costs will go up.

Somehow we're going to bankrupt ourselves by spending less than we already do. Thanks, got it.

Also, I support more of an NHS-style system. Obama's plan may have been a step in the right direction in some other time or place, but I don't trust the Democrats to take it in that direction in 21st century America. After all, there are profits to be had.

A tax burden of 40% with health services that still run at a deficit is not my idea of a successful nor sovereign country.

Yeah, yeah, taxes are slavery and everything must be done at a huge profit, we know.

It's not about profit. If you're running a country entirely on credit, you will eventually lose control of your nation. You are no longer sovereign but only under the whims of who controls your money supply.

What should come first is the people's independence. All else can sustainably come after.

[rainingbitcoins]

within the nation’s many insurance companies.

Germany has a mixture of public and private insurance, but it's about 80% public.

[I.Goldstein]

The oil reserves are highly relevant and are what are keeping Cuba alive despite them not being used.

Let me quote part of your wikipedia link:

By 2010 an active leasing program for blocks of the ocean floor north and west of Cuba was underway.

Even if they have done what you're suggesting, they'd have 'a disposable income' just for the last year?! Sounds very irrelevant to what you say...

Yes because they have massive oil reserves. They have disposable income to throw at a socialized healthcare system that runs at a loss. The US doesn't have such capacity.

Cuba has a 'socialized' healthcare system since 1959...

It doesn't matter what is happening with the oil reserves. 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. They will be used eventually.

Again, they act as collateral for lending nations. Cuba is running mostly on credit. If Cuba fails to pay its debts, the lending countries get their oil reserves. It's very simple.

Yes, Cuba has had a socialized healthcare system since 1959 but it hasn't always worked as it does now.  

[Red]

Somehow we're going to bankrupt ourselves by spending less than we already do. Thanks, got it.

Yes, exactly. General Motors was going broke fast. Chrysler was going broke slower. Are you trying to convince me that Chrysler was setting a great example that GM should be encouraged to follow?

Also, I support more of an NHS-style system. Obama's plan may have been a step in the right direction in some other time or place, but I don't trust the Democrats to take it in that direction in 21st century America. After all, there are profits to be had.

Yay! We agree on some thing! There exist proposed national solutions that everyone sees won't solve the problem! Woot!

Germany has a mixture of public and private insurance, but it's about 80% public.

According to a really interesting Frontline documentary on universal healthcare, Germany has a two tier insurance system. The public buys inexpensive insurance that companies are sworn not to take any profit on. Then they make their profits selling supplemental insurance.

However, Doctors protest in the streets about making less that taxi drivers. The health care system as a whole runs in the red. There are continual cost overruns and the whole thing is increasingly supplemented by the general tax fund.

In fact according to Frontline *advocates* of universal healthcare, not a single UHC program on the planet runs in the black. Not the old ones. Not the new ones. Not insurance based ones. Not single payer ones.

Is there a root cause? Yes there is.

[becoin]

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!