.

[benjamindees]

So, enlighten me, if you would, how an increased life expectancy decreases the standard of living in an area?

Probably the simplest example, is that if I put you in a medically-induced coma, and stick a feeding tube down your throat, I can increase your lifespan while reducing your standard of living.  That's the basic concept.  It just so happens that socialized medicine incentivizes this.

[myrkul]

So, enlighten me, if you would, how an increased life expectancy decreases the standard of living in an area?

Probably the simplest example, is that if I put you in a medically-induced coma, and stick a feeding tube down your throat, I can increase your lifespan while reducing your standard of living.  That's the basic concept.  It just so happens that socialized medicine incentivizes this.

While that would certainly suck for me, it would reduce my quality of life, not the standard of living in the area.

[benjamindees]

I guess that depends on whether your not being comatose normally has a positive effect on your local economy.  But I think you're just playing semantics.

[myrkul]

I guess that depends on whether your not being comatose normally has a positive effect on your local economy.  But I think you're just playing semantics.

Well, you gave me an example of how one person's quality of life could be negatively affected by extending their life. When you make generalities like you did in your original statement, you're speaking in aggregate. So, please tell me how increasing the average lifespan of a population negatively affects the standard of living in that same area?

[nevafuse]

It really doesn't matter.  This is a drop in the bucket compared with the problems that already exist with healthcare in the US.  Drug companies have great patent protection to prevent competition & keep their prices high. It takes forever to become a doctor & lots of debt which keeps the supply of doctors low & salaries high thanks to strict requirements set by the AMA. Most drugs are illegal without a prescription. And above all, the government sets the prices in the healthcare market because a majority of the market is Medicare/Medicaid.  And unfortunately, there has been been zero progress in fixing these things allowing costs to continue rising.  I count the days until bitcoin (or something like it) will allow me to stop funding these non-representing governments & replace them with an actual free market.

[myrkul]

I guess that depends on whether your not being comatose normally has a positive effect on your local economy.  But I think you're just playing semantics.

Well, you gave me an example of how one person's quality of life could be negatively affected by extending their life. When you make generalities like you did in your original statement, you're speaking in aggregate. So, please tell me how increasing the average lifespan of a population negatively affects the standard of living in that same area?

The extended lifespan does not always mean extended working life. More people around with less people working would probably bring down standard of living per person because only so much can go around. Usually an extended lifespan means extended working life, but that probably would not happen at first.

This is at least a plausible explanation. Not sure how well it would stand up to rigorous examination, but it's better than "Wrong."

[FirstAscent]

I guess that depends on whether your not being comatose normally has a positive effect on your local economy.  But I think you're just playing semantics.

Well, you gave me an example of how one person's quality of life could be negatively affected by extending their life. When you make generalities like you did in your original statement, you're speaking in aggregate. So, please tell me how increasing the average lifespan of a population negatively affects the standard of living in that same area?

The extended lifespan does not always mean extended working life. More people around with less people working would probably bring down standard of living per person because only so much can go around. Usually an extended lifespan means extended working life, but that probably would not happen at first.

This is at least a plausible explanation. Not sure how well it would stand up to rigorous examination, but it's better than "Wrong."

Why aren't you sure how well it would stand up to rigorous examination? Why is it only better than "Wrong"?

Ahh! I understand now. It's because you can't be shown to be wrong - everything you've said, even if ridiculous, must somehow be worked into an argument that somehow demonstrates that all your prior and current reasoning are more important and correct than the obvious nature of reality.

[myrkul]

FirstAscent, I am sure you're a perfectly fine human being in person. I forgive you for being a douche on the internet.

Don't mean I'm going to encourage your douchery by responding to it, but I forgive you for it.

[FirstAscent]

FirstAscent, I am sure you're a perfectly fine human being in person. I forgive you for being a douche on the internet.

Don't mean I'm going to encourage your douchery by responding to it, but I forgive you for it.

Perhaps my attitude towards you is in direct proportion to the disconnect between your view of reality and reality itself. Of course, you have the opportunity to correct that deficiency by actually listening to and absorbing what others are saying, even when those views are counter to your own beliefs. Especially since your own beliefs appear to be based upon an incomplete understanding of the world, likely because you can't seem to get your nose out of your favorite crackpot loon libertarian book - a book which again was likely written by an individual who places the notion of a political ideology over real world facts and issues.

[TheButterZone]

I've seen my mom go through the quasi-malpractice (certainly violating "first do no harm") that is the practice of primary Western medicine with GPs and specialists not knowing their heads from their asses. Also, no doctor has ever come to a diagnosis (let alone a treatment plan) as to why my pain and exhaustion level for as long as I can remember has been decades advanced from my actual age, so I've sworn them off. On the other hand, the best care all of my family has received has been at emergency rooms (or A&E for our disarmed friends across the pond), and to a lesser degree urgent care facilities.

If the government wants us all to get health insurance just for ER and urgent care visits, I would invite it to stop fucking over the economy and taxing and regulating everyone to death so everyone can afford either private insurance or out of pocket.

If the government wants us all to get health insurance and see doctors on a non-emergency/urgent basis, then it might as well shove a gun up our mouths and pull the trigger. That would be the kindest thing to do.

[myrkul]

If the government wants us all to get health insurance and see doctors on a non-emergency/urgent basis, then it might as well shove a gun up our mouths and pull the trigger. That would be the kindest thing to do.

This would be funny if it weren't so true.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Do you even live in England?  The NHS is certainly not a monopoly.  As you say, because the NHS exists and its so efficient, private medicine can't compete for Joe Bloggs' hernia operation.  But if you have money/insurance and have special requirement, most every city has private hospitals who do a fine trade.

I do live in the UK London and I have horrible story with the NHS in my whole family. Not just me.

It really sucks compared to other EU countries I have lived in.

If you have a problem with the NHS, go private.  There are plenty private hospitals in London and they are a lot cheaper than the US ones.  

[Realpra]

We have public health care in my country and its okay (other countries are even better).

We spend less of our GDP than the Americans:

DK: 9.8% GDP
US: 16% GDP

DK life expectancy: 78.6.
US life expectancy: 78.3.

The DK is slightly richer than the US per capita, but nowhere near enough to justify your 16%. We are less fat, but people also drink a good deal of alcohol so I think it evens out on that front.

Obama mandate was put in by republicans and will not affect you if you can't afford health care - you will be covered for free.

(Source:http://floathaven.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179&sid=7fa67ba9135631163f4840ce0f835a56)


I think given your numbers any change you can make is for the better.

[MoonShadow]

I think given your numbers any change you can make is for the better.

Not any change.  The irony is that the only way that this bill makes health care cheaper overall in the US, is if rationing of care is widespread like in Britain.  Honestly, it's not likely to affect me either way because I have a medical savings account & can afford insurance; but I do find it offensive that I'll be taxed even more to pay for the requirements in Obamacare that I would not pay for in my own insurance plan.  Forcing me to pay for another person's contraceptive pills or abortion because they can't afford it is forcing me to subsidize them to have sex without consequences.  In the most religious first world nation on Earth, this is dangerous.

[Hawker]

I think given your numbers any change you can make is for the better.

Not any change.  The irony is that the only way that this bill makes health care cheaper overall in the US, is if rationing of care is widespread like in Britain.  Honestly, it's not likely to affect me either way because I have a medical savings account & can afford insurance; but I do find it offensive that I'll be taxed even more to pay for the requirements in Obamacare that I would not pay for in my own insurance plan.  Forcing me to pay for another person's contraceptive pills or abortion because they can't afford it is forcing me to subsidize them to have sex without consequences.  In the most religious first world nation on Earth, this is dangerous.

Care is not rationed in Britain. It is rationed in the US as if you can't afford it and are not eligible for welfare, you may not get care.

EDIT: I should qualify that.  Non-elective care is not rationed in the NHS.

[MoonShadow]

I think given your numbers any change you can make is for the better.

Not any change.  The irony is that the only way that this bill makes health care cheaper overall in the US, is if rationing of care is widespread like in Britain.  Honestly, it's not likely to affect me either way because I have a medical savings account & can afford insurance; but I do find it offensive that I'll be taxed even more to pay for the requirements in Obamacare that I would not pay for in my own insurance plan.  Forcing me to pay for another person's contraceptive pills or abortion because they can't afford it is forcing me to subsidize them to have sex without consequences.  In the most religious first world nation on Earth, this is dangerous.

Care is not rationed in Britain. It is rationed in the US as if you can't afford it and are not eligible for welfare, you may not get care.

EDIT: I should qualify that.  Non-elective care is not rationed in the NHS.

Bullshit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18407768

BTW, in any system that requires delays for any life saving treatments, such as cancer screening or dialysis, this is indirect rationing because some of those people will die because of those delays.

So sueing the NHS because you were denied care, if your life expectancy is already shorter than the resolution process in the courts, is still rationing.  Old age is 100% fatal, it might just take longer for some than other.

[steelhouse]

In the U.S. we had government run health care already, the business health care deduction and medicare.   The business healthcare deduction, basically was a tax on those without jobs to pay for people with jobs.   People with jobs also lost because they were forced to pay the capitalism tax, meaning the business picked the healthcare and not them forcing them to pay twice as much.  Medicare basically gives doctors a blank check to do health care.  $500 for a 15 minute office visit.  People with jobs are also forced to pay high costs for treatment.  What this did is make the cost of healthcare high and those without jobs or minimum wage jobs were priced out of the market.

Japan has the closest thing to a capitalist system of healthcare.  The government sets a maximum fee for every procedure.  Thus a $2000-$3000 overnight stay in the U.S. might only be $10 in Japan.  The doctors and facilities are generally all private.  Kids go to malls to have MRIs done.  4x the office visits for 1/2 the cost.  No wonder Japanese live the longest in the world.   

[MoonShadow]

Care is not rationed in Britain. It is rationed in the US as if you can't afford it and are not eligible for welfare, you may not get care.

Furthermore, if you can't afford care in the US, you are eligble for medicaid.  Literally anyone over the age of 26 below the poverty line can get medicaid, and a great many other people outside those conditions as well.  Two of my nephews qualify for it, because they were both briefly in foster care as tots.  This was due to a misunderstanding & failure of a new CPS agent, but even one night in foster care and you are eligble for medicaid for life.  Also, in state university tuition.

Two of my children are also eligible, due to the fact that they were adopted from foster care.

Additionally, there are more than a dozen less broad federal programs to subsidize health care, not counting the state programs that receive federal block grants.  There is literally no one in the US that cannot get care, and I challenge you to find one that I can't refute.  Our systems of social support are disjointed, confusing and largely unkown; but they are complete.  The major differences is that most of the public in the US is unaware of these programs, unlike in single payer nations where it's obvious.

Hell, I'm upper middle class, and I could get coverage for life at the VA should I lose my other health care resources; but my wife could not.

[pekv2]

There is literally no one in the US that cannot get care, and I challenge you to find one that I can't refute.

I haven't tried yet, but I been trying to make arrangements to get to where I need to go which is somewhat far. Well see if I get denied in which I believe that I will be denied. What I might have to do is is file, and which I do not want to do, is file for add and bi-polar "i do have", cuz this stays on your record for life and may screw shit up, like preventing from owning a weapon or having certain job/jobs, file for these two disorders then get on medicare and if not file for disability, try and file for medicaid. My sister [she has a spine deteriorating disease, I think called Degenerative disc disease] and her son in a disclosed state just had been taken off of one of em, medicaid or medicare, ionno which one, but the state basically screwed them over and her other son is still on one of em as the kid is autistic with a 80% chance of a brain tumor coming back, which they already had done brain surgery on the kid. So if they took her and one of her sons off of the care, that's where I have my doubt they will accept me. Nothing against you, but I believe your statement is wrong.

[Hawker]

I think given your numbers any change you can make is for the better.

Not any change.  The irony is that the only way that this bill makes health care cheaper overall in the US, is if rationing of care is widespread like in Britain.  Honestly, it's not likely to affect me either way because I have a medical savings account & can afford insurance; but I do find it offensive that I'll be taxed even more to pay for the requirements in Obamacare that I would not pay for in my own insurance plan.  Forcing me to pay for another person's contraceptive pills or abortion because they can't afford it is forcing me to subsidize them to have sex without consequences.  In the most religious first world nation on Earth, this is dangerous.

Care is not rationed in Britain. It is rationed in the US as if you can't afford it and are not eligible for welfare, you may not get care.

EDIT: I should qualify that.  Non-elective care is not rationed in the NHS.

Bullshit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18407768

BTW, in any system that requires delays for any life saving treatments, such as cancer screening or dialysis, this is indirect rationing because some of those people will die because of those delays.

So sueing the NHS because you were denied care, if your life expectancy is already shorter than the resolution process in the courts, is still rationing.  Old age is 100% fatal, it might just take longer for some than other.

The treatment of the elderly and of the mentally ill is a disgrace but its not rationing.  Old people have been found de-hydrated and drinking the water from flower vases in hospital.  About 15 years ago, it was made a requirement that all nurses be graduates.  The result is that we have a generation of nurses some of whom think they are too "professional" to look after demanding patients.  

In simple terms, rationing means that you are denied something because there is a shortage.  Elderly people have died of neglect in well funded hospitals; they now have the right to sue for neglect; its not rationing.