By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

akuma587 on 22 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

Why isn't food socialized then?

Food is much more important then healthcare for living.

 

The key factor is the nature of healthcare compared to food.  Healthcare is an "emergency" service like police protection, fire protection, natural disaster protection, national defense protection, etc.

 

In the US, healthcare as an emergency service is already given to you by law. The only thing up for discussion, is should you have to pay for it.

If you are homeless and have a gunshot wound, every Hospital in the US is required to treat you. There is no debtors prison in the US. All not paying your bill will do is put you in a situation where no one will loan you money.

Is being loaned money now a right that needs to be protected?

 

You still have to PAY for it out of your own pocket or else you are held financially liable and it will wreck your credit, they can attach liens to your house and foreclose on your property, etc.  Some jobs even require you to get a credit check, so it can affect much more than your ability to get loans.

Your argument is essentially like saying, "If you had to pay for police protection every time you wanted them to protect you, it wouldn't make any difference because the only consequence is people won't loan you money."

Some people don't seek emergency care and health services they need BECAUSE they know they will have to pay for it.  That is like not calling the fire department because you are worried it will cost more to pay the fire department than save your house.  Your suggestion is pretty much that government should charge people directly for everything because in the end all it will do is wreck your credit.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Viper1 on 22 April 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
@TheRealMafoo

The fact that you see the Government as something to be weary of, well, it just... I dunno, worries me?

Perhaps you need to move to a freer country.

 

Governments, by their very nature, should be of great concern for apathy is the dream of oppressors.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

highwaystar101 on 22 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
highwaystar101 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
highwaystar101 said:

I would not have stood a chance of achieving what I, or my dad, could have achieved if it wasn't for the opportunities Iwe were given by the tax payer.

 

Your government has done its work well, if you feel there is no way for you to succeed without them.

 

Yes, more or less. To do a 3-year Bachelor of science degree in this country costs around 30,000. I can't afford that, to pay for my degree I would have to work for three or four years before hand. However, the taxpayer picks up around 27,000 of this and I pay about 3,000.

I could be successful without them, but it would be a much steeper hill for me to do much slower climb.

 

I am not sure you read my response correctly.

I meant the government has done a good job brainwashing you into thinking they are required for you to succeed.

The first step for any repressive government is to condition its people into thinking they need government to survive. That government is the answer to everything. They seem to have succeeded in this with regards to you.

I live in England, of course I've been brainwashed to an extent, we're world famous for it.

But you can't deny that they have given me A LOT of help with my education. I mean the evidence is tangible, I have an education, I've been to uni, I was effectively given a few years wages to help me out.



vlad321 on 22 April 2009
Viper1 said:
Son1x said:
Slovenia 38 ^^
Pretty good for a country like that.

Read more of the thread.  We've found out the list is almost a decade old and highly subjective and not based on much analytical data.

 

Then it was later shown the claim to subjectivity is rather bullshit itself. The same criterion was used across all countries or this, and you can readily measure a health of a perosn quantifiably, unlike say happiness or dissatisfaction. The only reason it's old is because the WHO just don't have the capital to do another study.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

akuma587 on 22 April 2009
HappySqurriel said:

 

Except that healthcare (for the most part) is not an emergency service ...

People make choices which allow their body to deteriorate over long periods of time to a level where it becomes an emergency, they then are faced with expensive care to return them to the pre-emergency status quo, and then they have years of amazingly expensive care in an attempt to reverse the damage that they have done. There is minimal cost (and in some cases massive savings) in an individual preventing the most common and costly illnesses, and there are massive costs associated with repairing the damage from their choices.

If people took care of themself, healthcare costs would be around 1/4 to 1/3 their current cost and the majority of those costs would be associated with unpreventable illnesses, injuries, and preventative healthcare and the system would be great for everyone regardless of who ran the system ... In contrast, while people still refuse to protect their own health and we develop new long term (and expensive) treatments to keep people with preventable illnesses alive longer costs will continue to skyrocket and the healthcare system will be poor for everyone regardless of who runs the system.

 

Police protection in many cases is not an emergency service.  If I call up the police because there is a crazy party next store at 5 AM in the morning or if there are non-violent drug deals going on across the street, that is not an emergency.  Does that mean I should have to pay the police to come out and do something?

Same thing with national defense.  There are very few true "emergencies" in the national defense context.  Does that mean the government should charge people directly to protect their cities and borders from attack when there isn't a war?

And one of the reasons WHY government sponsored healthcare is a good idea is that it would encourage people to go to the doctor earlier and solve little problems before they become big problems.  A lot of people do not go to the doctor early on because they are worried about the cost or worried they will be diagnosed with something that could lead to a rise in their health insurance costs or getting dropped from their healthcare provider altogether.  If anything, the reason you cited is a good reason WHY the government should sponsor healthcare.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
vlad321 on 22 April 2009
mrstickball said:
vlad321 said:
Viper1 said:

That's a rather dubious proposition though.  You can't base a health care system on something like that.

 

Well what I'm saying is to let the government pay the researchers and doctors to discover the cure. Maybe slightly inefficient (maybe if people in government were assigned by merit not favor done to the guy above) but it would still be better off for everyone than if a business did it. I'd rather pay the government than some person in a business, at least I control who I'm paying for a week every 4 years, not so with a business.

At least the politicians have a little more incentive than jsut money, they need to get re-elected, so they serve the people at least to a larger amount of a degree than a pure businessman.

 

Wrong. You elect businessmen with your dollars every day. You elect politicians once every 4 years in the US, but the lifespan of a businessman is far worse if they perform badly. How many CEOs get fired a year versus politicans? I'd argue that the CEO has to do far more to be viable than the politician. Not only this, many Americans vote for politicians not based on results, but rather promises. Politics is far more promise-driven than results-driven.

Because of that, capitalism-based programs can, and always will be better when money is involved. Businesses seek to be more efficient than the next one, because there's something called 'competition'.

And that's what truly makes capitalism based solutions better: Competition. With public healthcare, pension, and schools, there is absolutely, positively, no competition for something 'better' - it just exists. With no real competition in a given field, the quality suffers. Go look at the US education system. When it was private-based, it was much better in quality. But when federal funding took it over in the name of fairness, we've now plunged ourselves in a bad mess - more problems, less solutions, because those that are in power really don't have the abilities, nor drive, to create true solutions.

Attack all you want, but the United States, despite being this 'hyper-capitalist' state that some deride, still is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, and did it with much bigger obstacles than what Europe has faced.

 

 

No, just... No. The ONLY reason the US is "prospering" is because of the fact that every other country was anihilated thoroughly in the 2 world wars. No one else had any industry or any development. No one had anythign elft. In fact it's kind of pathetic that a nation which got levelled by the Germans and took 20 million in casualties, was able to "compete" with a nation which was thoroughly unafected. Not a single factory was destroyed, no civilians died, no homeland attacks (Pearl Harbor was a millitary base and tha was it). So no, US's prosperity is based on the fact that no one else had anything, and that all the rich and smart people feld to the US. Thinkig otherwise is pure ignorance.

 

As to your elected thing. Take my AIDS cure as an example. You aren't electing naything. Those people can raise the price as high as they wish. It would be the political equivalent of a Dictatorship. No thank you. I'd rather have the government take it. The job of every business is to do better than the competitors, and if opssible, drive them out of business. Yes prices may lower, but as soon as there is no alternative they more than make up for it.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

SamuelRSmith on 22 April 2009
Viper1 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
@TheRealMafoo

The fact that you see the Government as something to be weary of, well, it just... I dunno, worries me?

Perhaps you need to move to a freer country.

 

Governments, by their very nature, should be of great concern for apathy is the dream of oppressors.

 

*shakes head* You know, there's a difference between apathy and trusting a Government.



mrstickball on 22 April 2009

Do you have any data to back your claim up, Vlad?

In 1925, which was pre-WW2, the United States economy was 4.15x the size of the United Kingdom. Today, the United States is at 6.40x the size of the United Kingdom.

So the size of the American economy, pre-WW2 has INCREASED versus the UK. If you can pull some European stats together, I'd like to see it, but until you can provide proof, I'd like to see it.

In 1900, the United States had the 3rd highest GDP per person at $4,096. France was at $2,849 and Germany was at $3,134. The only higher nations were New Zealand and Australia.

I'd really like some data that shows how the European economy was vastly superior within the past ~100 years. I understand 2 world wars decimated European economies, but America had a civil war in 1860, but that didn't prevent us from having the 3rd highest GDP in a mere 35 years after the war. We're 60 years removed from WW2, so that's really not much different than the 1900 comparison of the US having a great GDP back then, as it does today.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

donathos on 22 April 2009
SamuelRSmith said:
Viper1 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
@TheRealMafoo

The fact that you see the Government as something to be weary of, well, it just... I dunno, worries me?

Perhaps you need to move to a freer country.

 

Governments, by their very nature, should be of great concern for apathy is the dream of oppressors.

 

*shakes head* You know, there's a difference between apathy and trusting a Government.

 

Government shouldn't be "trusted."

I'm not saying that we should all hole ourselves up in a bunker in northern Idaho, either; there's no need for anti-government paranoia.  However, government is an incredibly powerful entity--it holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  It has the unique power to lawfully strip a person of life, liberty and property.

Government, therefore, should be strictly and scrupulously controlled, like a powerful attack dog.  You don't let such a dog run free in the neighborhood, "trusting" it to be good.  You "trust" it when you know that your fence is high and your chain is strong.



Rpruett on 22 April 2009
vlad321 said:
mrstickball said:
vlad321 said:
Viper1 said:

That's a rather dubious proposition though.  You can't base a health care system on something like that.

 

Well what I'm saying is to let the government pay the researchers and doctors to discover the cure. Maybe slightly inefficient (maybe if people in government were assigned by merit not favor done to the guy above) but it would still be better off for everyone than if a business did it. I'd rather pay the government than some person in a business, at least I control who I'm paying for a week every 4 years, not so with a business.

At least the politicians have a little more incentive than jsut money, they need to get re-elected, so they serve the people at least to a larger amount of a degree than a pure businessman.

 

Wrong. You elect businessmen with your dollars every day. You elect politicians once every 4 years in the US, but the lifespan of a businessman is far worse if they perform badly. How many CEOs get fired a year versus politicans? I'd argue that the CEO has to do far more to be viable than the politician. Not only this, many Americans vote for politicians not based on results, but rather promises. Politics is far more promise-driven than results-driven.

Because of that, capitalism-based programs can, and always will be better when money is involved. Businesses seek to be more efficient than the next one, because there's something called 'competition'.

And that's what truly makes capitalism based solutions better: Competition. With public healthcare, pension, and schools, there is absolutely, positively, no competition for something 'better' - it just exists. With no real competition in a given field, the quality suffers. Go look at the US education system. When it was private-based, it was much better in quality. But when federal funding took it over in the name of fairness, we've now plunged ourselves in a bad mess - more problems, less solutions, because those that are in power really don't have the abilities, nor drive, to create true solutions.

Attack all you want, but the United States, despite being this 'hyper-capitalist' state that some deride, still is one of the most prosperous nations in the world, and did it with much bigger obstacles than what Europe has faced.

 

 

No, just... No. The ONLY reason the US is "prospering" is because of the fact that every other country was anihilated thoroughly in the 2 world wars.

Well,  whose fault is that? Shouldn't France and other countries be able to protect themselves?  I mean America was essential into winning both of those wars.  Why was America so powerful and European countries so weak?  You also seem to forget how much money America loaned to the bigger European nations after the war.  Much of which,  Never was repaid I'm sure.

 

No one else had any industry or any development. No one had anythign elft. In fact it's kind of pathetic that a nation which got levelled by the Germans and took 20 million in casualties, was able to "compete" with a nation which was thoroughly unafected.

What European nations 'competed' with America toe to toe?  It wasn't until a full 30 years after WWII that Europe even started to make a push.  Even still,  not one of those countries individually has the production of the US. 

 

Not a single factory was destroyed, no civilians died, no homeland attacks (Pearl Harbor was a millitary base and tha was it). So no, US's prosperity is based on the fact that no one else had anything, and that all the rich and smart people feld to the US. Thinkig otherwise is pure ignorance.

Pearl Harbor had civilians that died.   US's prosperity is purely based on an econmic system that works combined with a form of government that works.  A system that appeases the people from all walks of life.

 

As to your elected thing. Take my AIDS cure as an example. You aren't electing naything. Those people can raise the price as high as they wish. It would be the political equivalent of a Dictatorship. No thank you. I'd rather have the government take it. The job of every business is to do better than the competitors, and if opssible, drive them out of business. Yes prices may lower, but as soon as there is no alternative they more than make up for it.

 

Now that's just sad.  Why should some bureaucrat decide what's best for you and your life?   That's so weak.