[QUOTE=Chernarus;37569135]My point was many Americans would be severely angry if they had to pay the tax we do.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I guess I must have misread your post.
[QUOTE=Lazor;37568147]profit is an inherent waste built into america's healthcare system so i'm going to guess that $750 Billion is lowballing it[/QUOTE]
I would love to hear your explanation on how profit is to blame for the state of the american healthcare system, rather than the government, considering this is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the country.
so this is where the money for my ACL reconstruction goes.. okay.
$15,000 copay
this includes MRI, surgery, anesthesia, hospital time, physical therapy..
that's out of pocket.
[QUOTE=Noble;37571140]I would love to hear your explanation on how profit is to blame for the state of the american healthcare system, rather than the government, considering this is one of the most heavily government-regulated industries in the country.[/QUOTE]
Possibly because the system set itself up to forcefully include private companies where there should be none, so funding, equipment, and legal processes go every which when a socialist/government owned system is much more direct. There should be no private profit in healthcare.
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37571843]Possibly because the system set itself up to forcefully include private companies [b]where there should be none[/b], so funding, equipment, and legal processes go every which when a socialist/government owned system is much more direct. There should be no private profit in healthcare.[/QUOTE]
You're begging the question there, dude.
And how exactly are private companies "forcefully" included? They set up their business, offer goods and services, and you purchase them if you want them.
[QUOTE=Noble;37572498]You're begging the question there, dude.
And how exactly are private companies "forcefully" included? They set up their business, offer goods and services, and you purchase them if you want them.[/QUOTE]
These services are ones which need to be provided for free, the protection of your life isn't a service or good, and even if it means people have to pay for it in tax, it is well worth it. When business is included into healthcare and such, they get greedy and don't offer a better service in return. Selflessness should come over the monetary wealth of a business or individual. They are forcefully integrated into healthcare in that the government turns to them for aid, private investors and hospitals and such, and in that things like medicare can be exploited nastily by said investors.
[editline]7th September 2012[/editline]
The economy should have no effect on the health of someone, and no business should make a profit off of the well being of people.
[QUOTE=Pandamox;37564340]i enjoy not paying out the ass for health care in canada but i don't enjoy waiting 6 months for an operation to get my shoulder fixed
our health care system might seem perfect but there's definitely some problems still[/QUOTE]
At least you actually get seen
This is actually my mother's job, trying to reduce unneeded care, unnecessary return visits and the like at her hospital. She also works on trying to implement checklists and standards for typical medical procedures.
She's really passionate about it, but it's hell because none of the doctors or nurses give a damn and usually just tell her off. None of them want to change anything.
It also doesn't help that sometimes the receptionists or whatever put down appointments wrong.
I was told after my last physical to come in six months later because I was behind on some shots. About five months later, I call the doctor's office to tell them "Hey, I was told to come in about this time because I need a couple of shots".
I get into the office and everyone's all confused about why I came in for what I did. I explain to the doc "the nurse just wanted me to get some shots today was all". But apparently I got booked for another full on physical.
That could just be my particular doctor's problem but I doubt this lady is the only one who's done such things. I have a primary doctor so we caught the mistake, but people who have to rely on walk-in clinics might not have that luxury.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;37564267]This is why we need to adopt Canada's and Europe's style of healthcare, instead of paying exorbitant amounts of money to see a goddamn doctor.[/QUOTE]
Because Europe's economy is doing so well right now.
Healthcare is joined at the hip with Economics.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;37573155]Because Europe's economy is doing so well right now.
Healthcare is joined at the hip with Economics.[/QUOTE]
Canada is doing very well.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;37573155]Because Europe's economy is doing so well right now.
Healthcare is joined at the hip with Economics.[/QUOTE]
Healthcare isn't at the root of Europe's economic issues, and even if it was, I'd rather live and live in a poor world as a poor person than die, I'd rather live in a poor world as a poor person than watch others die. People prioritize trade and wealth over life and death out of greed and obsolete mental functions.
[QUOTE=The golden;37573183]I think this is a really common misunderstanding about Canadian healthcare. It's unfortunately become popualr belief that our medical system is slow and that wait times are long. While there is some merit to some of those things, any medical situation that is urgent or requires a faster care response is almost always fast-tracked and done ASAP.
A bummed shoulder that is aching will get you a longer wait time than someone who requires surgery immediately. My sister has been in and out of the hospital for the past 7 to 8 years due to her crohn's disease. Some of her examination and surgical procedures are not necessarily urgent, but with the right doctor, schedule depending, she can get surgery planned and done within the span of a week.[/QUOTE]
I figure as long as I'm treated quickly when I seriously need healthcare ASAP, I can wait if I'm going in for my yearly checkup.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37573169]Canada is doing very well.[/QUOTE]
and Australia
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;37573155]Because Europe's economy is doing so well right now.
[/QUOTE]
uh
it's doing better than the US
[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;37572962]These services are ones which need to be provided for free, the protection of your life isn't a service or good, and even if it means people have to pay for it in tax, it is well worth it.[/quote]
Health care is a good/service though. Other things we need are commodities too: food, clothing, shelter, and so on.
[quote]When business is included into healthcare and such, they get greedy and don't offer a better service in return. Selflessness should come over the monetary wealth of a business or individual.[/quote]
I have to just simply disagree with you on this point, because
1. Competition normally would put that in check, but the government regulations stifle competition by making it more expensive to enter the market and comply with regulations (big businesses can absorb these costs)
2. Greed is limited by fear. Someone might be greedy for more gains but they're also going to be afraid of losses. They wouldn't be able to do whatever they want out of pure greed, because if they offer shitty products, they will take losses as they get trampled by competitors. They will strive to make better products for consumers and make more profits that way.
[quote]They are forcefully integrated into healthcare in that the government turns to them for aid, private investors and hospitals and such, and in that things like medicare can be exploited nastily by said investors.[/quote]
This would actually be something I'm against.
[quote]The economy should have no effect on the health of someone, and no business should make a profit off of the well being of people.[/QUOTE]
If this is the case then why don't we just ban all private food companies and nationalize everything (food, clothing, housing, health care)? Businesses all profit from those things.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;37566748]Haha I remember a while ago down here in Australia, hospitals (at least my local hospital) were telling people to fuck off if they came in with ridiculous things such as a cold. Well they didn't actually say fuck off but still.[/QUOTE]
The busiest times for A&E in the UK is Friday and Saturday night because of people falling over drunk and thinking they need urgent surgery.
When the 7/7 London bombs happened people were told, "we're expecting a large influx of patients needing immediate care, if your illness can wait or it can be treated by your local GP then please leave" and 90% of people walked out. They should do it more often.
I bet a lot of that money is going for some useless stuff and someone's pocket. They should really reform the health care with a firm hand.
[QUOTE=Noble;37575236]1. Competition normally would put that in check, but the government regulations stifle competition by making it more expensive to enter the market and comply with regulations (big businesses can absorb these costs)[/QUOTE]
This is hilariously wrong.
Regulation is a necessity in any system which involves science beyond the ability of individuals to verify. Joe Plumber might realize alternative medicine is dumb by himself, but he's not in a position to test the efficacy and dangers of palladium 103 brachytherapy, nor is any small or medium sized business he could hope to establish. Such testing is in the purview of the largest private sector businesses and the public sector only. Since a free market is only free to the extent its least wealthy participants are capable of making educated decisions, a free market requires regulation.
A common counterargument is self-made voluntary private sector standards, which are automatically invalid substitutes as they involve a conflict of interest. You cannot trust a man selling you an X to be impartial about the qualities of that X, even if he has competition, because all X selling firms are capable of lying unless regulated. Independent of an objective source of information, there is no way for consumers to determine what firms are and are not lying, and objective sources of information cannot arise from self-interest. You could deny that, but it would just firmly invalidate your opinion as it demonstrates a misunderstanding of empiricism.
[QUOTE=Noble;37575236]2. Greed is limited by fear.[/QUOTE]
[img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/%22Citation_needed%22.jpg[/img_thumb]
So I have been reflecting on the massive amount of political news threats about the Election that get posted, and how we always argue in them, etc.
Should I make a Megathread for all Election related talking in the General Discussions forum?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37581019]This is hilariously wrong.
Regulation is a necessity in any system which involves science beyond the ability of individuals to verify. Joe Plumber might realize alternative medicine is dumb by himself, but he's not in a position to test the efficacy and dangers of palladium 103 brachytherapy, nor is any small or medium sized business he could hope to establish. Such testing is in the purview of the largest private sector businesses and the public sector only. Since a free market is only free to the extent its least wealthy participants are capable of making educated decisions, a free market requires regulation.
A common counterargument is self-made voluntary private sector standards, which are automatically invalid substitutes as they involve a conflict of interest. You cannot trust a man selling you an X to be impartial about the qualities of that X, even if he has competition, because all X selling firms are capable of lying unless regulated. Independent of an objective source of information, there is no way for consumers to determine what firms are and are not lying, and objective sources of information cannot arise from self-interest. You could deny that, but it would just firmly invalidate your opinion as it demonstrates a misunderstanding of empiricism.[/quote]
This can be easily addressed with independent auditing groups (and these already exist). I was speaking out only against government regulation (coercive), not any form of regulation.
[quote][img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/%22Citation_needed%22.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Greed for more profits is limited by fear of losses. You can be greedy for more profits, by expanding your business for example, but you might choose not to do it out of fear that you will lose money overall. I don't see why a citation is needed, this is common sense that anyone who runs a business could tell you.
[QUOTE=Noble;37588835]Greed for more profits is limited by fear of losses. You can be greedy for more profits, by expanding your business for example, but you might choose not to do it out of fear that you will lose money overall. I don't see why a citation is needed, this is common sense that anyone who runs a business could tell you.[/QUOTE]
Firstly this assumes every business owner is a sane and rational human being. (no)
Secondly, if its such common sense, have you done any studies to back this up?
Like, having evidence that happens?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37589784]Firstly this assumes every business owner is a sane and rational human being. (no)
Secondly, if its such common sense, have you done any studies to back this up?
Like, having evidence that happens?[/QUOTE]
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Are you asking me to provide evidence that business owners generally try to make smart investments that maximize profits and avoid foolish investments that lose their money?
[QUOTE=Noble;37590146]I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Are you asking me to provide evidence that business owners generally try to make smart investments that maximize profits and avoid foolish investments that lose their money?[/QUOTE]
Evidence is required for this:
[quote]2. Greed is limited by fear.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37590177]Evidence is required for this:[/QUOTE]
It's a pretty simple claim, I don't really get why it's controversial. Maybe I could have just rephrased it more clearly by saying that your ability to act on your greed is limited by your fear of the losses that might result from it.
Say you're running a business and you want to expand by offering a new product or service to your customers, in an attempt to increase your revenue and your profits. You might later decide that this might be a bad investment overall and that you will lose your money by doing it (these fears could later turn out to be unfounded, but they will affect what you do at the present time).
[QUOTE=Noble;37590309]It's a pretty simple claim, I don't really get why it's controversial.[/QUOTE]
Because there's no evidence for it.
[QUOTE=Noble;37588835]This can be easily addressed with independent auditing groups (and these already exist).[/QUOTE]
Be more specific, lad, that could mean accountants as easily as whatever you meant.
[QUOTE=Noble;37588835]I was speaking out only against government regulation (coercive), not any form of regulation.[/QUOTE]
All regulation is coercive, that's kinda the idea.
[QUOTE=Mrs. Moon;37573155]Because Europe's economy is doing so well right now.
Healthcare is joined at the hip with Economics.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes. the EU IS doing okay right now compare to the USA. The EU, collectively, has less debt/GDP ratio compare to the US (who already went past 100% of GDP). The problem with the EU is the political system on how to manage its economics. Not the economy, nor the currency, neither its member states' welfare systems.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37574987]uh
it's doing better than the US[/QUOTE]
Good one.
United States:
GDP: $15.606 trillion
GDP Growth: 2.3%
GDP per capita: $48,450
Inflation: 1.7%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 15.1%
European Union:
GDP: $17.578 trillion
GDP Growth: 1.6%
GDP per capita: $35,116
Inflation: 3.1%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 17%
[QUOTE=Ast_risk;37593252]Good one.
United States:
GDP: $15.606 trillion
GDP Growth: 2.3%
GDP per capita: $48,450
Inflation: 1.7%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 15.1%
European Union:
GDP: $17.578 trillion
GDP Growth: 1.6%
GDP per capita: $35,116
Inflation: 3.1%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 17%[/QUOTE]
You just compared the debt of a collection of countries against one, of course the collection is gonna be higher.
[QUOTE=Ast_risk;37593252]Good one.
United States:
GDP: $15.606 trillion
GDP Growth: 2.3%
GDP per capita: $48,450
Inflation: 1.7%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 15.1%
European Union:
GDP: $17.578 trillion
GDP Growth: 1.6%
GDP per capita: $35,116
Inflation: 3.1%
Percentage of Population below poverty line: 17%[/QUOTE]
Now compare the USA to ONLY England, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany,Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc.
(yes I know two of those countries are not in the EU)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.