My problem with a standard coverage package for health care in public domain is the sheer effort required to build and keep it up to date if you do it correctly. A sea of different medications must be tested and evaluated continuously, and then decision flow charts need to be created to validate a course of action based on that data. Otherwise, you won't be able to determine what is an acceptable health cost, what's covered, and what you need to pay for out of pocket above and beyond the accepted norm.
So, as an example, if a certain antibiotic is recommended as the standard coverage medication for most infections because it's cheap and has a high success rate, how do we decide what to do when a patient is allergic to this medication and the only alternative is much more expensive? Is this cost just rolled into the overhead of the program? At what point do we have to admit that the current recommended standard medication isn't good enough anymore and the overhead costs are too high, so we need to switch?
And this is just around a single medication for a single condition. What about techniques and procedures? I'm not arguing any moral ground here, I'm saying that logically, you'll have to define and maintain a deterministic decision chart for every condition you can, and you'll have to establish a way of querying for answers on the gray cases.
This is a problem that exists in the current (well, immediately previous) system as well.
I'd rather have the government give low interest loans to people who need money for health care. Just treat it like student loans. Basically you can just keep getting them, but they'll never be in deferment. You've got to start paying them back immediately. And we can even be pretty flexible as to payments. As long as you give some money, I think it's still going to be a better situation. Some of our taxes can go into this, and maybe we can invest in a fund at a low return rate with pre-tax money. Existing health support systems like medicare and medicaid could shift to providing money to pay of these loans for the qualified people already in them.
I would SOOO drop $2000-$3000 a year pre-tax of my income if it were like a government CD or something, where 5-10 years from now it will be dropped into my 401K with a 5-6% APR.
The advantage here is that since the borrower is now directly responsible for the money, they will be more careful about wasting it. They won't go to the ER for a cold and get antibiotics that will do nothing. They won't get an MRI because they get headaches every few months. But they will get treatment when they really need it, and then they'll do their best to pay it of over their lifetime. Kinda like how we're paying on student loans well into our 50s.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'd rather have the government give low interest loans to people who need money for health care. Just treat it like student loans.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem with this idea is that costs of care (not insurance costs) will skyrocket the same way tuition rates have. The nearly unlimited source of funding would eliminate the need for competitive pricing. I also believe that the widespread use of medical insurance over the last generation has had the same impact on cost of care.
<!--quoteo(post=1827868:date=Jan 27 2011, 03:52 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 27 2011, 03:52 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827868"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->because private insurance is allowed to jack up the rates since it doesn't have to be all-inclusive<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, that's not how it works. If you don't have to be all-inclusive, you can reduce rates, because you aren't forced to charge more to make up for covering people you wouldn't typically offer that level of coverage to. Insurance coverage available to everyone regardless of health is by its very nature the most expensive.
<!--quoteo(post=1827837:date=Jan 27 2011, 02:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 27 2011, 02:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their corruption is inevitable because privatization is heralded as the best possible option. We agree that this furthers corruption. <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->But your answer to that is... privatization? <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->That's an odd conclusion to draw. I would expect the very opposite to be the solution - don't privatize government programs. And why should you? A government program is owned by the government, or as the U.S. constitution so beautifully puts it, "we the people." Why should the people give their property away? Madness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you are confusing and blending two completely different ideas into one. Maybe the word "privatization" is muddling things. It is one thing for someone to make an individual decision to buy something, but it is completely different for their money to be taken away in order to buy something on their behalf, whether that something is ultimately provided by government or (through privatization) corporation. (Or even worse, a purchase made <b>with credit</b> on their behalf) And it is this very reason that government is NOT equivalent to "We the people." The Constitution was written to lay down some rules and framework so government wouldn't get out of hand. Government is not the same as the people, and it's not the same thing as society; it's more like a national corporation in which everyone is forced to be paying customers, like a mandatory monopoly, and that's why bigger government is not always the answer.
On subprime, etc... I agree it seems people want to blame the homeowners or the banks, but if the government didn't promote the disproportionate and dishonest credit expansion, no one would have gotten into trouble in the first place, with no incentive to do so. It's like the microcredit farmers scam in 3rd world nations that bankrupts them and then eventually forces them to give up ownership of their industry, enslaving them financially. Bankrolled by the World Bank, btw, who graciously supports research promoting its agenda to bankrupt 1st world nations as well. It's just a little more complicated when more wealth is involved; you have to include more than just farming equipment; you need to have universal health care plans, bank bailouts, wars of occupation, currency and commodity protections, and loans for everything from houses to higher education, making prices astronomical(as Rob and Spooge mention), and causing bubbles. It's times like these you understand why usury used to be a sin.
<!--quoteo(post=1827884:date=Jan 27 2011, 05:49 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 27 2011, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827884"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with this idea is that costs of care (not insurance costs) will skyrocket the same way tuition rates have. The nearly unlimited source of funding would eliminate the need for competitive pricing. I also believe that the widespread use of medical insurance over the last generation has had the same impact on cost of care.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point. Hm. Well I'm all out of ideas then, :P
Tax based financing of health care works and doesn't lead to cost inflation in the direct way you're describing. Why that is I don't know and won't try to explain, except that I think having third party for profit insurance companies might explain the US situation. The examples of it working are out there at any rate, just compare the different solutions of the industrialised countries and you'll come to the same conclusion. I've linked you to a great resource ( www.gapminder.com ), go play around. That site is neat :)
My biggest issue with the turn this thread has taken though is that it seems not everyone think we should pool together and make sure everyone gets proper health care. I think it's a great idea, and a thing of solidarity. I can't see one reason why I wouldn't want to make sure everyone got treatment if they got sick without being put on the street because of it. Saying it's their problem and I shouldn't have to pay because I'm not sick is pretty mean. Do unto others etc..
tjosan, I agree with your position, so it pains me to see you make claims without anything to back them up. Your first paragraph in particular. Great points there, and I fully believe you. But others in this thread won't and will play the "do you have any proof" card, and just saying "play around with gapminder" isn't going to cut it. Point out specifics. When you leave it to those who disagree with you to find the information that supports YOUR position, they never will.
I started summarise data myself, which is both stupid, sloppy and counter-productive. I blame being very tired and still slightly feverish. I'll do at least five better though: I'll ask a few peers who work with these things for suggestions of decent sources. That'll take a few days unfortunately.
Your point is well taken lolfighter, I will behave more appropriately in the future!
<!--quoteo(post=1827915:date=Jan 27 2011, 06:33 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tjosan @ Jan 27 2011, 06:33 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827915"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->we should pool together and make sure everyone gets proper health care<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. But that's not what is offered by government healthcare. That is about forcing others to give money to a 3rd party, not about banding together in solidarity. Philanthropy is not coercive.
I would much rather directly give donations to organizations who I trust and can research in depth and from whom, if they mess up or become corrupt, I can immediately switch funding (voting with my money) to another more beneficial charity.
Instead of banding together with torches and pitchforks to force greedy people to pay as much as we have paid, just to line the pockets of other greedy people, we should band together to change the climate of charity in our communities.
That's like first thing you have in Linear Algebra course: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_independence" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_independence</a>
With respect to the "wolf" I meant Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Repulic, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on.
<!--quoteo(post=1827986:date=Jan 28 2011, 06:13 AM:name=MOOtant)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 28 2011, 06:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827986"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's like first thing you have in Linear Algebra course: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_independence" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_independence</a>
With respect to the "wolf" I meant Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Repulic, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What are you insinuating? That government-run health insurance will turn the U.S. into North Korea?
Wow, heavy stuff. I am pleased to see so many replys to this thread. To see such an involved discussion on a “gamer’s forum†proves to me that no matter where you are, if you turn over a stone there are going to be controversy and valid discussion. Why can’t we see this on the major news media? It’s a lot of name calling, agendas and sound bites with no concern for the truth. Here there is disagreement and discourse but it has the tone and temper of thoughtful people trying to come to a consensus. (well, there is a touch of “I’m right and you’re notâ€) There is strong evidence that a private for profit healthcare system that is “regulated†so as to be fair and allow balanced competition will provide the best care. The problem with the present system in the U.S. is the big medical corporations hire lobbyists to lobby our congress to write laws that are not balanced and not fair to the customers (the public). This does not allow the free market to adapt and innovate to provide the most efficient and effective health care. Medicare is a large government run healthcare. The service is provided by private for profit providers and is regulated. It is an example of a single payer system. It is paid for through payroll taxes and payments from the beneficiaries. It is not perfect but it is available to all who meet the requirements (People who are 65 and older.) In theory a large medical corporation should be able to out compete and take business away from the government. They can’t because that would mean using innovation and making their business competitive instead of stacking the deck with lobbyists and oligarchies to amass profits. An analogy I like to point out is the package delivery services compared to the U.S. Postal service. I know this is comparing apples to aardvarks because the postal service has some requirements that the competition doesn’t but can see my point.
<!--quoteo(post=1828014:date=Jan 28 2011, 01:18 AM:name=1stToast)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (1stToast @ Jan 28 2011, 01:18 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828014"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The problem with the present system in the U.S. is the big medical corporations hire lobbyists to lobby our congress to write laws that are not balanced and not fair to the customers (the public). This does not allow the free market to adapt and innovate to provide the most efficient and effective health care.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I Agree with that^^
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->In theory a large medical corporation should be able to out compete and take business away from the government.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> They can’t because that would mean using innovation and making their business competitive instead of stacking the deck with lobbyists and oligarchies to amass profits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, they do stack the deck, it's true, but I disagree that in theory a large corporation could out-compete the government. This is because the government "cheats" with bonus money on their balance sheet. If the program is well-funded enough, they could ideally <b>provide any service for a price of $0</b>. Business, providing goods and services, is based on revenue and cost; it's an inescapable part of physical reality because human resources and physical resources are scare.
Imagine you open up a lemonade stand, 25c for a lemonade. Then the "<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->PA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->TR<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue"><!--/coloro-->IOT<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Lemons"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> stand opens up next to you, funded by the government. Their lemonades are 5c. Damn! Okay, you say, I'll just out-compete and make my lemonade so good, people will pay a premium for it. So you do. But then the government uses its $10Billion in lemonade funds to research how to make the best lemonade. And they reduce the price to free. And they launch a massive ad campaign, "Be Strong. Be Lemonade Strong." How you gonna compete with THAT?!
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1828137:date=Jan 28 2011, 12:43 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 28 2011, 12:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine you open up a lemonade stand, 25c for a lemonade. Then the "<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->PA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->TR<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue"><!--/coloro-->IOT<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Lemons"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> stand opens up next to you, funded by the government. Their lemonades are 5c. Damn! Okay, you say, I'll just out-compete and make my lemonade so good, people will pay a premium for it. So you do. But then the government uses its $10Billion in lemonade funds to research how to make the best lemonade. And they reduce the price to free. And they launch a massive ad campaign, "Be Strong. Be Lemonade Strong." How you gonna compete with THAT?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, the government uses the FDA to impose massive fees or outright bans on the manufacturer of your root components and then signs no-bid contracts with a supplier that lobbied for an exemption.
<!--quoteo(post=1828146:date=Jan 28 2011, 12:36 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Spooge @ Jan 28 2011, 12:36 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Or, the government uses the FDA to impose massive fees or outright bans on the manufacturer of your root components and then signs no-bid contracts with a supplier that lobbied for an exemption.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would lol if it weren't true.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
edited January 2011
There's a great column on the effects of federal subsidies to universities and the selective bureaucratic "strong-arming" that goes along with it at Reason.com today: <a href="http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/28/grade-inflation" target="_blank">Reason.com - Grade Inflation</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1828137:date=Jan 28 2011, 04:43 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (juice @ Jan 28 2011, 04:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1828137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Imagine you open up a lemonade stand, 25c for a lemonade. Then the "<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->PA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->TR<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue"><!--/coloro-->IOT<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Lemons"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> stand opens up next to you, funded by the government. Their lemonades are 5c. Damn! Okay, you say, I'll just out-compete and make my lemonade so good, people will pay a premium for it. So you do. But then the government uses its $10Billion in lemonade funds to research how to make the best lemonade. And they reduce the price to free. And they launch a massive ad campaign, "Be Strong. Be Lemonade Strong." How you gonna compete with THAT?!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd be pretty happy that I have all this awesome free lemonade.
I find it bizarre that there would be so many people against a public healthcare system.
In Australia we've got Medicare (public healthcare system), yet many still opt into private funds for further coverage and benefits (eg. bypassing 3 year waiting periods for non-urgent surgeries). If you're paying for private coverage as well, you get a tax rebate each year from the Medicare levy.
I hear so many stories from the US where people avoid going to see the doctor just to save a few dollars, and end up having to pay far more for treatment (or worse) as a result.
I find it bizarre that there would be so many people against a public healthcare system.
In Australia we've got Medicare (public healthcare system), yet many still opt into private funds for further coverage and benefits (eg. bypassing 3 year waiting periods for non-urgent surgeries). If you're paying for private coverage as well, you get a tax rebate each year from the Medicare levy.
I hear so many stories from the US where people avoid going to see the doctor just to save a few dollars, and end up having to pay far more for treatment (or worse) as a result.
Lots of people suffer under the idea that private markets can provide either superior or cheaper health insurance than governments, when the bulk of the evidence suggests otherwise. Thankfully, in the U.S., we've at least achieved universal coverage, even if it's mostly through private insurance markets.
What would the plot of Breaking Bad be if it were set in Britain, New Zealand, AU and etc.? 6 months of medical treatment followed by retirement?
So many countries have a public healthcare system which hasn’t fallen down around our ears (except maybe Japan, but that's different), why does the U.S need to feel slightly different, both with this and the metric system...
Anyway, it's all only my two cents but let me tell you the story of my birth.
Driving quickly to the hospital resulting in a ticket. No way to wave the fee due broken water or anything... Getting to the hospital, some of the needed insurance papers had not been taken with us/ in the car/ suspended in limbo, the point was, not with us.
My mom had to stand screaming by the receptionists’ desk while forms were collected. Not for that long a time granted, but what kind of culture would look at that and go: wait here please, you can't get a bed until we know you can pay. Heaven forbid what would happen if we couldn’t find the documentation, I would most likely be born on the street.
I live in the Czech Republic that has recently undergone a transformation from a de-facto Soviet colony ruled by a local communist stooges and secret police reporting to Moscow to a de-facto US colony ruled by local mafia reporting to Washington.
I can say only this - services like water, electricity, telecommunications, healthcare that has been taken from the state and given to private hands ended up being a total disaster. Cost of water for general populace has risen sharply, cost of public transport as well, health care funds are drained by corrupt insurance companies and doctors, fixed lines and DSL internet are still defacto a monopol, but can charge whatever it pleases.
You have basically two choices - you opt for a centrally controlled state system run inefficiently by incompetent bureaucrats, or you opt for a private monopolistic system run by a competent crooks whose objective is to get your money as fast as possible while providing as little service as possible.
The truth is, the incompetent bureaucrat can be sometimes accidentally replaced by someone decent, and the system might work for a while. On the other hand, the corporate crooks will never let go.
I live in the Czech Republic that has recently undergone a transformation from a de-facto Soviet colony ruled by a local communist stooges and secret police reporting to Moscow to a de-facto US colony ruled by local mafia reporting to Washington.
I can say only this - services like water, electricity, telecommunications, healthcare that has been taken from the state and given to private hands ended up being a total disaster. Cost of water for general populace has risen sharply, cost of public transport as well, health care funds are drained by corrupt insurance companies and doctors, fixed lines and DSL internet are still defacto a monopol, but can charge whatever it pleases.
You have basically two choices - you opt for a centrally controlled state system run inefficiently by incompetent bureaucrats, or you opt for a private monopolistic system run by a competent crooks whose objective is to get your money as fast as possible while providing as little service as possible.
The truth is, the incompetent bureaucrat can be sometimes accidentally replaced by someone decent, and the system might work for a while. On the other hand, the corporate crooks will never let go.
Add all this to a far-left, communist government in power and you have what's going on in Brazil right now. Lots and lots of corruption to drain all the money, and since resources are available, overprice, overtax and overcharge on everything. Sweet.
Public healthcare here is... comparable to wartime hospitals. To be honest, I think wartime hospitals were a little bit better...
Add all this to a far-left, communist government in power and you have what's going on in Brazil right now. Lots and lots of corruption to drain all the money, and since resources are available, overprice, overtax and overcharge on everything. Sweet.
Public healthcare here is... comparable to wartime hospitals. To be honest, I think wartime hospitals were a little bit better...
I cannot follow the line of argumentation. I do not see the causality between left-winged government and corruption. The countries which suffer most from corruption are those which are either poor or suffer from a lack of state authority - usually both. I don't think that it's an coincidence that most western countries (including Australia) rank very high in terms of corruption-prevention while corruption is more or less an issue in all other countries around the world regardless of the government in charge.
Thus I'd argue: if there would be a right-winged government it wouldn't change anything Brazil. Countries usually don't suffer from their government but from the role they have to play in the globalized market and the roles are quite simple: western or western-allied countries make money and the rest looses, sometimes more and sometimes less. I can't see a non-communist government in Brazil doing anything about that. In Germany it is agreed upon the very high level of welfare and public health services. Be it conservative or left-winged parties, everyone agrees that most of the tax income is to be spent of social services. Water services are socialized in Germany as a reaction to the quite devastating resulsts of water privatization in England. I suppose from an US-American perspective Germany would seem like Socialism at is best - most Scandinavian countries go way further. For good reason as I think; there are goods and services which are necessary for life and it should be taken care of that these goods and services are distributed among the people who need it and not only to those who can pay. There are things which aren't meant to be traded but to be shared. Health, education, water, food and shelter are some of those essentials of which I'd say it would be wrong to put a price tag on them or privatizing them. Thus I'm not really into the way health and education is handled in the USA example, namely via scholarships and donations. I don't think it should be free for the citizen to decide whether they want to contribute their share or not. Societies can't do without shared obligatorinesses which are to be fulfilled by everyone.
In so far I don't think that the corruption in Brazil is in any way directly linked to the political agenda of the government. However, by the way: I thought the current and previous governments in Brazil where socialdemocratic and by no means communists?!
Add all this to a far-left, communist government in power and you have what's going on in Brazil right now. Lots and lots of corruption to drain all the money, and since resources are available, overprice, overtax and overcharge on everything. Sweet.
Public healthcare here is... comparable to wartime hospitals. To be honest, I think wartime hospitals were a little bit better...
I cannot follow the line of argumentation. I do not see the causality between left-winged government and corruption. The countries which suffer most from corruption are those which are either poor or suffer from a lack of state authority - usually both. I don't think that it's an coincidence that most western countries (including Australia) rank very high in terms of corruption-prevention while corruption is more or less an issue in all other countries around the world regardless of the government in charge.
Thus I'd argue: if there would be a right-winged government it wouldn't change anything Brazil. Countries usually don't suffer from their government but from the role they have to play in the globalized market and the roles are quite simple: western or western-allied countries make money and the rest looses, sometimes more and sometimes less. I can't see a non-communist government in Brazil doing anything about that. In Germany it is agreed upon the very high level of welfare and public health services. Be it conservative or left-winged parties, everyone agrees that most of the tax income is to be spent of social services. Water services are socialized in Germany as a reaction to the quite devastating resulsts of water privatization in England. I suppose from an US-American perspective Germany would seem like Socialism at is best - most Scandinavian countries go way further. For good reason as I think; there are goods and services which are necessary for life and it should be taken care of that these goods and services are distributed among the people who need it and not only to those who can pay. There are things which aren't meant to be traded but to be shared. Health, education, water, food and shelter are some of those essentials of which I'd say it would be wrong to put a price tag on them or privatizing them. Thus I'm not really into the way health and education is handled in the USA example, namely via scholarships and donations. I don't think it should be free for the citizen to decide whether they want to contribute their share or not. Societies can't do without shared obligatorinesses which are to be fulfilled by everyone.
In so far I don't think that the corruption in Brazil is in any way directly linked to the political agenda of the government. However, by the way: I thought the current and previous governments in Brazil where socialdemocratic and by no means communists?!
The last social democrat was Fernando Henrique Cardoso, which left when Lula took power in 2003. The Workers' Party is not a social democratic party (that is PSDB, which is PT's most bitter enemy in Brazilian politics, contrary to popular belief the Brazilian Social Democracy Party is not even a right party, it's a pure center party), but they are a Bolshevik party, officially "Trotskyist Socialist" but we all know the truth here. Most of its prominent members were guerrilla fighters and communist movement leaders in the 1970-1980's, our President herself being a guerrilla fighter and leader of a faction that fought for the Bolivarian socialism branch currently employed in Venezuela, themselves heavy allies of Castro's heavy handed Cuban communism.
However, you are correct. They are corrupt not because of their political agenda (it is one I disagree with, I believe in the free market and private property), it is just made worse by it due to the way things are, but the corruption is widespread due to the fact that people are poor, uneducated and easily manipulated. Things are so bad that even the less corrupt would bring a world of change. Your line of thought is great because nobody is forced, but pretty much depend on their work for success and achievement, and that is the recipe for Germany's success. Nobody is a "forced voluntaryist" but rather rewarded properly and truly for their jobs according to their social value, while respecting the market and one's property, that is true, correctly employed social democracy, which is my foremost choice aside from Libertarianism. Money and resources are not scarce, and public money is very much real and very much available in great quantities, nobody would be complaining if there wasn't a very dark, complex, rotten system.
I highly recommend you take a look at this, it should enlighten you a little bit, though any smart fellow can realize that he is holding back.
That’s how things work in the democratic world. The truth is the Workers Party does not accept criticism. Socialism, in what the economy is concerned, is over. In politics, it survives. The Workers Party still sees itself as a Bolshevik party. And the Bolsheviks did not live well with opponents. They simply eliminated them. These blogs, sites and magazines make a pro-government party work. So far so good. The outrageous is the fact of using public money for that.
About basic services, i'm with you on that, as would most people from any point of view that is even slightly reasonable, basic services such as water, electricity and at least common housing (which includes the basics of food, shelter, etc.) should be available for free or at a minimum cost to any and all citizens of a nation, particularly where we have so many resources like our country. However, people should have the ability and incentive to go beyond this basic living. Back on the healthcare topic, at least that is implemented properly in Brazil as it is readily available to any and all, the system only suffers from lack of funding due to corruption and money being misplaced, so doctors are underpaid/undervalued, medicine is scarce and sometimes unavailable and the hospitals/health units trashed.
The healthcare system? Should be like ours in Canada. Damn, I see a show saying "his hospital bill is gonna be expensive" And up until a while ago I'd say to myself "What's a hospital bill?, don't we pay in tax dollars?" Now I know it was an American show so DAMN I don't want to live down there!
Comments
So, as an example, if a certain antibiotic is recommended as the standard coverage medication for most infections because it's cheap and has a high success rate, how do we decide what to do when a patient is allergic to this medication and the only alternative is much more expensive? Is this cost just rolled into the overhead of the program? At what point do we have to admit that the current recommended standard medication isn't good enough anymore and the overhead costs are too high, so we need to switch?
And this is just around a single medication for a single condition. What about techniques and procedures? I'm not arguing any moral ground here, I'm saying that logically, you'll have to define and maintain a deterministic decision chart for every condition you can, and you'll have to establish a way of querying for answers on the gray cases.
This is a problem that exists in the current (well, immediately previous) system as well.
I'd rather have the government give low interest loans to people who need money for health care. Just treat it like student loans. Basically you can just keep getting them, but they'll never be in deferment. You've got to start paying them back immediately. And we can even be pretty flexible as to payments. As long as you give some money, I think it's still going to be a better situation. Some of our taxes can go into this, and maybe we can invest in a fund at a low return rate with pre-tax money. Existing health support systems like medicare and medicaid could shift to providing money to pay of these loans for the qualified people already in them.
I would SOOO drop $2000-$3000 a year pre-tax of my income if it were like a government CD or something, where 5-10 years from now it will be dropped into my 401K with a 5-6% APR.
The advantage here is that since the borrower is now directly responsible for the money, they will be more careful about wasting it. They won't go to the ER for a cold and get antibiotics that will do nothing. They won't get an MRI because they get headaches every few months. But they will get treatment when they really need it, and then they'll do their best to pay it of over their lifetime. Kinda like how we're paying on student loans well into our 50s.
The problem with this idea is that costs of care (not insurance costs) will skyrocket the same way tuition rates have. The nearly unlimited source of funding would eliminate the need for competitive pricing. I also believe that the widespread use of medical insurance over the last generation has had the same impact on cost of care.
No, that's not how it works. If you don't have to be all-inclusive, you can reduce rates, because you aren't forced to charge more to make up for covering people you wouldn't typically offer that level of coverage to. Insurance coverage available to everyone regardless of health is by its very nature the most expensive.
<!--quoteo(post=1827837:date=Jan 27 2011, 02:01 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jan 27 2011, 02:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1827837"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Their corruption is inevitable because privatization is heralded as the best possible option. We agree that this furthers corruption. <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->But your answer to that is... privatization? <!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->That's an odd conclusion to draw. I would expect the very opposite to be the solution - don't privatize government programs. And why should you? A government program is owned by the government, or as the U.S. constitution so beautifully puts it, "we the people." Why should the people give their property away? Madness.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you are confusing and blending two completely different ideas into one. Maybe the word "privatization" is muddling things. It is one thing for someone to make an individual decision to buy something, but it is completely different for their money to be taken away in order to buy something on their behalf, whether that something is ultimately provided by government or (through privatization) corporation. (Or even worse, a purchase made <b>with credit</b> on their behalf) And it is this very reason that government is NOT equivalent to "We the people." The Constitution was written to lay down some rules and framework so government wouldn't get out of hand. Government is not the same as the people, and it's not the same thing as society; it's more like a national corporation in which everyone is forced to be paying customers, like a mandatory monopoly, and that's why bigger government is not always the answer.
On subprime, etc... I agree it seems people want to blame the homeowners or the banks, but if the government didn't promote the disproportionate and dishonest credit expansion, no one would have gotten into trouble in the first place, with no incentive to do so. It's like the microcredit farmers scam in 3rd world nations that bankrupts them and then eventually forces them to give up ownership of their industry, enslaving them financially. Bankrolled by the World Bank, btw, who graciously supports research promoting its agenda to bankrupt 1st world nations as well. It's just a little more complicated when more wealth is involved; you have to include more than just farming equipment; you need to have universal health care plans, bank bailouts, wars of occupation, currency and commodity protections, and loans for everything from houses to higher education, making prices astronomical(as Rob and Spooge mention), and causing bubbles. It's times like these you understand why usury used to be a sin.
Good point. Hm. Well I'm all out of ideas then, :P
My biggest issue with the turn this thread has taken though is that it seems not everyone think we should pool together and make sure everyone gets proper health care. I think it's a great idea, and a thing of solidarity. I can't see one reason why I wouldn't want to make sure everyone got treatment if they got sick without being put on the street because of it. Saying it's their problem and I shouldn't have to pay because I'm not sick is pretty mean. Do unto others etc..
Your point is well taken lolfighter, I will behave more appropriately in the future!
I agree. But that's not what is offered by government healthcare. That is about forcing others to give money to a 3rd party, not about banding together in solidarity. Philanthropy is not coercive.
I would much rather directly give donations to organizations who I trust and can research in depth and from whom, if they mess up or become corrupt, I can immediately switch funding (voting with my money) to another more beneficial charity.
Instead of banding together with torches and pitchforks to force greedy people to pay as much as we have paid, just to line the pockets of other greedy people, we should band together to change the climate of charity in our communities.
With respect to the "wolf" I meant Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Repulic, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on.
With respect to the "wolf" I meant Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Czech Repulic, China, North Korea, Cuba and so on.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you insinuating? That government-run health insurance will turn the U.S. into North Korea?
There is strong evidence that a private for profit healthcare system that is “regulated†so as to be fair and allow balanced competition will provide the best care. The problem with the present system in the U.S. is the big medical corporations hire lobbyists to lobby our congress to write laws that are not balanced and not fair to the customers (the public). This does not allow the free market to adapt and innovate to provide the most efficient and effective health care. Medicare is a large government run healthcare. The service is provided by private for profit providers and is regulated. It is an example of a single payer system. It is paid for through payroll taxes and payments from the beneficiaries. It is not perfect but it is available to all who meet the requirements (People who are 65 and older.) In theory a large medical corporation should be able to out compete and take business away from the government. They can’t because that would mean using innovation and making their business competitive instead of stacking the deck with lobbyists and oligarchies to amass profits. An analogy I like to point out is the package delivery services compared to the U.S. Postal service. I know this is comparing apples to aardvarks because the postal service has some requirements that the competition doesn’t but can see my point.
I Agree with that^^
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->In theory a large medical corporation should be able to out compete and take business away from the government.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> They can’t because that would mean using innovation and making their business competitive instead of stacking the deck with lobbyists and oligarchies to amass profits.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they do stack the deck, it's true, but I disagree that in theory a large corporation could out-compete the government. This is because the government "cheats" with bonus money on their balance sheet. If the program is well-funded enough, they could ideally <b>provide any service for a price of $0</b>. Business, providing goods and services, is based on revenue and cost; it's an inescapable part of physical reality because human resources and physical resources are scare.
Imagine you open up a lemonade stand, 25c for a lemonade. Then the "<!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->PA<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->TR<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue"><!--/coloro-->IOT<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->Lemons"<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> stand opens up next to you, funded by the government. Their lemonades are 5c. Damn! Okay, you say, I'll just out-compete and make my lemonade so good, people will pay a premium for it. So you do. But then the government uses its $10Billion in lemonade funds to research how to make the best lemonade. And they reduce the price to free. And they launch a massive ad campaign, "Be Strong. Be Lemonade Strong." How you gonna compete with THAT?!
Or, the government uses the FDA to impose massive fees or outright bans on the manufacturer of your root components and then signs no-bid contracts with a supplier that lobbied for an exemption.
I would lol if it weren't true.
I'd be pretty happy that I have all this awesome free lemonade.
In Australia we've got Medicare (public healthcare system), yet many still opt into private funds for further coverage and benefits (eg. bypassing 3 year waiting periods for non-urgent surgeries). If you're paying for private coverage as well, you get a tax rebate each year from the Medicare levy.
I hear so many stories from the US where people avoid going to see the doctor just to save a few dollars, and end up having to pay far more for treatment (or worse) as a result.
So many countries have a public healthcare system which hasn’t fallen down around our ears (except maybe Japan, but that's different), why does the U.S need to feel slightly different, both with this and the metric system...
Anyway, it's all only my two cents but let me tell you the story of my birth.
Driving quickly to the hospital resulting in a ticket. No way to wave the fee due broken water or anything... Getting to the hospital, some of the needed insurance papers had not been taken with us/ in the car/ suspended in limbo, the point was, not with us.
My mom had to stand screaming by the receptionists’ desk while forms were collected. Not for that long a time granted, but what kind of culture would look at that and go: wait here please, you can't get a bed until we know you can pay. Heaven forbid what would happen if we couldn’t find the documentation, I would most likely be born on the street.
I can say only this - services like water, electricity, telecommunications, healthcare that has been taken from the state and given to private hands ended up being a total disaster. Cost of water for general populace has risen sharply, cost of public transport as well, health care funds are drained by corrupt insurance companies and doctors, fixed lines and DSL internet are still defacto a monopol, but can charge whatever it pleases.
You have basically two choices - you opt for a centrally controlled state system run inefficiently by incompetent bureaucrats, or you opt for a private monopolistic system run by a competent crooks whose objective is to get your money as fast as possible while providing as little service as possible.
The truth is, the incompetent bureaucrat can be sometimes accidentally replaced by someone decent, and the system might work for a while. On the other hand, the corporate crooks will never let go.
Add all this to a far-left, communist government in power and you have what's going on in Brazil right now. Lots and lots of corruption to drain all the money, and since resources are available, overprice, overtax and overcharge on everything. Sweet.
Public healthcare here is... comparable to wartime hospitals. To be honest, I think wartime hospitals were a little bit better...
I cannot follow the line of argumentation. I do not see the causality between left-winged government and corruption. The countries which suffer most from corruption are those which are either poor or suffer from a lack of state authority - usually both. I don't think that it's an coincidence that most western countries (including Australia) rank very high in terms of corruption-prevention while corruption is more or less an issue in all other countries around the world regardless of the government in charge.
Thus I'd argue: if there would be a right-winged government it wouldn't change anything Brazil. Countries usually don't suffer from their government but from the role they have to play in the globalized market and the roles are quite simple: western or western-allied countries make money and the rest looses, sometimes more and sometimes less. I can't see a non-communist government in Brazil doing anything about that. In Germany it is agreed upon the very high level of welfare and public health services. Be it conservative or left-winged parties, everyone agrees that most of the tax income is to be spent of social services. Water services are socialized in Germany as a reaction to the quite devastating resulsts of water privatization in England. I suppose from an US-American perspective Germany would seem like Socialism at is best - most Scandinavian countries go way further. For good reason as I think; there are goods and services which are necessary for life and it should be taken care of that these goods and services are distributed among the people who need it and not only to those who can pay. There are things which aren't meant to be traded but to be shared. Health, education, water, food and shelter are some of those essentials of which I'd say it would be wrong to put a price tag on them or privatizing them. Thus I'm not really into the way health and education is handled in the USA example, namely via scholarships and donations. I don't think it should be free for the citizen to decide whether they want to contribute their share or not. Societies can't do without shared obligatorinesses which are to be fulfilled by everyone.
In so far I don't think that the corruption in Brazil is in any way directly linked to the political agenda of the government. However, by the way: I thought the current and previous governments in Brazil where socialdemocratic and by no means communists?!
The last social democrat was Fernando Henrique Cardoso, which left when Lula took power in 2003. The Workers' Party is not a social democratic party (that is PSDB, which is PT's most bitter enemy in Brazilian politics, contrary to popular belief the Brazilian Social Democracy Party is not even a right party, it's a pure center party), but they are a Bolshevik party, officially "Trotskyist Socialist" but we all know the truth here. Most of its prominent members were guerrilla fighters and communist movement leaders in the 1970-1980's, our President herself being a guerrilla fighter and leader of a faction that fought for the Bolivarian socialism branch currently employed in Venezuela, themselves heavy allies of Castro's heavy handed Cuban communism.
However, you are correct. They are corrupt not because of their political agenda (it is one I disagree with, I believe in the free market and private property), it is just made worse by it due to the way things are, but the corruption is widespread due to the fact that people are poor, uneducated and easily manipulated. Things are so bad that even the less corrupt would bring a world of change. Your line of thought is great because nobody is forced, but pretty much depend on their work for success and achievement, and that is the recipe for Germany's success. Nobody is a "forced voluntaryist" but rather rewarded properly and truly for their jobs according to their social value, while respecting the market and one's property, that is true, correctly employed social democracy, which is my foremost choice aside from Libertarianism. Money and resources are not scarce, and public money is very much real and very much available in great quantities, nobody would be complaining if there wasn't a very dark, complex, rotten system.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2013/11/25/a-conversation-with-reinaldo-azevedo-brazils-most-hated-and-widely-read-blogger/
I highly recommend you take a look at this, it should enlighten you a little bit, though any smart fellow can realize that he is holding back.
About basic services, i'm with you on that, as would most people from any point of view that is even slightly reasonable, basic services such as water, electricity and at least common housing (which includes the basics of food, shelter, etc.) should be available for free or at a minimum cost to any and all citizens of a nation, particularly where we have so many resources like our country. However, people should have the ability and incentive to go beyond this basic living. Back on the healthcare topic, at least that is implemented properly in Brazil as it is readily available to any and all, the system only suffers from lack of funding due to corruption and money being misplaced, so doctors are underpaid/undervalued, medicine is scarce and sometimes unavailable and the hospitals/health units trashed.