210 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

 

I do not understand this.

 

Are conservatives the same everywhere? Cut, cut, cut, and more cuts?

 

Over here we have the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) which is close to what your BBC is and our conservative govt. keeps attacking them for not being pro government..

 

Is this how a conservative govt. works?

 

Science = We don't believe in that
Education = You don't need that so cut funding
Health = Health is optional you don't need that
Arts = Can't have that arts is for lefties

 

Did I miss anything?

 

 

Our conservative government does believe in science (it's the lefties here who don't since they managed to bankrupt the country demonstrating a gross ignorance of finance and statistics that any good mathematician would have predicted, then they even said that if they got back in power they would borrow even more demonstrating further ignorance of even a basic understanding of applied mathematics - this is if you consider mathematics a science as I do).

 

Higher education should be paid for, is unfortunately what the conservative government believe.

 

Although I agree that health should be optional though for those who actually make a living. I'd rather have an American system where I pay for services used rather than for a service I have literally never used (if you're counting adult life, last time I went hospital was when I was a kid and my parents took me for a blood test, never been to a public hospital for treatment since). Any time I have required a doctor in recent years (such as a dermatologist) I've actually paid to go privately because it's quicker. However our government is for free health care.

So I'd say the Australian government is different from ours apart from in Education where ours has cut funding too (although they have opened a big apprentice scheme with many companies across the country so there is that).

[Sion1138]

They can suck it.

[God]

@Eterna.

 

Try the American system until you praise it. Trust me. 

 

What you want is basically what the uber conservatives here are saying.

 

"I've never needed the free healthcare so it's useless!"

 

If we focused more on preventative issues and general healthcare instead of procedures and funding for the specialized diseases, we'd be a lot better off. Especially since the procedures that actually work are thrown under the bus so that the healthcare industry can milk as much money as possible from people forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

 

Also, science is not just 'math and statistics'. It's a lot more than that, and a lot broader. I understand that you consider math a science. I do as well. The thing is, math isn't the only thing to science.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

So what happened to Top Gear main crew?

[In Exile]

Although I agree that health should be optional though for those who actually make a living. I'd rather have an American system where I pay for services used rather than for a service I have literally never used (if you're counting adult life, last time I went hospital was when I was a kid and my parents took me for a blood test, never been to a public hospital for treatment since). Any time I have required a doctor in recent years (such as a dermatologist) I've actually paid to go privately because it's quicker. However our government is for free health care

 

Yeah, screw those people who develop health conditions through no fault of their own, the crippling, chronic illness kind that aren't curable by a quick trip to a walk-in clinic. If they didn't want to get cancer, maybe they should have gotten some different genes. Amirite?

[Inquisitor Recon]

Yeah, screw those people who develop health conditions through no fault of their own, the crippling, chronic illness kind that aren't curable by a quick trip to a walk-in clinic. If they didn't want to get cancer, maybe they should have gotten some different genes. Amirite?

Am I supposed to care about some random person? Have the amount I pay increase to pay for them? Ultimately there are only so much medical resources to go around, why would I trust the government to handle that any more than the free market? The limitations and costs aren't going to go away.

[Sion1138]

Am I supposed to care about some random person? Have the amount I pay increase to pay for them? Ultimately there are only so much medical resources to go around, why would I trust the government to handle that any more than the free market? The limitations and costs aren't going to go away.

 

Maybe the chances are greater that the poor guy will not die horribly?

 

Why would you care though? Yeah... That I can't answer for you.

[Fast Jimmy]

Am I supposed to care about some random person? Have the amount I pay increase to pay for them? Ultimately there are only so much medical resources to go around, why would I trust the government to handle that any more than the free market? The limitations and costs aren't going to go away.

Because the free market has no investment in the poor and destitute.

Government has to pick up the dredges, help the people who have nowhere else to go. Whether that's through tax deductible service that hospitals write off for people who can't pay all the way to Medicare coverage and government free clinics for people who can't get service any other way... the government has to deal with people too poor or without insurance.

The free market is merely a collective of private companies who don't have to cover anyone they don't want to, in a truly unregulated free market. Why would a private insurance company insure anyone who wasn't healthy? And why wouldn't they terminate coverage for anyone who got a disaeas with expensive or long term treatment? There's no financial incentive for them to do so. And medical insurance requires such large infrastructure and existing provider networks that it is incredibly difficult for competition to arise, so even if companies wanted to bring in new customers by offering "no cancellation contracts" or "no denial for pre-existing conditions" clauses, they would be quickly outpaced by their more fiscally-conservative competitors. That's why the private insurance market in the US changed little for over fifty years, despite constant talks about the need for reform.

Now that coverage is mandatory, everyone is in the pool (both sick and healthy, regardless of how little or how much you use the coverage) and the insurance companies can't cancel or deny you coverage based on how sick you are, along with no annual or lifetime maximums about how much the insurance company will pay out, so outside of your deductible, there's no fear of developing a life threatening sickness and becoming so broke you can't afford to stay alive. Since it has been passed, millions of people who had no coverage and just took their chances if they were sick or injured (let alone wanted to try prevent much more serious conditions by seeking preventive treatment) are now covered when they wouldn't have possible been under the free market solution.

Which would be horrible for business, obviously... except for the fact that healthcare costs have reduced SIGNIFICANTLY in the years since the ACA was passed AND health insurance companies are posting the highest revenues ever seen, primarily due to the Exchange policy markets as well as the growth of Medicare Advantage and Mediciad policies under the ACA.



The idea of "I don't use it right now at this moment, I shouldn't have to pay for it" is an exercise of pure folly. No one I know in the US has enemy combatants marching on their lawn, so why should they pay for the army? I'm not using the interstate to drive to California... why should I care if it is paved or not? I'm not a farmer, so why should I pay taxes for them to receive subsidies?

The common benefit is called that because it is what we all share in common - as we all live together, it is for everyone's benefit if people aren't sick, if they can eat enough food to survive, if they feel safe + secure, if they can travel freely or count on good they need to travel freely... when the citizens of nation have their basic needs met across the board and have the possibility to achieve success at all tiers of existence, the nation as a whole prospers.

[In Exile]

Am I supposed to care about some random person? Have the amount I pay increase to pay for them? Ultimately there are only so much medical resources to go around, why would I trust the government to handle that any more than the free market? The limitations and costs aren't going to go away.

 

Pragmatically, because unless you're a fan of people dying in the streets, it's a lot cheaper to invest in quality medical care than emergency medical care. I mean, by all means, take the position that you believe people deserve to die painfully if they can't afford medical treatment. But that means for-pay emergency rooms, among other things. And that has pretty well document and obvious social costs.

 

There's no economic argument in favour of free-market driven health-care, because the free market is an absolutely horrible model for resource allocation in health. Health doesn't have price elasticity. People will pay anything to not die. The only exceptions are when people are forced to choose between dying and crippling their loved ones with debt and poverty, which makes it a bit of a hellish choice, but still doesn't actually solve the resource allocation problem. 

 

And insurance is a poor model to deliver health care services (private insurance, that is) because private insurance isn't design to provide a service (cheap healthcare) it's designed to provide peace of mind against unlikely risks. 

 

Unless you start from the premise that sick people deserve to die, and therefore you come out in favour of greater social costs out of this (strange) moral position, there's no actual pragmatic argument against the public health care. 

 

The market can only solve issues when it comes to resource allocation via preference, but it breaks down in a lot of circumstances. Another example is the extent to which the market tends toward monopolies, which are decidedly bad for consumers. 

[In Exile]

[snip]

 

The other issue is that - in the US, at least - divorcing health insurance from employment increases the bargaining power of employees, pushes wages upward, and allows for a great deal of mobility. Among other things, this provides for better emotional/mental conditions (i.e., less stress) which improves worker productivity and thereby accrues economic gains via a multitude of multipliers. 

 

There's no pragmatic justification to be against an expansive health care policy. There are legitimate debates to be had as to the most efficient way to provide those services (e.g. the UK, vs. Canada, vs. France) but that's a totally separate issue. And - this is a critical point - the provision of health care is not the same as the provision of medical and drugs, which for chronic illnesses amounts to a substantial (and often more substantial) expense. 

 

The only justification to be for an unregulated "free market" of health care is out of a moral position that the poor should not have access to healthcare regardless of the social cost. 

[Dr.Fumbles]

I just don't like it being forced down my neck. Yes, I understand everyone needs "blah blah" help, but you are only looking at their side of the issue. I say the issue to freely choose if you want to pay it or not is just as important. If someone wants to pay for it, let them, but making everyone pay when you don't need or want it is just as bad.

[In Exile]

I just don't like it being forced down my neck. Yes, I understand everyone needs "blah blah" help, but you are only looking at their side of the issue. I say the issue to freely choose if you want to pay it or not is just as important. If someone wants to pay for it, let them, but making everyone pay when you don't need or want it is just as bad.

 

I'm looking at it from the pragmatic side of "what will accrue the most gains to society". It's the basic idea behind every public service. I mean, you could take a (again, bizarre) moral position that public goods are somehow immoral, but then you're not doing it out of pragmatism, you're specifically advocate for a less functional, and less well-off, society for the sake of a belief. 

 

And that's fine. People do that all the time. 

 

But more importantly, there's no "free choice". When I'm healthy, I don't need the service. I'd never pay for it. There's no choice to make. And when I'm sick, again, there's no real "choice" when you've got the coercive impact of impending death. No sensible idea of choice is blind to the effect of coercion.

 

This is why, for example, we don't enforce contracts made under duress. Because the choice of "sign this contract or die" isn't a choice. 

[Fast Jimmy]

The other issue is that - in the US, at least - divorcing health insurance from employment increases the bargaining power of employees, pushes wages upward, and allows for a great deal of mobility. Among other things, this provides for better emotional/mental conditions (i.e., less stress) which improves worker productivity and thereby accrues economic gains via a multitude of multipliers.

There's no pragmatic justification to be against an expansive health care policy. There are legitimate debates to be had as to the most efficient way to provide those services (e.g. the UK, vs. Canada, vs. France) but that's a totally separate issue. And - this is a critical point - the provision of health care is not the same as the provision of medical and drugs, which for chronic illnesses amounts to a substantial (and often more substantial) expense.

The only justification to be for an unregulated "free market" of health care is out of a moral position that the poor should not have access to healthcare regardless of the social cost.

I WILL say that while a single government payer system does offer a streamline of service delivery, it can also lead to stagnation, especially in terms of healthcare IT development, which is rapidly becoming not only a large cost saver in the industry but also allows better healthcare through the instant transmission of data and the ability to have assistance on demand for people.

Furthermore, we are beginning to see a shift in the industry for private insurers to PAY plan participants for smart health decisions. We've seen it publicly recently with CVS Caremark's published results of the success seen for their payment to have member quit smoking, but it's been documented in the past quite well. Paying people for behavior is an excellent incentive... much more than charging them extra for bad decisions, whether that be higher premiums or actual penalties. It works even better than giving people cash equivalents, such as tax breaks or payments into health accounts, like HRAs.

Giving people real monetary cash for demonstrated changes to their daily habits is a phenomenally great way to change people's habits (for the better, in this case). That's something government payer systems have really had problems with in the past.

[Sion1138]

I just don't like it being forced down my neck. Yes, I understand everyone needs "blah blah" help, but you are only looking at their side of the issue. I say the issue to freely choose if you want to pay it or not is just as important. If someone wants to pay for it, let them, but making everyone pay when you don't need or want it is just as bad.

 

Social contract dude.

 

The people who need the system the most can't pay enough. It's one of the primary reasons for it to exist in the first place

[In Exile]

I WILL say that while a single government payer system does offer a streamline of service delivery, it can also lead to stagnation, especially in terms of healthcare IT development, which is rapidly becoming not only a large cost saver in the industry but also allows better healthcare through the instant transmission of data and the ability to have assistance on demand for people.

Furthermore, we are beginning to see a shift in the industry for private insurers to PAY plan participants for smart health decisions. We've seen it publicly recently with CVS Caremark's published results of the success seen for their payment to have member quit smoking, but it's been documented in the past quite well. Paying people for behavior is an excellent incentive... much more than charging them extra for bad decisions, whether that be higher premiums or actual penalties. It works even better than giving people cash equivalents, such as tax breaks or payments into health accounts, like HRAs.

Giving people real monetary cash for demonstrated changes to their daily habits is a phenomenally great way to change people's habits (for the better, in this case). That's something government payer systems have really had problems with in the past.

 

I tend not to be a fan of government provision of services in the health care area versus government provision of insurance, with regulatory intervention targeted to control exploitative pricing practices as in any industry. There are lots of cost innovations that flow from cost-minimizing schemes today, and the ACA in the US has some clever ideas on that front. 

 

To me, the issue is with private insurance because the profit model is just fundamentally at odds with the goal of health care, i.e., to invest resources in those who need them most (which is a losing proposition for insurance companies). 

 

It's a bit of a misnomer to talk about "single-payer" as if that's a single universal solution. The UK approach to health care, for example, is radically different from the Canadian approach (which in a lot of ways is hospital-centric with a public insurance scheme for primary care, but not for medication). 

 

On the second part of your post - engendering healthy practices - that works as a preventative measure but fails to address the current social cost of people who already suffer from chronic illness. On this point, though, it's worth noting that the entire idea is novel.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Because the free market has no investment in the poor and destitute.

Government has to pick up the dredges, help the people who have nowhere else to go. Whether that's through tax deductible service that hospitals write off for people who can't pay all the way to Medicare coverage and government free clinics for people who can't get service any other way... the government has to deal with people too poor or without insurance.

The free market is merely a collective of private companies who don't have to cover anyone they don't want to, in a truly unregulated free market. Why would a private insurance company insure anyone who wasn't healthy? And why wouldn't they terminate coverage for anyone who got a disaeas with expensive or long term treatment? There's no financial incentive for them to do so. And medical insurance requires such large infrastructure and existing provider networks that it is incredibly difficult for competition to arise, so even if companies wanted to bring in new customers by offering "no cancellation contracts" or "no denial for pre-existing conditions" clauses, they would be quickly outpaced by their more fiscally-conservative competitors. That's why the private insurance market in the US changed little for over fifty years, despite constant talks about the need for reform.

Now that coverage is mandatory, everyone is in the pool (both sick and healthy, regardless of how little or how much you use the coverage) and the insurance companies can't cancel or deny you coverage based on how sick you are, along with no annual or lifetime maximums about how much the insurance company will pay out, so outside of your deductible, there's no fear of developing a life threatening sickness and becoming so broke you can't afford to stay alive. Since it has been passed, millions of people who had no coverage and just took their chances if they were sick or injured (let alone wanted to try prevent much more serious conditions by seeking preventive treatment) are now covered when they wouldn't have possible been under the free market solution.

At the end of the day my expenses haven't gone down as our oh-so-wise leaders said they would. I'm not interested in the poor and destitute. I want what will benefit most of the middle class financially while maintaining the quality of medical treatment avalible previously. To nobody's surprise thousands of pages of beaucractic mess hasn't accomplished that yet.

[In Exile]

At the end of the day my expenses haven't gone down as our oh-so-wise leaders said they would. I'm not interested in the poor and destitute. I want what will benefit most of the middle class financially while maintaining the quality of medical treatment avalible previously. To nobody's surprise thousands of pages of beaucractic mess hasn't accomplished that yet.

 

Was the ACA advertised as being cheaper for individuals, or as being cheaper for American (i.e., reducing your incoherently bloated government medical expenses)? 

 

As to what will benefit the elusive middle class, the answer is (1) insurance schemes not tied to employment and (2) broader safety nets. 

[Dr.Fumbles]

Social contract dude.

 

The people who need the system the most can't pay enough. It's one of the primary reasons for it to exist in the first place

 

I was raised under the belief that personal freedom out weighs that of the society. I still agree with it to this day, so forcing those who don't want it "in the name of the good" is a bad idea. It's a dog eat dog world out there. and no system is going to change that. Yes, it stinks that some people aren't lucky. but it's the way of the world. There is no need to put up a front system just to protect people from the truth that this world can be a crappy place.

[In Exile]

I was raised under the belief that personal freedom out weighs that of the society. I still agree with it to this day, so forcing those who don't want it "in the name of the good" is a bad idea. It's a dog eat dog world out there. and no system is going to change that. Yes, it stinks that some people aren't lucky. but it's the way of the world. There is no need to put up a front system just to protect people from the truth that this world can be a crappy place.

 

You can be all for basically creating a lawless wasteland, but it's ridiculous to say that our political systems haven't radically changed society. I've gone my entire natural life without a roving band of pillaging marauders burning my fields. Unlike substantial portions of the world, and particularly most of the world's history, I've been part of a country where roads are functional, food is freely available, and famine is something that only comes up in stories. 

 

It's actually insulting to the scale of human achievement over our history to say that we haven't "fixed" the world to incredible extents. I mean, you even see it across countries today. Just comparing, say, Somalia, to Brazil, to the US, to Canada. 

 

We don't have any utopias around, but to say that systems aren't going to change it is just nonsense. 

 

Edit:

 

And, like I said, your idea of personal freedom is nonsense when it comes to healthcare. You're taking the view that gun-to-your-head duress is "freedom" because you have a "choice". Freedom requires an absence of coercion. 

[Sion1138]

I was raised under the belief that personal freedom out weighs that of the society. I still agree with it to this day, so forcing those who don't want it "in the name of the good" is a bad idea. It's a dog eat dog world out there. and no system is going to change that. Yes, it stinks that some people aren't lucky. but it's the way of the world. There is no need to put up a front system just to protect people from the truth that this world can be a crappy place.

 

Well, then it's going to be 'dog eat dog' regardless.

 

In this particular case, the dog that is the society which you live in eats you. Tough luck.

 

But seriously guys, there's no arguing here. I personally am so at odds with you that it makes no sense at all to discuss anything of this nature.

 

Best be friends where we can.

[Dr.Fumbles]

You can be all for basically creating a lawless wasteland, but it's ridiculous to say that our political systems haven't radically changed society. I've gone my entire natural life without a roving band of pillaging marauders burning my fields. Unlike substantial portions of the world, and particularly most of the world's history, I've been part of a country where roads are functional, food is freely available, and famine is something that only comes up in stories. 

 

It's actually insulting to the scale of human achievement over our history to say that we haven't "fixed" the world to incredible extents. I mean, you even see it across countries today. Just comparing, say, Somalia, to Brazil, to the US, to Canada. 

 

We don't have any utopias around, but to say that systems aren't going to change it is just nonsense. 

 

Edit:

 

And, like I said, your idea of personal freedom is nonsense when it comes to healthcare. You're taking the view that gun-to-your-head duress is "freedom" because you have a "choice". Freedom requires an absence of coercion. 

 

Systems eventually collapse though leaving it right back to a "lawless society"(which I am not an advocate for. I still believe in some basic rights. Don't murder, steal, etc...) The point I am trying to get across is that in the end it goes back to the way it was. History has shown us this over and over again, so putting up laws that strip people of the right to choose what they want in the end always bites society in the ass and is general not worth the time.

 

For your edit, I disagree. All freedom means is the right to choose. It could mean and lead to many things, but in the end, it's just the fact you have a choice in the matter.

[Inquisitor Recon]

Was the ACA advertised as being cheaper for individuals, or as being cheaper for American (i.e., reducing your incoherently bloated government medical expenses)? 

 

As to what will benefit the elusive middle class, the answer is (1) insurance schemes not tied to employment and (2) broader safety nets. 

Advertised as the best thing since sliced bread more-or-less. But more seriously I see no hope in curing incoherently bloated government medical expenses through incoherently bloated laws.

 

I'll believe the benefits when I see them. Thus far it has just been more disappointment. I suppose I should be thankful it wasn't any worse though.

 

 I've gone my entire natural life without a roving band of pillaging marauders burning my fields.

Given the chance people will resort to that quickly enough. Ultimately there are only so much resources of any kind to go around and money is a "better" deciding factor then pretending everybody and anybody can just get in line and wait their turn.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was raised under the belief that personal freedom out weighs that of the society. I still agree with it to this day, so forcing those who don't want it "in the name of the good" is a bad idea. It's a dog eat dog world out there. and no system is going to change that. Yes, it stinks that some people aren't lucky. but it's the way of the world. There is no need to put up a front system just to protect people from the truth that this world can be a crappy place.

Yes, there clearly is a need. Otherwise, nearly ten million people wouldn't have gained healthcare coverage under the plan. Not to mention that the leading number one reason for bankruptcy for individuals in the US (far and away, at over 40%) is due to overwhelming medical costs. Take note of that - that doesn't make sense if we are just talking about the poorest people in the country. People at low incomes are already on social programs like Passport and Medicaid, which covers all their expenses. The people who would be going bankrupt are middle class people who make enough to be above the poverty line, but who didn't have enough personal savings to cover either what their insurance didn't cover OR didnt have insurance at all. This isn't just a "poor people's issue." Without insurance coverage available regardless of your job status, history has shown average, middle class people suffered terribly under the old system.

People shouldn't have to pay for roads, or pay schools that teach people basic math + reading skills, or pay for an army to protect its borders + interests or pay for police forces + criminal investigation... there are things we take as totally natural should be guaranteed by the government in some way, shape or form. These are all vastly inferior to making everyone pay into a system that 1) benefits them directly with it's benefits, 2) benefits society by improving public health, so people aren't liedally dying in the street and 3) reducing the national debt by shifting the sickest and malt costly onto government medical coverage anyway, driving up costs for the entire nation along the way.