ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags health care issues , health care reform , uhc

Reply
Old 2nd December 2011, 09:13 PM   #41
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
What, you have the others on ignore or something?

If I missed someone's reply, feel free to point it out.
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 03:50 AM   #42
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,166
Let's see. Pretty much everybody else can cover their entire population for the same as the USA spends on its publicly funded healthcare services.

And give up on the "substandard". Pretty much everybody else also has broadly comparable health outcomes to the USA, so not seeing what's so bloody superior I have to say.

But the USA, the great and wonderful superpower whose citizens think is the cat's pyjamas of all countries, would have to multiply that by 2.5 to cover its entire population. And if it did that, it would still be "substandard".

The USA is clearly the only developed western democracy to have completely failed to get the hang of running piss-ups in breweries, it seems.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:27 AM   #43
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Let's see. Pretty much everybody else can cover their entire population for the same as the USA spends on its publicly funded healthcare services.

And give up on the "substandard". Pretty much everybody else also has broadly comparable health outcomes to the USA, so not seeing what's so bloody superior I have to say.

But the USA, the great and wonderful superpower whose citizens think is the cat's pyjamas of all countries, would have to multiply that by 2.5 to cover its entire population. And if it did that, it would still be "substandard".

The USA is clearly the only developed western democracy to have completely failed to get the hang of running piss-ups in breweries, it seems.

Rolfe.
Sure, you can do that ... in a country you can drive across in a couple of hours.


And, oh, the "substandard" part refers to the government run health systems, not the private care available (i.e., just like in those public/private systems in other countries we read so much about).

And, oh again, the additional money is to cover the other 250 million people not covered under the government run plans I mentioned above.

The USA has 60,000 hospitals, surgery centers, and medical clinics - which ones will you close to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

Which of the 2.5 million doctors, nurses, orderlies, techs, and administrators will you fire to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

The US Government is an abysmal failure at running Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospital system, the Indian Health System, and the US military health system. Why do you think they will do any better when they eliminate all private competition?
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:43 AM   #44
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,270
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sure, you can do that ... in a country you can drive across in a couple of hours.


And, oh, the "substandard" part refers to the government run health systems, not the private care available (i.e., just like in those public/private systems in other countries we read so much about).

And, oh again, the additional money is to cover the other 250 million people not covered under the government run plans I mentioned above.

The USA has 60,000 hospitals, surgery centers, and medical clinics - which ones will you close to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

Which of the 2.5 million doctors, nurses, orderlies, techs, and administrators will you fire to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

The US Government is an abysmal failure at running Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospital system, the Indian Health System, and the US military health system. Why do you think they will do any better when they eliminate all private competition?
You do realize, that the role of a UHC is not to 'run' healthcare, but rather to ensure that doctors and hospitals are paid, right? Why would hospitals close? Why would doctors and orderlies be fired? People in the USA pay, in taxes, about what people in other western countries do for comparable outcomes in health care, only they get no benefit for it! They then have to pay, AGAIN, for health insurance.

Hospitals, and doctors would be paid for their services. No more having to chase people down to pay their bills. No more negotiating lower costs for people who can't pay anyways. No more writing off care because the guy that walked into the ER can't afford it. They would imply get paid. This should, in theory, drive down costs of healthcare, as the hospitals would no longer need to raise their rates for paying people to offset the non payers.

Would taxes go up? Likely yes. But your company would no longer have to worry about handling health insurance. You would no longer have to pay. It would come out of everyones taxes.

The economic benefits would be substantial. Employees would be free to change jobs without fear of losing health insurance. Small companies that can't afford health insurance could hire more people, without worry that they'll leave for a company that offers health insurance. You would be free to start your own business, without fear of getting sick, because you can't afford health insurance.

And everyone is covered. No death panels. No faceless bureaucrat deciding if you should get treatment or not. The derision would be made by your doctor. Whom you could choose, change doctors, or see the same doctor all your life without worrying that he or she is 'out of network'.

The benefits to UHC are significant. There are always downsides, but I consider them minor.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:54 AM   #45
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sure, you can do that ... in a country you can drive across in a couple of hours.

You'd have to drive across Canada really, really fast to pull that off.

On the way you could wave to all the old folks who outlive Americans by over two years.
citizenzen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 10:55 AM   #46
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sure, you can do that ... in a country you can drive across in a couple of hours.


And, oh, the "substandard" part refers to the government run health systems, not the private care available (i.e., just like in those public/private systems in other countries we read so much about).

And, oh again, the additional money is to cover the other 250 million people not covered under the government run plans I mentioned above.

The USA has 60,000 hospitals, surgery centers, and medical clinics - which ones will you close to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

Which of the 2.5 million doctors, nurses, orderlies, techs, and administrators will you fire to cut costs and how will that improve the delivery of medical services?

The US Government is an abysmal failure at running Medicare, Medicaid, the VA hospital system, the Indian Health System, and the US military health system. Why do you think they will do any better when they eliminate all private competition?
You can drive across Canada in a couple hours now? News to me.

As for government run healthcare, we don't have it here. At least in Alberta, all practices are private businesses. All residents are eligible for care, and the bill in sent to the government.

So once again, is health care in the US twice as good as health care in other industrialized countries? I know it's not perfect here, but considering the outcomes are very similar to those in the US, and it costs roughly half as much here, plus I don't have to worry about going bankrupt if I get sick or badly injured, why would I want to completely change the system? What benefit would there to me to go to a capitalistic health care system?
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:00 AM   #47
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
At least in Alberta, all practices are private businesses. All residents are eligible for care, and the bill in sent to the government.
Might I ask, is there a limit to what the government pays for each visit or procedure? One doctor might charge $50 for a check up, another might charge $100.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:11 AM   #48
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Might I ask, is there a limit to what the government pays for each visit or procedure? One doctor might charge $50 for a check up, another might charge $100.
There is.

Here's a list of what the government will pay for each procedure.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...es-2011-10.pdf

Also, if it's on the list, and the Doctor says it's necessary, they will pay.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:12 AM   #49
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. Efficient? Like the State-monopoly school system? Like the Post Office? Yah.
2. I did not notice that the universe was sick.You mean, the government is cheating us? Seems to me that's a good reason to avoid giving members of them any more authority. Huh? Moral hazard names a large category of observed behaviors. So also is medical tourism an observed behavior. It's head-in-the-sand attachment to the healing power of organized violence (the State) that makes people blind to these facts.
Also, the interpersonal style in which advocates for State-monopoly enterprise argue hardly inspires confidence that they will behave with compassion on the job.

Blah, blah, blah. I read your posts and it comes across as gobbledly gook most of the time.

At least try and not repeat the same bollux you have in every single discussion about health care.

Definition of universal:

u·ni·ver·sal (yn-vűrsl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key).
2. Including, relating to, or affecting all members of the class or group under consideration: the universal skepticism of philosophers. See Synonyms at general.
3. Applicable or common to all purposes, conditions, or situations: a universal remedy.
4. Of or relating to the universe or cosmos; cosmic.
5. Knowledgeable about or constituting all or many subjects; comprehensively broad.
6. Adapted or adjustable to many sizes or mechanical uses.
7. Logic Encompassing all of the members of a class or group. Used of a proposition.


Just because things don't work in the US does not mean that they don't work everywhere.

Take off your ideological blinders and you might actually learn something old man.
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:15 AM   #50
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,313
He/She does have a point about the costs. The total amount of money being spent right now is what it is and, all else being equal, would have to go up if we started covering people or conditions that currently aren't covered. The idea is that it would somehow go down eventually, but that can only happen after the causes of the inefficiency are eliminated, and simply switching to a universal government-based system doesn't inherently do that. So we're really dealing with two separate issues: expanding coverage to everyone, and cutting costs per person down.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:20 AM   #51
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
He/She does have a point about the costs. The total amount of money being spent right now is what it is and, all else being equal, would have to go up ....

Can you explain why we in the U.S. pay so much more for our private healthcare than countries with universal systems?

The cost doesn't have to go up. Other nations have demonstrated the capability of caring for the people at less cost.
citizenzen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:21 AM   #52
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sure, you can do that ... in a country you can drive across in a couple of hours.
Australia is tiny too.


Is that enough emoticons to be able to communicate with you?
Tatyana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 11:29 AM   #53
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,997
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
So what's so great about healthcare in the US that is worth twice that of healthcare in other countries? I've never heard a straight answer for that.
Personally, I don't think the reasons why Americans reject UHC is because we think our system is the greatest in the world. I think it is because: 1. those in power have good private insurance; and 2. People are fearful of change. They read headlines such as, "Cancer drug too expensive for NHS" and they become afraid.

Thanks for the link to the Alberta Health Insurance Plan, very interesting.
__________________
"My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 12:24 PM   #54
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by rustypouch View Post
There is.

Here's a list of what the government will pay for each procedure.

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documen...es-2011-10.pdf

Also, if it's on the list, and the Doctor says it's necessary, they will pay.

The Official List? Is that like a death panel, except for routine things?
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 12:29 PM   #55
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,686
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
The Official List? Is that like a death panel, except for routine things?
No.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 12:30 PM   #56
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
He/She does have a point about the costs. The total amount of money being spent right now is what it is and, all else being equal, would have to go up if we started covering people or conditions that currently aren't covered. The idea is that it would somehow go down eventually, but that can only happen after the causes of the inefficiency are eliminated, and simply switching to a universal government-based system doesn't inherently do that. So we're really dealing with two separate issues: expanding coverage to everyone, and cutting costs per person down.

True. But has the US government ever reduced costs on anything? We have a thousand government departments, agencies, and bureaus and all of them are expanding every year. And we all know that Medicare and Medicaid are rife with fraud but why would anyone think that expanding the programs would reduce that?

On the contrary, private enterprise is always looking to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and eliminate fraud (except when dealing with governments), because they have incentives to do just that.
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 12:35 PM   #57
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by Tatyana View Post
Australia is tiny too.


Is that enough emoticons to be able to communicate with you?

Sorry, I was thinking of European countries. That I have driven across. Oops.

I don't know how it works in Australia but I've seen plenty of Canadians come here for medical care instead of dealing with ridiculous waiting periods and bureaucratic red tape or with off-the-list needs.
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2011, 12:54 PM   #58
citizenzen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,385
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
The Official List? Is that like a death panel, except for routine things?

Dude. You already have death panels.

Do you think private insurance companies approve every procedure requested?
citizenzen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 02:36 PM   #59
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Let's see. Pretty much everybody else can cover their entire population for the same as the USA spends on its publicly funded healthcare services.
This depends on the meaning of "cover". We already mentioned medical tourism and wait times.
Quality of care will improve with experimentation and competition. Costs will fall with competition. In general, subsidized goods are over-consumed and monopolies deliver low-quality services at high cost. Since a large fraction of the medical attention each person will use in his/her lifetime is spent in the last six months of life, authorities could obviously pump longevity/$ statistics by executing any 85 year-old who appears in the doctor's office. I make this extreme hypothetical to illustrate the problem with aggregate longevity and aggregate cost statistics.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 02:43 PM   #60
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
 
balrog666's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,974
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Dude. You already have death panels.

Do you think private insurance companies approve every procedure requested?

Not that I necessarily object to death panels, but, uh, no, there are limitations on what medical services I can purchase with my own money, for myself or for others; the limits are imposed by attempting to use other people's money without their consent.

For completeness, I note that all insurance policies have limitations on what (and how much) they cover, but then that is the intent of any contract.
__________________
A person who won't think has no advantage over one who can't think. - (paraphrased) Mark Twain

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. – George Orwell
balrog666 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 03:02 PM   #61
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,035
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
3. Job losses as people whose only function is to screen out those who cannot afford health care are no longer needed.
In general, jobs are not a plus in economics (depending on things). They represent a cost.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2011, 05:00 PM   #62
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,089
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
This depends on the meaning of "cover". We already mentioned medical tourism and wait times.
Quality of care will improve with experimentation and competition.
Is this demonstrable in the US healthcare system ?

How is the competition enhanced by the general populations inability to change healthcare insurers because it's tied to their job ?

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Costs will fall with competition.
And there is only competition when you have the ability to choose. Under UHC, I would imagine people would be choosing, thus causing providers to actually compete for their dollars.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 09:34 AM   #63
keale
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 813
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Personally, I don't think the reasons why Americans reject UHC is because we think our system is the greatest in the world. I think it is because: 1. those in power have good private insurance; and 2. People are fearful of change. They read headlines such as, "Cancer drug too expensive for NHS" and they become afraid.

Thanks for the link to the Alberta Health Insurance Plan, very interesting.

Maybe we should push for a law that says all politicians have to pay for heath insurance out of their own pockets
keale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2011, 11:12 AM   #64
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis View Post
And there is only competition when you have the ability to choose. Under UHC, I would imagine people would be choosing, thus causing providers to actually compete for their dollars.
1. The term "UHC" names a wide variety of policies, so the degree of consumer choice may vary widely between nations with "UHC".
2. If "UHC" means a tax-funded medical services voucher policy, you will have competition if policy makers structure vouchers such that consumers have an incentive to shop for their desired combination of cost and quality. The State cannot pay for medical services (or education, or housing, or nutrition) without a definition of "medical services" (or "education", "housing", etc.).
3. Other regulations limit competition under a voucher policy, such as limits on services that providers may offer outside of those covered by the voucher, and requirements that service providers provide specified services.

As background, I recommend the Brookings survey: Vouchers and the Provision of Public Services.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 01:48 AM   #65
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
But the USA, the great and wonderful superpower whose citizens think is the cat's pyjamas of all countries...

Such folks should take a look at the OECD's stats on child poverty, income inequality, infant mortality, and teenage births, for example, and compare where the U.S. ranks in these areas compared to its fellow developed nations in the OECD.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 03:49 AM   #66
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Such folks should take a look at the OECD's stats on child poverty, income inequality, infant mortality, and teenage births, for example, and compare where the U.S. ranks in these areas compared to its fellow developed nations in the OECD.
Economists have a term, "revealed preference". Within the visible constraints, the choice people make from the available options reveals their preference. In free countries, most people prefer home.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 04:37 AM   #67
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 81,766
Originally Posted by balrog666 View Post
Sorry, I was thinking of European countries. That I have driven across. Oops.

I don't know how it works in Australia but I've seen plenty of Canadians come here for medical care instead of dealing with ridiculous waiting periods and bureaucratic red tape or with off-the-list needs.
Surprised that you know so many Canadians receiving healthcare in your country and the details of why they have come to the USA. That aside why would they have to go to the USA if they could afford to pay for those services? I thought if something wasn't covered under their public system you could just pay for it?

Also don't forget there are many actual UHCs that have been working for decades that don't preclude private health care if you want to pay for it. That's why in the UK even with our UHCs there is a thriving private healthcare industry, one that attracts many "medical tourists" to the UK, see: http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/ and http://www.harleystreetguide.com/ for examples.

The USA is in quite an enviable position compared to how many countries came to have UHC. 50 years ago there weren't that many actual examples but today pretty much every "developed" country has a UHC so the USA can use actual data of what works well to craft a 21st century UHC that would be the envy of the world.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 05:00 AM   #68
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
How doctors die.
The Mercedes dealer rides a Schwinn to work.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 05:06 AM   #69
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 81,766
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
How doctors die.
The Mercedes dealer rides a Schwinn to work.
And that article is relevant to this discussion because..... ?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 05:41 AM   #70
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And that article is relevant to this discussion because..... ?
Again. Extreme care is expensive and often futile. Even if subsidized, many doctors (informed customers) will not use it. You don't need a State bureaucracy to radically cut costs with little impact on aggregate longevity if customers have sufficient information. Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 05:48 AM   #71
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 81,766
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Again. Extreme care is expensive and often futile. Even if subsidized, many doctors (informed customers) will not use it. You don't need a State bureaucracy to radically cut costs with little impact on aggregate longevity if customers have sufficient information. Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine.
Evidence?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 06:54 AM   #72
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Evidence?
What do you doubt? Impact of subsidies? Defensive medicine? Behavior of informed consumers (that was the topic of the linked article). Or are you just making work?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 06:58 AM   #73
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
What do you doubt? Impact of subsidies? Defensive medicine? Behavior of informed consumers (that was the topic of the linked article). Or are you just making work?
Well, since all the evidence is showing that other nations are providing better healthcare (in that all citizens are covered with a roughly equal level of service) for cheaper, then it's behooves the free market proponents to support their claims.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 07:19 AM   #74
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 81,766
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
What do you doubt? Impact of subsidies? Defensive medicine? Behavior of informed consumers (that was the topic of the linked article). Or are you just making work?
It is not what I can doubt but what you can prove.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 07:35 AM   #75
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It is not what I can doubt but what you can prove.
p|(p-1)!+1 <=> p is prime (Wilson's Theorem)? The order of a subgroup divides the order of the group (Lagrange)? What? Besides, you asked for "evidence", not proof. Evidence of what, specifically?
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 07:42 AM   #76
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 81,766
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
p|(p-1)!+1 <=> p is prime (Wilson's Theorem)? The order of a subgroup divides the order of the group (Lagrange)? What? Besides, you asked for "evidence", not proof. Evidence of what, specifically?
Your claims as to why you Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2011, 11:53 PM   #77
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Economists have a term, "revealed preference". Within the visible constraints, the choice people make from the available options reveals their preference. In free countries, most people prefer home.

Non-sequitur.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 12:34 PM   #78
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "Again. Extreme care is expensive and often futile. Even if subsidized, many doctors (informed customers) will not use it. You don't need a State bureaucracy to radically cut costs with little impact on aggregate longevity if customers have sufficient information. Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine."
(Darat): "Evidence?"
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "What do you doubt? Impact of subsidies? Defensive medicine? Behavior of informed consumers (that was the topic of the linked article). Or are you just making work?"
(Darat): "t is not what I can doubt but what you can prove."
(Malcolm Kirkpatrick): "p|(p-1)!+1 <=> p is prime (Wilson's Theorem)? The order of a subgroup divides the order of the group (Lagrange)? What? Besides, you asked for "evidence", not proof. Evidence of what, specifically?"
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Your claims as to why you Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
Mr. Moderator, please,
Darat wrote "Evidence" after (numbered for reference):...
1. Extreme care is expensive and often futile.
2. Even if subsidized, many doctors (informed customers) will not use it.
3. You don't need a State bureaucracy to radically cut costs with little impact on aggregate longevity if customers have sufficient information.
4. Combine subsidies (the ability to impose costs on strangers), defensive medicine, and an unreasonable fear of death and you get high cost medicine.

For which propositions does Darat want evidence? Or is that request an instance of rhetorical obstructionism? Which of these propositions does Darat doubt?


Mod InfoWhen posting within threads about subjects unrelated to moderation, you need not refer to or even think of Darat as a moderator, let alone address him as Mr. Moderator. As a friendly (non-moderator) tip, you may want to re-ask this question. It's very difficult to tell whom you wish to receive an answer from and, also, what you want an answer about.
Posted By:Loss Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 7th December 2011 at 09:05 PM. Reason: add line break. "Which" => "For which", typo in p|(p-1)!+1 <=> p is prime
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 12:36 PM   #79
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Non-sequitur.
Pons asinorum.
Malcolm Kirkpatrick is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2011, 12:41 PM   #80
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,686
So I'm still curious (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) about what value there is in spending twice as much on health care.

Please, show how the US system is twice as good as every other industrialized country's.
rustypouch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.