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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 9th December 2011, 12:18 PM   #121
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
1. Perhaps you'd prefer it if instead of "universal health care" we referred to it as "national health care".
That's no improvement. "UHC" names a broad category of varied systems, from single payer systems with providers and patients finding each other in a semi-competitive market through systems like Britain's NHS, on through Cuba's system, where competition with the State is illegal.
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
2. Your point is? The intent of a national health care system is not to indefinitely prolong life, it is to ensure that through a reasonable cost to everyone that (1) sick and injured members of society are able to resume their roles (be it as bricklayers, sales persons, plumbers, lawyers, students, grand-parents, or what-ever2) increasing the overall productivity of society.
1. Insert "All" or "some". Which is it?
2. Does "what-ever" include brain-dead accident victims and the sorts of monsters that women deliver into this world, where the obstetrician tells the mother (lying): "I'm sorry; your child was stillborn"?
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
3. Your point? Other than your obvious feeling that the a person's worth is only related to $.
4. Your point again? Should the highly skilled, but low-moderately paid worker who needs such a prosthetic have to say, "Sorry, can't afford it. Guess society now loses my skill set and I need to go starve over here out of sight because I can't earn a living any more."
What does "skill" have to do with anything? Suppose some 35-year-old skillfully picks his nose? Or are we back to "productivity" (=> valued by others), and then who are you to disdain "your obvious feeling that the a person's worth is only related to $"?
Which side of that argument do you want?
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 9th December 2011, 01:19 PM   #122
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
That's no improvement. "UHC" names a broad category of varied systems, from single payer systems with providers and patients finding each other in a semi-competitive market through systems like Britain's NHS, on through Cuba's system, where competition with the State is illegal. 1. Insert "All" or "some". Which is it?
2. Does "what-ever" include brain-dead accident victims and the sorts of monsters that women deliver into this world, where the obstetrician tells the mother (lying): "I'm sorry; your child was stillborn"? What does "skill" have to do with anything? Suppose some 35-year-old skillfully picks his nose? Or are we back to "productivity" (=> valued by others), and then who are you to disdain "your obvious feeling that the a person's worth is only related to $"?
Which side of that argument do you want?
Blah, blah, blah, stop being such an obsequious pedant.

Playing word games is not a way to win an argument unless you plan on being so tedious people can't be bothered discussing anything with you anymore.
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 9th December 2011, 01:52 PM   #123
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,391
What I have learned in this thread:

Universal Health care means health care for the Universe (Which isn't sick) so that people can live forever.

Thats.. a mighty fine strawman.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 9th December 2011, 02:31 PM   #124
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. Talk about indifference to facts! It's advocates for a State role in the medical service industry who repeatedly introduce the terms "ideology" and "ideologue" into this discussion. If you find the word "ideology" in the dictionary, you get something like "theory" or "system".

Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*

Let me make it clear to you: I don't give a rat's ass about politics and ideology. I only care about what works. I'm a pragmatist. I will not reject a perfectly viable solution to a problem because of ideological or political qualms. You, on the other hand, seem to only care about politics and ideology since you reject the evidence from around the world that UHC systems produce outcomes at least as good, if not better, as those found in the U.S., and do so at less cost.


Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I agree that people who introduce the term to the discussion intend "so attached to a theory that one is indifferent to facts". I also agree that this is a common phenomenon. Cognative dissonance, confirmation bias, etc., happen. To all of us. Including socialists. I refrain from making that accusation since it provides no more factual content than "you're wrong". No facts. Pure ad hominem. And JREF moderators have repeatedly defended it.

See prior reply. (Did I not warn you that continuing to beat the dead horse's corpse into a mushy pulp will make people think something is wrong with you?)

Also, what's conspicuously absent from your reply is data and evidence.
__________________
"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 9th December 2011, 03:27 PM   #125
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*
Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*
So stop it.
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Let me make it clear to you: I don't give a rat's ass about politics and ideology. I only care about what works. I'm a pragmatist. I will not reject a perfectly viable solution to a problem because of ideological or political qualms. You, on the other hand, seem to only care about politics and ideology
Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*
Knock it off,
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
...since you reject the evidence from around the world that UHC systems produce outcomes at least as good, if not better, as those found in the U.S., and do so at less cost.
In earlier threads, we discussed the variation in outcomes. Different countries vary widely when you consider specific measures, such as number of NMR machines per 100,000 of population, frequency of diagnostic procdures, wait times for specific treatments, and post-treatment survival rates. "At least as good" depends on which measure of success you use.
Costs are a different, and equally difficult, issue. I have not seen figures for individual costs of specific procedures. Total costs also may not mean what people suppose. I already raised the issue of where expenses for medical tourism appear. If an Englishman travels to a private clinic in Spain for a cranial MRI, on which country's "total health care expense" does that charge appear? On what account do bribes to jump the queue appear?

True story: Some years ago, Kohala Hospital hired a new administrator, who looked into the books and deduced that the food service program had ordered food that did not go to patients. He fired the food service manager. The food service manager, Clarence Relgulbai, appealed his dismissal. Health Department auditors inspected the books and found nothing amiss. The new administrator paid fo an outside audit, which determined that $200,000 had gone missing. Ultimately, a court found Clarence Rengulbai guilty of stealing $200,000 worth of food and ordered him to repay the hospital at $200 per pay period. He'll be over 100 years old when it's over. No jail time.

Why the slap on the wrist?
Why did the (unionized) Health Department auditors find nothing wrong?
The answer lies in the answer to another question: whare did the food go?
He'd been catering Democratic Party fundraisers.
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
See prior reply. (Did I not warn you that continuing to beat the dead horse's corpse into a mushy pulp will make people think something is wrong with you?)Also, what's conspicuously absent from your reply is data and evidence.
What data and evidence does the ad hominem "ideologue" contain? Is this the rule: socialists get to make ad hominem arguments and free marketeers do not get to rebut?

Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 9th December 2011 at 03:33 PM. Reason: add "on what budget..." comment.
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 9th December 2011, 03:59 PM   #126
rustypouch
Philosopher
 
rustypouch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,715
So you won't answer direct questions without willingly misinterpreting them.

I don't know you if you're motivated by ideology, ignorant by choice, a dumbass, or just trolling.

Either way, I done with this thread. I might check back to see if anyone can justify spending nearly twice as much for the same thing.
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 9th December 2011, 04:12 PM   #127
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,694
Just passing by, thought I'd drop in. Suddenly I have deja-vu: wasn't all this done to death in a previous never-ending thread on health care?

From what I could work out in that thread, it was okay to cost more and deliver less, as long as the ideology was "right". Same message here, apparently.

Back in the old days when Somebody On The Internet was Wrong, I would have foolishly got engaged in arguing on this thread. Being older and wiser I realise that for some people wrongness is more than just skin deep and facts are simply something to be deflected...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 9th December 2011, 04:16 PM   #128
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
... my total expenditure for medical services over the last twenty years has been under $500 (probably under $100) total.
Congratulations on picking the right parents.

So, you don't have health insurance. How much health care will your savings cover? Would you be willing to get a tattoo asking us to just shoot you when the money's gone?

Going without insurance is irresponsible unless you're either totally indigent or filthy rich. At either end of the spectrum it doesn't matter. But anything in between and you're a free rider. I'm not totally sold on a single government payer, but the next best thing is mandated coverage. Which Gingrich, Romney and Obama all, in their heart of hearts, support. It widens the risk pool, it allows for portability, it potentially can create new products and more competition.

Market solutions might apply if either everyone had insurance or no one had insurance. But this in-between stage distorts the market horribly. Any hospital's business plan has to depend on recouping mandated care to the uninsured (and uninsurable) at the expense of the insured. It's stupid.

Going uninsured is irresponsible when our health-care fates are so interconnected. Portability will be a big step up - if I could stay insured without being employed full time, I'd be able to really apply myself to my best economic use, which right now is keeping my mother out of a nursing home.
Minoosh 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 9th December 2011, 04:17 PM   #129
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
... wasn't all this done to death in a previous never-ending thread on health care?
Yes.
Minoosh 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 9th December 2011, 04:23 PM   #130
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
No jail time.
You think jail is free?

Quote:
Is this the rule: socialists get to make ad hominem arguments and free marketeers do not get to rebut?
You get to rebut, but they get to rebut your rebuttal.
Minoosh 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 9th December 2011, 04:24 PM   #131
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
Congratulations on picking the right parents.

So, you don't have health insurance. How much health care will your savings cover? Would you be willing to get a tattoo asking us to just shoot you when the money's gone?

Going without insurance is irresponsible unless you're either totally indigent or filthy rich. At either end of the spectrum it doesn't matter. But anything in between and you're a free rider. I'm not totally sold on a single government payer, but the next best thing is mandated coverage. Which Gingrich, Romney and Obama all, in their heart of hearts, support. It widens the risk pool, it allows for portability, it potentially can create new products and more competition.

Market solutions might apply if either everyone had insurance or no one had insurance. But this in-between stage distorts the market horribly. Any hospital's business plan has to depend on recouping mandated care to the uninsured (and uninsurable) at the expense of the insured. It's stupid.

Going uninsured is irresponsible when our health-care fates are so interconnected. Portability will be a big step up - if I could stay insured without being employed full time, I'd be able to really apply myself to my best economic use, which right now is keeping my mother out of a nursing home.

What is amusing, is that he doesn't pay for personal Health insurance, but he still pays for Health insurance, via Taxes, that he won't take advantage of. So right now, he pays about what people in other UHC type countries do, without any benefit for it.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 9th December 2011, 06:59 PM   #132
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Shalamar View Post
What is amusing, is that he doesn't pay for personal Health insurance, but he still pays for Health insurance, via Taxes, that he won't take advantage of. So right now, he pays about what people in other UHC type countries do, without any benefit for it.
My guess is that MK would be willing to die on the cheap but it's not realistic to assume that he and only he will bear the consequence of being uninsured. Just about any traumatic injury in a public place will be reported to 911 (UK 999) and via the ER he will be treated for his injury. If he's unconscious their default mode will be to save his life. Set the bones, cut if needed, etc. Trauma care is essentially a public utility.

The points people make about malpractice suits, end-of-life care costs, over-treating, over-testing, etc. are generally valid; however the idea that the "free market" will solve these problems is ... quaint.

I'm more available to offer my mom (87, mild dementia, DNR wishes in writing) in-home care because I'm underemployed. But to get insurance I need to work full time, even though I'm more useful (productive?) keeping Mom out of a nursing home. In this anecdote, enabling portability would be a productive and humane consequence of either mandated coverage or single-payer UHC. Attaching coverage to a full-time job is bad economics.
Minoosh 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 10th December 2011, 12:39 AM   #133
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
What data and evidence does the ad hominem "ideologue" contain?

Because that is the only rebuttal you offer. Constant prattling about political ideology. No data. No evidence. Just political ideology. How about bringing evidence to the table? (And I'm not the only one who has noted the conspicuous lack of evidence in your posts. Others have commented upon it as well.)
__________________
"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 10th December 2011, 02:05 AM   #134
Architect
Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,610
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Because that is the only rebuttal you offer. Constant prattling about political ideology. No data. No evidence. Just political ideology. How about bringing evidence to the table? (And I'm not the only one who has noted the conspicuous lack of evidence in your posts. Others have commented upon it as well.)
What he said. And despite your suggestions to the contrary, this includes your suggestion that you have refutted the comparable outcomes argument.
__________________
When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.

James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
Architect 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 10th December 2011, 02:53 AM   #135
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Because that is the only rebuttal you offer. Constant prattling about political ideology.
sigh.
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
No data. No evidence. Just political ideology.
Sigh.
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Ideology and politics. Again. *sigh*
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
How about bringing evidence to the table? (And I'm not the only one who has noted the conspicuous lack of evidence in your posts. Others have commented upon it as well.)
Good idea. Set an example. Any reader who backtracks through the last three health care threads and will observe that "ideology" and "ideological" only occur in my comments after someone used them to imply the insult "closed-minded". You guys are the people preoccupied with ideology.
I cannot provide evidence, anymore than I can e-mail a cup of coffee. Evidence is what is seen. Open your eyes. Or at least use a dictionary. I can relate events, like the account of fraud at Kohala Hospital (reason to question health care statistics). Has anyone addressed the question I asked about where expenses incurred during medical tourism appear? No. You people would rather prattle on about "ideology".
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 10th December 2011, 02:59 AM   #136
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
What he said. And despite your suggestions to the contrary, this includes your suggestion that you have refutted the comparable outcomes argument.
Aren't you all impressed by the wealth of data in the above?
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 10th December 2011, 03:29 AM   #137
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,694
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Aren't you all impressed by the wealth of data in the above?
*ideological* sigh...

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....

Last edited by Kid Eager; 10th December 2011 at 03:31 AM.
Kid Eager 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 10th December 2011, 03:32 AM   #138
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
What he said.
Community-based reality. Typical.
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
And despite your suggestions to the contrary, this includes your suggestion that you have refutted the comparable outcomes argument.
I'd say "disputed". Some moderator deleted from a comment of mine the lengthly quote from a study to which one advocate (Drachasor?) for State-managed care provided a link. Although that study favored State-managed care, it cited numerous instances of wide variations between nations in treatment success rates. Many of these favored the US.
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 10th December 2011, 04:55 AM   #139
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,253
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
That was not the assertion that preceeded your "Evidence"?
I apologise if my post confused you. Now that is cleared up: You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why 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 10th December 2011, 05:01 AM   #140
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,253
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. The universe is not sick.
No relevance to a discussion regarding a USA UHC.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
2. Everybody dies. ...snip...
No relevance to a discussion regarding a USA UHC.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post

...snip...

3. The marginal cost of an additonal six months of life, plotted as a function of age over an entire age cohort, is U-shaped. Beyond some point, around age 65 or so, people become increasingly expensive to maintain, and costs (potentially) increase without limit.

...snip...
Contradicts your number 2) point above.

That aside the general point may have some relevance to a discussion regarding a USA UHC, I look forward to seeing how you will develop this point in a discussion regarding whether the USA should have a UHC (or not) and if so how it should be funded.

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post

...snip...

4. Lots of life-enhancing procedures are possible but extremely expensive (e.g., artificial hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, knuckles).


That may be true, I look forward to you supporting your claim and then if it is a factual claim explaining what relevance it has to any argument you wish to make regarding whether or not the USA should have a UHC (and if it should how it should be funded).
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 10th December 2011 at 05:07 AM. Reason: +r - a quote
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 10th December 2011, 05:49 AM   #141
Tatyana
Illuminator
 
Tatyana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,701
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
sigh.Sigh.
Good idea. Set an example. Any reader who backtracks through the last three health care threads and will observe that "ideology" and "ideological" only occur in my comments after someone used them to imply the insult "closed-minded". You guys are the people preoccupied with ideology.
I cannot provide evidence, anymore than I can e-mail a cup of coffee. Evidence is what is seen. Open your eyes. Or at least use a dictionary. I can relate events, like the account of fraud at Kohala Hospital (reason to question health care statistics). Has anyone addressed the question I asked about where expenses incurred during medical tourism appear? No. You people would rather prattle on about "ideology".

All this post tells me is that you do not understand what evidence is and that you don't actually read any other posts.

In other words, you type at people but you don't read.

I am guessing you are the product of that period in history when post-modernism leaked into American schools.
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 10th December 2011, 11:53 AM   #142
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I apologise if my post confused you. Now that is cleared up: You still have not provided any evidence that supports your contention that the reasons you gave are why Americans have decided to pay through the nose for your healthcare.
I was not confused. Your post consisted of one word: "Evidence?" Now you assert that this did not refer to the comment of mine that you quoted, but represented a request for information on the evolution of denttion in ungulates, or something. Sorry. Not buying.
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 10th December 2011, 01:17 PM   #143
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,694
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I was not confused. Your post consisted of one word: "Evidence?" Now you assert that this did not refer to the comment of mine that you quoted, but represented a request for information on the evolution of denttion in ungulates, or something. Sorry. Not buying.
evidence: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 10th December 2011, 03:08 PM   #144
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
I'll just quote myself from way back in post #65:

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.

The OECD has data showing the U.S. is not doing as well as its fellow industrialized nations in the above areas. One does not have to take my word for it, one can go to the OECD's web site and examine the data tables for themselves. They're not hard to find.

So, is the lagging U.S. performance in such areas a concern? Does it matter? Should it matter? Does one accept the evidence as provided by the OECD? Is there a challenge to it? On what grounds? Is there an alternative source of comparative national data?
__________________
"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 10th December 2011, 03:21 PM   #145
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,253
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I was not confused. Your post consisted of one word: "Evidence?" Now you assert that this did not refer to the comment of mine that you quoted, but represented a request for information on the evolution of denttion in ungulates, or something. Sorry. Not buying.
Again apologies if my posts and posting style do not live up to your standards.

Will you be answering my question?
__________________
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 10th December 2011, 03:24 PM   #146
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,694
Originally Posted by Kid Eager View Post
for those that don't like clicking on links: the OECD rankings for health care...
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager 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 11th December 2011, 08:35 PM   #147
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Will you be answering my question?
Youth first.
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
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.
Which of these propositions does Darat doubt?
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 12th December 2011, 01:47 AM   #148
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,253
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Youth first.Which of these propositions does Darat doubt?
Why not ask me?
__________________
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 12th December 2011, 09:50 AM   #149
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why not ask me?
Okay.
Quote:
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.
Which of the above propositions looks unlikely?
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 12th December 2011, 09:56 AM   #150
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
1. The universe is not sick.
2. Everybody dies. The taxpayers of one medium-sized US State could afford to supply one band aid and one aspirin per year to everybody on the planet. The Earth's entire GDP is insufficient to keep even one person alive forever.
3. The marginal cost of an additonal six months of life, plotted as a function of age over an entire age cohort, is U-shaped. Beyond some point, around age 65 or so, people become increasingly expensive to maintain, and costs (potentially) increase without limit.
4. Lots of life-enhancing procedures are possible but extremely expensive (e.g., artificial hips, knees, shoulders, elbows, knuckles).

I rather think you've deliberately misunderstood my post in order to get on your broken soapbox. Please don't do that.

I would happily rephrase into something that takes into account what you've said above, but I really don't see the point in bashing my head against a brick wall like others have.

You have a nice day.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 12th December 2011, 10:27 AM   #151
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I rather think you've deliberately misunderstood my post
I hope not. I agree with this...
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I still don't think that Americans can actually afford any sort of universal health care.
As an aside, here.
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 12th December 2011, 10:46 AM   #152
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
I hope not. I agree with this...As an aside, here.
Okay, just to be sure you know where I'm coming from, I believe that healthcare should be fee at the point of delivery, paid for from taxes collected at a very high rate from the richest portions of society.

I believe the US is unlucky in having waited so long to impliment UHC that it now can't due to the fact that it's all now so damn expensive.


Just so you don't get confused and agree with me again.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 12th December 2011, 11:53 AM   #153
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Okay, just to be sure you know where I'm coming from, I believe that healthcare should be fee at the point of delivery, paid for from taxes collected at a very high rate from the richest portions of society.

I believe the US is unlucky in having waited so long to impliment UHC that it now can't due to the fact that it's all now so damn expensive.


Just so you don't get confused and agree with me again.
Interesting. I guess I don't understand. You advocate something that you assert the country cannot afford?
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 12th December 2011, 12:05 PM   #154
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Interesting. I guess I don't understand. You advocate something that you assert the country cannot afford?
In a way, yes.

I think the US should.

I don't think it can afford to.

I think any restructuring of budgets and wages to enable the US to afford UHC would be so distasteful to all of those involved, who, patriotic as they may claim to be, have only their own best interests at heart, that those self same patriots will happily tear the country apart and paralyse the government from instituting what would be a very good thing simply on the basis of ideology over observation and the superb political ideal of disagreeing with everything that your political rival says on the basis that it is your rival that is saying it.

I digress. I think the US is **********. I'm glad I don't live there.

For completeness, I think the UK is ********** too, but just not as ********** as you guys* (yet).


(This assumes you are a denizen of the United States)
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 12th December 2011, 02:03 PM   #155
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Okay, just to be sure you know where I'm coming from, I believe that healthcare should be fee at the point of delivery, paid for from taxes collected at a very high rate from the richest portions of society.

I believe the US is unlucky in having waited so long to impliment UHC that it now can't due to the fact that it's all now so damn expensive.
Someone else in this discussion took the opposite position: that the US was fortunate to be late to the policy and so could select those features that worked best.
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Just so you don't get confused and agree with me again.
We could agree a bit more, if you're willing to share the path only for a while and not expect me to have the same final destination in mind. Lower costs would be nice. "Fee at the point of delivery" sounds good; it's how I obtain services. It raises questions about the role of private insurance and HMOs., however.
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 12th December 2011, 02:08 PM   #156
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
oops. misattribution.

Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 12th December 2011 at 02:09 PM.
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 12th December 2011, 03:27 PM   #157
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
 
Shalamar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,391
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Someone else in this discussion took the opposite position: that the US was fortunate to be late to the policy and so could select those features that worked best.We could agree a bit more, if you're willing to share the path only for a while and not expect me to have the same final destination in mind. Lower costs would be nice. "Fee at the point of delivery" sounds good; it's how I obtain services. It raises questions about the role of private insurance and HMOs., however.
That was likely meant to be 'free' at point of delivery, not fee.
__________________

"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head."
Shalamar 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 12th December 2011, 04:20 PM   #158
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,308
Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick View Post
Someone else in this discussion took the opposite position: that the US was fortunate to be late to the policy and so could select those features that worked best.We could agree a bit more, if you're willing to share the path only for a while and not expect me to have the same final destination in mind. Lower costs would be nice. "Fee at the point of delivery" sounds good; it's how I obtain services. It raises questions about the role of private insurance and HMOs., however.
Free. Not fee.

Damned typos.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 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 12th December 2011, 06:22 PM   #159
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Free. Not fee. Damned typos.
Dang! I hoped we might agree on something more.
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 14th December 2011, 01:07 PM   #160
Malcolm Kirkpatrick
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,046
Originally Posted by RandFan View Post
...When I lost my job I lost my health insurance. So long as I had a job I had health insurance. I had it for 20 years.
RandFan: Occupation
Insurance Auditor - Programmer
If he spent his entire salary on services and consumption goods, and nothing on durable assets, that was a choice. If he bought durable goods when he made money and decided not to sell them for money to cover insurance, that was a choice.
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
...Going without insurance is irresponsible unless you're either totally indigent or filthy rich. At either end of the spectrum it doesn't matter. But anything in between and you're a free rider....
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
...He likes the fact that the US system allows him to freeload off other peoples insurance premiums by self-selecting when he will need insurance.

Last edited by Malcolm Kirkpatrick; 14th December 2011 at 01:08 PM. Reason: typo: "mad" => "made"
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
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 07:29 AM.
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.