quote:

---

Bloodsage's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Making you, of course, a burden on others.

---

Yes, well, being murdered so that you take up tax resources to investigate the crime is also being a burden on others.

I just don't happen to see anything wrong with funding either through taxes.

quote:

---

And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
Making you, of course, a burden on others.

---

And others a burden on him should he happen to not fall ill or not fall ill often enough to use up more in medical costs than he will pay into the insurance fund in his lifetime. The only people who disproportionately drain the system are those who are struck with severe chronic illness (People who just drop dead from a stroke or heart attack generally don't cost a ton) while not earning enough over the course of their entire lifetime to pay enough income tax to cover the costs and those are the group who all things considered I think the least people would have a problem with giving a helping hand to.

quote:

---

Mod stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
And others a burden on him should he happen to not fall ill or not fall ill often enough to use up more in medical costs than he will pay into the insurance fund in his lifetime. The only people who disproportionately drain the system are those who are struck with severe chronic illness (People who just drop dead from a stroke or heart attack generally don't cost a ton) while not earning enough over the course of their entire lifetime to pay enough income tax to cover the costs and those are the group who all things considered I think the least people would have a problem with giving a helping hand to.

---

That's also very true. Why is it right for the insurance company to be a burden on health people, eh?

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on JooJooFlop!
What I'm curious about is the state of private health care in countries with extensive socialized health care systems. Do their governments outright ban it like Canada does or do they let them do their own thing to cater people who have the cash?

---

Here private providers mostly offer greater comfort than the public doctors, solo rooms, cable TVs in hospitals, etc, healthcare quality is generally equal to the public sector.

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about Captain Planet:
A really high tax rate is not so much a problem when the services you receive in return are of equal or greater value.

---

Karl Marx couldn't have said it better.

Ever wonder why the public school system is NEVER fully funded? The first rule of bureaucracy is find a way to spend your budget, then ask for more. If you don't spend your budget, you'll get less next year. Once government is the sole provider of healthcare, there is no longer a downward clamp on costs. Patients are no longer pressed to find the most efficient healthcare, doctors are no longer pressed to provide it, and drug companies are no longer pressed to produce or innovate at all. Costs balloon, and the quality of "free" healthcare falls sharply, producing extensive waiting lists for medical procedures and widespread drug shortages.

Socialism has never failed to produce shortages wherever it's practiced.

Countries like Australia and England who are currently practicing socialized healthcare are already beginning to "backtrack" and re-establish private healthcare systems that, in every case, perform leaps and bounds better than the subsidized ones. Of course, patrons of the private institutions wind up getting double-dipped for healthcare costs, creating a rift between rich and poor in terms of healthcare (but wait! I thought it was the conservatives that wanted to create a rift between rich and poor! my worldview is crumbling!). Canadians have no such two-tiered system, but 51% of them want one.

Maradon! fucked around with this message on 03-06-2005 at 01:47 AM.

quote:

---

Suddar had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Hey guys, Hitler is cool.
Go Nazis!

---

What the hell are you talking about?

quote:

---

Maradon! impressed everyone with:
What the hell are you talking about?

---

Nazis it looks like.

edit: or hitler.

Lee Taxx0r fucked around with this message on 03-06-2005 at 02:10 AM.

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Maradon! stammered:
Karl Marx couldn't have said it better.

Ever wonder why the public school system is NEVER fully funded? The first rule of bureaucracy is find a way to spend your budget, then ask for more. If you don't spend your budget, you'll get less next year. Once government is the sole provider of healthcare, there is no longer a downward clamp on costs. Patients are no longer pressed to find the most efficient healthcare, doctors are no longer pressed to provide it, and drug companies are no longer pressed to produce or innovate at all. Costs balloon, and the quality of "free" healthcare falls sharply, producing extensive waiting lists for medical procedures and widespread drug shortages.

Socialism has never failed to produce shortages wherever it's practiced.

Countries like Australia and England who are currently practicing socialized healthcare are already beginning to "backtrack" and re-establish private healthcare systems that, in every case, perform leaps and bounds better than the subsidized ones. Of course, patrons of the private institutions wind up getting double-dipped for healthcare costs, creating a rift between rich and poor in terms of healthcare (but wait! I thought it was the conservatives that wanted to create a rift between rich and poor! my worldview is crumbling!). Canadians have no such two-tiered system, but 51% of them want one.

---

Uh, socialized healthcare does not mean government taking over every single hospital, drug company and clinic, it just means that if your doctor is performing procedures on you covered under healthcare he gets the bill paid by the government instead of you, with some exceptions the government is not in the business of running those companies.

'Socialism' has failed to produce shortages in many cases, there is no shortage of public transport here for instance, there is also no shortage of roads where you live, I also doubt that France is suffering through a massive shortage of public schools or that England is running out of BBC. You need to stop looking at everything through the an-cap lens, privatization is just another tool in the box, not the solution to absolutely everything involving money.

Oh and on the topic of schools, my inner-city public school was absolutely fine, the insanity that are some American public schools is not an innate problem of public education which works perfectly well in other countries.

Townhall? Yeah, I'll get you some really cool 'facts' about 9/11 from indymedia.org. The actual study that they refer to there is a 404.

As for the waiting lists, yeah, there is waiting time because all of the people who would otherwise simply not get those procedures due to not being able to afford them can get them under socialized healthcare, it has nothing to do with socialism being inefficient, the counter proposal boils down to letting the people with money have short waiting times at the expense of everyone else.
This is also the reason why private hospitals in England appear to be doing so good on paper, they have a really low patient load and very high profit per patient due to only serving the upper economic echelon, send them all the patients the public system has to deal with and see what happens.

Mod fucked around with this message on 03-06-2005 at 05:14 AM.

quote:

---

And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bloodsage was all like:
The point is that, all things considered, socialized medicine is probably more expensive than privatized. The only difference is that the cost is hidden. At least for anyone middle class.

Combine that with the facts pointing to better quality by privatized systems, and I think it's important.

The only people who win with socialized medicine are the people who don't contribute.

---

Actually, countries with universal healthcare systems tend to spend less on it.

For example, in 2001, the USA spent ~14% of its GDP on healthcare, making it by a great margin the single most expensive healthcare system anywhere. Conversely, Australia spent 9.3 %GDP, Canada spent 9.4 %GDP, Japan spent 7.8 %GDP, and the UK spent 7.6 %GDP.

In Australia, our universal healthcare system, Medicare, is paid for by the Medicare levy, which is 1.5% of personal taxable income.

Here at least, the winners from universal healthcare include everyone at and below the upper-middle class; anyone who takes prescription drugs; the moderately ill; the seriously ill; and the dole bludgers, who do not so much win as cheat. The people who it disadvantages include the very wealthy, who can take it; and those who by sheer luck maintain perfect health.

Figures from the US Census Bureau, medhunters.com, choice.com.au, economist.com

Pvednes fucked around with this message on 03-06-2005 at 06:26 AM.

quote:

---

Mod attempted to be funny by writing:
Uh, socialized healthcare does not mean government taking over every single hospital, drug company and clinic, it just means that if your doctor is performing procedures on you covered under healthcare he gets the bill paid by the government instead of you, with some exceptions the government is not in the business of running those companies.

---

In the US, health care practitioners are directed by the US Government what practices and medications are acceptable for what diseases and conditions and how much the government will pay - usually way below the going rate. When we (Americans) think of "socialized healthcare", I think this is part of our definition. The practitioner is limited to a sort of "one size fits all" treatment protocols. New and innovative practices are usually not allowed until after many, many years of proven treatment.

The government is not actually in the practice of running the business providing the healthcare, but they won't pay for healthcare that does not follow its acceptable treatment protocols.

Health care practitioners have to make a living, too, no matter how its done, I suppose.

Vernaltemptress fucked around with this message on 03-06-2005 at 07:08 AM.

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Lyinar Ka`Bael wrote:
What happens to the mentally ill in Australia, Mr P? Medicine for that stuff is pretty expensive. Is anything at all covered in relation to that sort of illness?

---

There are fairly numerous public facilities for the treatment of mental illness, as well as treatment in public hospitals. Many psychiatrists also bulk-bill. Antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizing drugs are also covered under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

quote:

---

Zaza was listening to Cher while typing:
That's also very true. Why is it right for the insurance company to be a burden on health people, eh?

---

Ah, but then each person pays his own way in the form of insurance. Which is inherently more just than mooching off of others, or penalizing people for doing well by taxing the crap out of them.

quote:

---

Bloodsage enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Ah, but then each person pays his own way in the form of insurance. Which is inherently more just than mooching off of others, or penalizing people for doing well by taxing the crap out of them.

---

You mean like the insurance company is mooching off healthy people who are paying for an insurance they're not using.

quote:

---

Everyone wondered WTF when Zaza wrote:
You mean like the insurance company is mooching off healthy people who are paying for an insurance they're not using.

---

OMG!

And grocery stores are mooching off people, too, because they charge more than the product is worth just to make a profit! Dirty bastards!

Now that I think of it, the entire idea of capitalism is stupid. And we won't even mention the silliness of personal responsibility for one's future. Everyone is responsible for everyone else; from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It all makes so much sense now.

quote:

---

Bloodsage had this to say about Pirotess:
OMG!

And grocery stores are mooching off people, too, because they charge more than the product is worth just to make a profit! Dirty bastards!

Now that I think of it, the entire idea of capitalism is stupid. And we won't even mention the silliness of personal responsibility for one's future. Everyone is responsible for everyone else; from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

It all makes so much sense now.

---

I agree. The Police should not be tax-funded, it should protect people based on "security insurances". I don't want to pay just because some retard went and got raped.

Only with anarcho-capitalism can we be free!

It makes sense, if you think about it: commoditizing health care means you have a fragmentary payment system with thousands of individual, non-uniform adminstrative structures. You also have costs of advertising. In addition, companies are now encouraged to stall payment of claims as long as possible, so that they can accrue the most possible interest on the money. In addition, the very structure encourages huge bureaucracy as a consequence: if you make it difficult for people to file claims, they'll do it less and you'll make more money.

I guess the upshot is you pay less taxes. Of course, if you have to buy your own insurance, 25 cents on the dollar is going towards administration, and not towards medical treatment of any sort. So it's either being forced to cover the costs of the poor via an administratively efficient socialized health plan, or suck it up and contribute to largely unnecessary bureaucracy that costs nearly as much as the U.S. defense budget to get your healthcare...if you want to, that is.

I dunno, seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

quote:

---

Karnaj had this to say about Knight Rider:
What's weird is that is that a privatized healthcare system is ridiculously less efficient than a socialized one. Bureaucracy costs for the healthcare system of the U.S. total some $400 billion annually, or ~25% of yearly health services money is tied up in administration. All numbers I see for socialized ones point to an adminstrative cost of 1%-10%.

It makes sense, if you think about it: commoditizing health care means you have a fragmentary payment system with thousands of individual, non-uniform adminstrative structures. You also have costs of advertising. In addition, companies are now encouraged to stall payment of claims as long as possible, so that they can accrue the most possible interest on the money. In addition, the very structure encourages huge bureaucracy as a consequence: if you make it difficult for people to file claims, they'll do it less and you'll make more money.

I guess the upshot is you pay less taxes. Of course, if you have to buy your own insurance, 25 cents on the dollar is going towards administration, and not towards medical treatment of any sort. So it's either being forced to cover the costs of the poor via an administratively efficient socialized health plan, or suck it up and contribute to largely unnecessary bureaucracy that costs nearly as much as the U.S. defense budget to get your healthcare...if you want to, that is.

I dunno, seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

The reason for this is that healthcare is a public good; thus a private healthcare system suffers consistantly from crushing market failure.

A two-tiered system works, however, because luxury wards are a private good, rather than a public good. The healthcare itself is still a public good, but an efficient public system will minimise market failure, allowing luxury private services for those who can pay for it.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Karnaj:
What's weird is that is that a privatized healthcare system is ridiculously less efficient than a socialized one. Bureaucracy costs for the healthcare system of the U.S. total some $400 billion annually, or ~25% of yearly health services money is tied up in administration. All numbers I see for socialized ones point to an adminstrative cost of 1%-10%.

It makes sense, if you think about it: commoditizing health care means you have a fragmentary payment system with thousands of individual, non-uniform adminstrative structures. You also have costs of advertising. In addition, companies are now encouraged to stall payment of claims as long as possible, so that they can accrue the most possible interest on the money. In addition, the very structure encourages huge bureaucracy as a consequence: if you make it difficult for people to file claims, they'll do it less and you'll make more money.

I guess the upshot is you pay less taxes. Of course, if you have to buy your own insurance, 25 cents on the dollar is going towards administration, and not towards medical treatment of any sort. So it's either being forced to cover the costs of the poor via an administratively efficient socialized health plan, or suck it up and contribute to largely unnecessary bureaucracy that costs nearly as much as the U.S. defense budget to get your healthcare...if you want to, that is.

I dunno, seems like you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

---

Only in theory.

Socializing anything makes it less efficient simply because one turns it over to bureaucrats to manage. Efficiency and results are unimportant in any socialized system.

In practice, competitive systems tend to be more efficient, because competition forces the competitors to cut costs and reduce overhead.

quote:

---

Pvednes had this to say about Punky Brewster:
A two-tiered system works, however, because luxury wards are a private good, rather than a public good. The healthcare itself is still a public good, but an efficient public system will minimise market failure, allowing luxury private services for those who can pay for it.

---

There is only a limited amount of money (resources) to go into healthcare. By choosing only a socialized system, the entirety of that money goes into it and there's more to go around. By choosing only a privatized system, there is more money going to the companies in the system.

Of course, they have different priorities. A privatized system is a business, not a public good. The business people have to find a way to "one-up" the competition, by way of better service, new innovations, cheaper costs, etc. in order to attract customers. Thus, more of the money is spent in areas that try to re-invent the medical industry to get their business on top and get more money. This is the ideal. (Not all people can afford all things, that's why they have insurance that they pay for while they're healthy enough to do so. Even then, there are places and people who will help those who cannot do for themselves, an individual choice.)

With a socialized system, the vast majority of people get service that they pay the government to provide. Thus, their priority is the public good, not innovation or "one-upmanship," since care tends to be uniform throughout the system. (I have had no experience with socialized healthcare, so will refrain from judgement.)

The problem with having a two-tiered system is that with the limited supply of money, it becomes difficult to supply both tiers with what they need. The private companies don't have the money they need to compete with companies in a fully-privatized system, forcing them to cut back in areas such as research or patient care, while the public system has the problem of either not having enough resources to serve everyone, or they stick it to those who can afford the private system, the "double dipping" earlier mentioned. That's the problem with luxury wards; since the rich have already paid for the building, care, and training of the staff, why should they have to pay again? The US seems to fail because we try to have a privatized system with too many controls. Because each individual company has to keep its own records for the federal/state governments, the costs of keeping track of these records is enormous, let alone the federal oversight required for all of the different systems. It seems to be a matter of splitting the pie and letting both sides go away dissatisfied.

Maradons more common in America.

quote:

---

This insanity brought to you by Mortious:
THIS JUST IN!

Maradons more common in America.

---

quote:

---

Bloodsage still thinks SARS jokes are topical, as evidenced by:
Only in theory.

Socializing anything makes it less efficient simply because one turns it over to bureaucrats to manage. Efficiency and results are unimportant in any socialized system.

In practice, competitive systems tend to be more efficient, because competition forces the competitors to cut costs and reduce overhead.

---

For commodities, sure. Not the case with healthcare, which is less efficient for the reasons I enumerated above. The massive bureaucracy that costs nearly as much as the entirety of the U.S. military is a necessary overhead; the price we pay for better medical care, I suppose. Perhaps our 75 cents on the dollar goes to pay for better healthcare than is available anywhere else. Even if that's true, I suspect the gain is marginal at best; it certainly is not reflected in life expectancies of the various nations of the developed world.