Careful. Correlation <> causation.Charlie Dont Surf said:Also:
- Status
Even without that, it's staggering how every other industrialized country has it.Espy said:
All of those other countries are just so tiny in comparison to the US, though. It just doesn't seem like as easy of a leap as to say, "let's do what they're doing!"Charlie Dont Surf said:
If all you're saying is, it is a shame we can't figure something out too, then I'm with you. I just think the ore you centralize (especially the more you centralize really large institutions) the more open you are to catastrophic failure. You put it in the hands of a few people to fuck it up. A good distributed system can take failures without collapsing (as with the internet or social networks or even "united states", which distributes governing to smaller areas). Japan and Luxembourg can centralize healthcare much easier than we can. Can we find a way to improve healthcare here? No question. Ii think the free market is not the way to go but neither is a single-payer, federal system. We need ideas outside of those boxes.
C
Chibibar
Larger countries are harder to government while maintain freedom at the same time. My parents are raving how good China's healthcare system which is cheaper monthly premiums than the U.S. and have faster service.MindDetective said:
But China's government is opposite (or near it) from U.S.
I could not agree more nor state my feelings more concisely.MindDetective said:
I would point out Charlie that according to the latest figures in the CIA Fact Book life expectancy the highest is Macau with 84 years and Japan, the highest on your charts is 82 years. The US is a wee bit over 78. That's not exactly a huge gap.
You may have statistically significant differences but small effect sizes. What that means to the non-statisticians here is that the differences in life-expectancy are real but minute.Espy said:
C
crono1224
A random but I suppose good question maybe how is life expectancy among our insured vs uninsured, which probably isn't even viable data since you can drift in and out of being insured.
P
Papillon
Or lose your insurance when you develop a fatal condition which prevents you from working.crono1224 said:
W
WolfOfOdin
Here's another point;
Most jobs include some form of healthcare in their benefits package, correct?
Now, this is a massive expenditure of money on the behalf of the companies, seen as a vital part in keeping their employees. Here's thing....think of the amounts of money that could be freed up if they no longer had to do this, since the government did. That money could then be used to either pay higher salaries to current employees, or be used to finance additional employees, creating more jobs.
Most jobs include some form of healthcare in their benefits package, correct?
Now, this is a massive expenditure of money on the behalf of the companies, seen as a vital part in keeping their employees. Here's thing....think of the amounts of money that could be freed up if they no longer had to do this, since the government did. That money could then be used to either pay higher salaries to current employees, or be used to finance additional employees, creating more jobs.
ElJuski said:We should, shouldn't we, Tress?Tress said:
Oh if only people knew.
P
Philosopher B.
:aaahhh:
Not entirely sure where I fall in this discussion - I am woefully under-informed when it comes to health care, but here's an interesting article about the study of an alternate metric to life expectancy, "amenable mortality", the deaths before the age of 75 that were potentially preventable with timely and adequate care.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... lysis.aspx
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content ... lysis.aspx
Well fuck! You are oh so right that if you can't turn us all to thinking exactly like you it's not worth it? Also, you have been presented with new arguments that you have ignored, so if you don't want to discuss or you can't keep your argument just say so, but don't come with the 'I'm waiting for debate and facts' BS.The Messiah said:
-- Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:43 am --
Who's saying it has to be centralized? It doesn't need to be managed by the federal government! Even in a country as small as Spain, with 45 million citizens, healthcare is decentralized up to a certain point.MindDetective said:
NUH UH! NUH UH! NUH UH!
Everyone here who is talking or fearmongering about a single-payer system. In what way is it decentralized in Spain?tegid said:
C
Chibibar
I think it is the lack of faith of the U.S. Government to tackle something this large.MindDetective said:
I mean look at Social Security. Medicare/Medicaid. Student loan and such. It is such a hassle and sometime hard to get into any of these systems.
We shouldn't need to have faith in our government, really.
W
WolfOfOdin
Well, you have to understand that after FDR was out of office, the then suppressed Hooverites swiftly and viciously did away with anything that was efficient about the New Deal in the interest of scaling back the Federal Government's power. This wasn't an act of outright maliciousness, but more a reaction to the idea that the US had to act as a 'Bastion of Capitalism" to counteract the USSR.Covar said:
Also, don't knock the Post Office, my mom works for them
I'd like to think we could criticize government institutions without it being taken as a criticism of the employees within those institutions.WolfOfOdin said:Also, don't knock the Post Office, my mom works for them
W
WolfOfOdin
I only say that for your safety.
You know what happens when you anger a postal worker >_>
You know what happens when you anger a postal worker >_>
Weeell it's not like I know how it works all that well but...MindDetective said:
For starters, we have a somehow peculiar sistem of government here in which regions have some power and manage some things, but not as much as in a federal system. Some of these regions manage part of the money (I don't know how much, I think it's most of it) for healthcare, among other things, but they have to abide the laws coming from the capital, much like your states have to abide by federal laws, if I get it right (the difference is the 'central' gov regulates a lot more here and so the states have less freedom and attributions).
So, it's a mostly decentralized system with regulations coming from the capital. The single payer is still there, I guess, because the money the regions can use comes from the central government.
We do have insurances and private healthcare for whoever wants it, though, so I don't know it this is a single-payer system or what.
C
Chazwozel
I'm going to start my own vigilante group. And I'm gonna keep people in line with my rapmaster 2000.Tress said:
It's hammer!
You are asking people to compare local city government run police departments to a nationalized form of healthcare?Tress said:
I don't think that's what you want to ask. I *think* you are trying to say "If the NATIONAL government, not LOCAL, can run something like THE ARMY well then why would healthcare run by them be bad?" which is, in my opinion a terrible question. Even if one organization can do something well (like the Government running the Armed Forces) it does not, in any way automatically mean that they can run a national form of healthcare well.
I think that's a terrible line of reasoning to try and use.
Lucky for you I have a better example for you to use.
The government DOES have a form of healthcare that it ALREADY CONTROLS. We could examine that for a comparison, even though it's not a perfect one, it's still better than our former argument.
So: Military Healthcare. I've had it. My wife has it. My experience with it is that it is not something that is horrible, but it's hardly anywhere near as functional (that's the key word here) as my current private care. It is "better" in the sense that it cost me nothing (well, actually, it cost me nothing but my taxes and yours, thanks!) and it covered pretty much everything, but even that is misleading. For example: Every year I have to get my allergy med prescriptions renewed, maybe get a new allergy test, etc. Now, under my current insurance I just make an appointment and go see the doctor of my choice. BAM. New prescriptions. Downside? They cost a little bit more than my military healthcare.
Under the military plan here is how I go about this: Start at the Tricare website, going over the doctors the GOVERNMENT says I can go see. Now, these aren't allergy docs. Nope. They are all GENERAL PRACTITIONERS. In order to go see the last (GOVERNMENT APPROVED) allergist I saw the year before I have to get a RECOMMENDATION by the GENERAL PRACTITIONERS under the military Ins. So, a few hours on the website, a few phone calls, etc. and I might an appointment to see the Gen. Pract. If not, repeat again the next day.
After that appointment I finally get my recommendation to go to my allergist.
I'm sure many of you will go "So what? Took you an extra month or so? Big deal!" and in one sense you are right. Big deal. All I did under the military insurance was:
1) Waste YOUR (taxpayer) dollars to go to a doctor who had nothing to do with what I needed nor was of my choosing.
2) Wasted my time. I have a family, I'm in grad school, I work full time and I teach. My time is valuable, I don't give a damn if anyone else disagrees, it is to me.
3) Paid for a SECOND doc visit to a doc that again, I was forced to choose, not because they were the best but because thats who the GOVERNMENT thought I should go see. They decided which allergy tests I could have and which ones were needed, NOT the doctor. So if I want the test I have to go home, get it approved and go BACK to the allergist to get the test. That's 3 visits, and 2 were wastes of both YOUR money and MY TIME. How wonderfully efficient yes?
My wife has waited 8 MONTHS to get a root canal. Getting it approved by the VA has been one of the most frustrating things she has ever done. Why? They don't want to pay. They have to eventually, but they are going to make is so frustrating that they hope you give up trying. 8. Months.
Now, would I take it over nothing? Of course. It's a benefit of having to see my wife go over seas. It's better than nothing, on that we can agree.
But to say that since the Federal Government can run the Post Office that it can provide you with well managed, fiscally non-wasteful healthcare? I beg to differ. They can do it, sure, but if my experience with their current system is worth anything it won't be well managed, it won't be easy and it won't be a fiscally viable.
Like I have said before: We need reform. I'm not arguing that. I'm just arguing that ramming this bill through just to have "something" so that everyone gets their little immediate gratification fix and the politicians can smile and say "vote for me! I got everyone healthcare" isn't a good enough reason for me to give it thumbs up. Does that make sense?
Well, I was trying to attack the notion that the government shouldn't be involved in anything outside of national defense and interstate trade. I see that argument a lot from libertarians. Still, I think I should have gone the direction you described.
Oh, and speaking as someone who hasn't had health care in 4 years, and is essentially gambling with his health everytime he steps off a curb, I would love to have the option for shitty health care run by the government. I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.
rly:
Oh, and speaking as someone who hasn't had health care in 4 years, and is essentially gambling with his health everytime he steps off a curb, I would love to have the option for shitty health care run by the government. I just wish a politician would propose a national health care plan that people could choose to use, while still being allowed to use private health care if they wanted.
OH WAIT.
rly:- Status