Total Posts:181|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obamacare

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 2:19:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
So, what does everything think of all this Healthcare stuff going on in Washington? If you were president right now what would you do in regards to healthcare? How will America pay for it, and is it worth the cost? Feel free to chime in.

I personally feel that government-run healthcare in the US will turn out to look a lot like government-run education in the US. That is, obviously failing. Doctors and other medical professionals will be grossly underpaid and patients wouldn't have a big say in their treatment, instead a government bureaucrat would be put in charge of YOUR medical decisions. Medicare is already failing (it will be broke by 2017) so why should create this system which dwarfs medicare when it comes to costs?

Despite all of this I think it will pass, it will be unpopular, but it will pass. And if it does pass it will cost the Democrats 2010 and maybe even 2012. However, any attempt to remove this public option in the future will be hit with one fatal argument "You want to take x million American's healthcare away from them"?

Since it will be implemented, the only thing Republicans/Libertarians can do is to try to do something about it when they become the majority again. How can we do this without falling prey to the "x Million Americans" argument. Easy, tax credits. After the government takes it away all they need to due is supply tax credits to families/businesses who were just deprived of their healthcare that will help them buy their own private health insurance.

Public healthcare hasn't worked in Canada, it hasn't worked in Europe, and it won't work here.

Feel free to respond
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 2:42:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Simple: Charge by means testing. If you're dirt poor, then you don't' have to pay for an operation. If you're middle class, you pay some, but it is subsidised. If you;re rich, pay for it yourself. I don't support total free Healthcare. Only for those who otherwise couldn't afford it.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 2:56:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 2:42:05 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Simple: Charge by means testing. If you're dirt poor, then you don't' have to pay for an operation. If you're middle class, you pay some, but it is subsidised. If you;re rich, pay for it yourself. I don't support total free Healthcare. Only for those who otherwise couldn't afford it.

Don't they already do that? And even if they do, why should I (my family is above that 250,000 mark) have to pay for the poor's healthcare? Its not my fault they're poor.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 3:08:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 2:19:38 PM, Republican95 wrote:
Public healthcare hasn't worked in Canada, it hasn't worked in Europe, and it won't work here.

What do you mean public healthcare hasn't worked in Canada? As a Canadian, I disagree.

Besides, you're wrong about it being unpopular. It is popular, and it will help the Dems in 2010 and 2012. The only reason why it would be unpopular is if the large insurance companies, afraid of competition, launch a huge ad campaign, and even then I doubt it will work.

Think about this. The US spends more of their budget on health Canada does - and, with the distinction you already made, we have public health care, the US doesn't. It would make sense if the US government starts doing something for all the money they're spending. Otherwise, you're just promoting an inefficient system for the sake of partisan politics.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 3:08:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 2:19:38 PM, Republican95 wrote:

What do you mean public healthcare hasn't worked in Canada? As a Canadian, I disagree.
In Canada, the healthcare system is great! If your not sick....if you are sick be expected to wait for months on a waiting list for a surgery as you health worsens and becomes critical and you may possibly die. No person should have to go through that.

Besides, you're wrong about it being unpopular. It is popular, and it will help the Dems in 2010 and 2012.
Its approval rating has dropped from 57% to 44% and the free-fall is no where near the end. In America, we dislike big government and bigger deficits, Obama has done both. In 2010 and 2012 the Republicans are going to blame the deficits on two things: Economic Stimulus and Healthcare. The only people the Dems are going to gain ground with are the poor and liberals (who are already eating out of the palm of their hands) and they will further alienate Conservatives, the rich, and some moderates.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 4:02:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
There's no such thing as public health care. State health care takes care of a favored class (at the expense of the class of sacrifices), never of the whole public.

Even Canada's supreme court admitted that when it ended the state's monopoly, calling the denial of the right to seek services the state didn't provide "barbaric" :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 4:08:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 3:57:35 PM, Republican95 wrote:
In Canada, the healthcare system is great! If your not sick....if you are sick be expected to wait for months on a waiting list for a surgery as you health worsens and becomes critical and you may possibly die. No person should have to go through that.

Lol, that is such BS. In Canada, depending upon the severity of your sickness, you're queued accordingly. Yeah, its a pain and the wait times can be long, but if you have a serious illness, the doctor makes the decision to move you up in the queue. It is dependent upon the doctor's diagnosis and the severity of your illness - this crap they're feeding you about "first come, first serve" isn't what occurs here.

Doctor-based decisions on queues and treatment is much better a deciding factor than whether or not you have the right coverage. Lol.

Its approval rating has dropped from 57% to 44% and the free-fall is no where near the end.

Cite that poll, s'il vous plait.

In America, we dislike big government and bigger deficits, Obama has done both.

You dislike big government and big deficit? Why did you vote Bush in twice?

In 2010 and 2012 the Republicans are going to blame the deficits on two things: Economic Stimulus and Healthcare.

Even though most Americans know that is BS.

The only people the Dems are going to gain ground with are the poor and liberals (who are already eating out of the palm of their hands) and they will further alienate Conservatives, the rich, and some moderates.

Good think that the poor, which for some reason you seem to hold discontent for, liberals and "some moderates" - not most, but "some" - are the majority.

Plus, you're forgetting something. If the recession lessens while Obama is in office, which seems to be happening, he'll have such high ratings that God wouldn't be able to cap them.

Also, Republicans are rudderless, leaderless and powerless - not a good combo.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 4:10:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 4:02:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Even Canada's supreme court admitted that when it ended the state's monopoly, calling the denial of the right to seek services the state didn't provide "barbaric" :).

I'm all for some private businesses setting up in Canada, as it would help end the stress on some parts of our system. Monopolies aren't good, even if it does have the best of intentions.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 4:11:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
In my opinion, healthcare is not a luxury, it's a human right and society has a moral duty to provide it to all citizens free of charge at the point of use.

If rich people want to stay in the luxury of private hospital rooms with en-suite bathrooms and plasma TV's, that's where the private sector should step in, but nobody should be denied the best medical treatment available simply because they do not have the financial resources to pay for it.

The healthcare systems in Europe are expensive and we do pay higher taxes but all but the privileged few feel that they are worth every penny.

I say: "Good for you, President Obama, I hope you have the courage of your convictions and see it through - I'm sure the majority of ordinary American voters will thank you for it."
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 4:13:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Doctor-based decisions on queues and treatment is much better a deciding factor than whether or not you have the right coverage.

Need is a better claim than what you have earned and paid for?

Excuse me, why are you in North America instead of North Korea again?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 6:52:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 4:13:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doctor-based decisions on queues and treatment is much better a deciding factor than whether or not you have the right coverage.

Need is a better claim than what you have earned and paid for?

Excuse me, why are you in North America instead of North Korea again?

Well, you see, I believe the needs of a person outweigh what they earn, especially in the case of a national healthcare program. If a person comes to me saying that they need a surgery right away, or they'll die, I will move them in before someone that comes to me and says they need surgery, but it isn't life threatening. This should be taken in account regardless if the first person only makes 25K a year, and the second makes 100K.

This should be the case in any country, to be honest. To say to someone that they should be denied life-saving surgery just because they don't make enough money is a ludicrous notion to me.

It isn't to you because the only thing about humans you seem to care about, is that they have the rights to the property they own and the money they make. You don't care about human rights - you care about self-rights.

Which is fine. I don't care what you believe, but don't confuse my humanism for some sort of dictatorial need to control everyone.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 7:48:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
John Stossel (Investigative Reporter for ABC) did an investigation on Canadian healthcare. He is under the impression that Canada's health care is sh!t compared to America's. Take a look:
http://abcnews.go.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 8:01:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 7:48:24 PM, Nags wrote:
John Stossel (Investigative Reporter for ABC) did an investigation on Canadian healthcare. He is under the impression that Canada's health care is sh!t compared to America's. Take a look:
http://abcnews.go.com...

For one, Canada and Britain don't have the same systems. Britain has much more government control over their health care than we do. There is major, major differences in the systems of the two respective countries.

Secondly, I've never said national healthcare doesn't have its problems. I'm a partial advocate for the inclusion of private health to ease some of the stress on the system. I would only allow it to benefit the public system - not on the basis of "you're worth more, you get better care!"

I would also like to note that Canadian healthcare is supported widely by the country. Our government works to get doctors, and we work hard to keep them here - problem is, they like to leave for the US where pay is greater.

But we have solutions, and we have innovation, and we have technology that is just as up-to-date as any US hospital. The issues we have is that there is a lot of queues in the system, and people do suffer because of it, which is why I advocate some private health facilities.

But you, or some American journalist, or some silly propaganda ad do not look at the success stories. You don't look at the improved health of the population (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...), at the coverage for all citizens regardless of their supposed worth, at the effectiveness of a system that says "if you have the need, we will help you," not "if you have the money, we'll help you."

The Canadians system supports the value of life and the value of health - the American system supports the value of what is in your wallet.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 8:03:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 2:19:38 PM, Republican95 wrote:
So, what does everything think

I'm not a "thing", b*tch.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 8:11:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 8:01:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 7:48:24 PM, Nags wrote:
John Stossel (Investigative Reporter for ABC) did an investigation on Canadian healthcare. He is under the impression that Canada's health care is sh!t compared to America's. Take a look:
http://abcnews.go.com...

For one, Canada and Britain don't have the same systems. Britain has much more government control over their health care than we do. There is major, major differences in the systems of the two respective countries.
-The first page was about Britain. The rest was mostly about Canada.
Secondly, I've never said national healthcare doesn't have its problems. I'm a partial advocate for the inclusion of private health to ease some of the stress on the system. I would only allow it to benefit the public system - not on the basis of "you're worth more, you get better care!"
-I don't like the dual-system idea. A government sponsored health care system that is non-profit is guaranteed to beat out the for-profit , essentially creating a monopoly. The dual-system is just politics.
I would also like to note that Canadian healthcare is supported widely by the country. Our government works to get doctors, and we work hard to keep them here - problem is, they like to leave for the US where pay is greater.
-Yes. That is why you have a shortage of doctors.
But we have solutions, and we have innovation, and we have technology that is just as up-to-date as any US hospital. The issues we have is that there is a lot of queues in the system, and people do suffer because of it, which is why I advocate some private health facilities.
-I do not believe that the private systems will have the will to be innovative. They would not have the clientelle or the resources to do so.
But you, or some American journalist, or some silly propaganda ad do not look at the success stories. You don't look at the improved health of the population (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com...), at the coverage for all citizens regardless of their supposed worth, at the effectiveness of a system that says "if you have the need, we will help you," not "if you have the money, we'll help you."
-Well obviously, the overall health would improve. But what happens when the private companies stop operating in the US. Where will the new technology and new medicine come from. The vast majority of new medicine/tech comes from the US.
The Canadians system supports the value of life and the value of health - the American system supports the value of what is in your wallet.
-If you work hard, you get rewarded. If you just wanna leech off the gov't, you get nothing. Welfare = couch potatoes and drug addicts. Socialized medicine = "Hey, I don't have to work for anything now, so why work?"

Socialism eliminates the will to succeed.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 8:34:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 8:11:18 PM, Nags wrote:
-I don't like the dual-system idea. A government sponsored health care system that is non-profit is guaranteed to beat out the for-profit , essentially creating a monopoly. The dual-system is just politics.

You're missing the point of why I advocate it. It can work if it works to help relieve the stress on the national healthcare - by itself, you're right, as most would opt for the government side.

But, that isn't the case here, because as Americans always point out, people here have to wait. If people that have the option to pay want to pay, but not have to wait, the private option is there for them. It then relieves the stresses on the public system, and works to get patients through faster. Win-win.

-Yes. That is why you have a shortage of doctors.

And? No matter what we do, America will always pay more. More patients, more problems, more money. Not having a public healthcare system won't change that.

-I do not believe that the private systems will have the will to be innovative. They would not have the clientelle or the resources to do so.

They would, for the reasons I said above.

-Well obviously, the overall health would improve. But what happens when the private companies stop operating in the US. Where will the new technology and new medicine come from. The vast majority of new medicine/tech comes from the US.

Uh, what? Just because there is no private insurance system in the US, does it mean that all healthcare innovation will stop. There is still health needs to be met, and those companies will supply the government and their public healthcare system with supplies. Government doesn't intend to nationalize health supplies - they intend to nationalize coverage.

-If you work hard, you get rewarded. If you just wanna leech off the gov't, you get nothing. Welfare = couch potatoes and drug addicts. Socialized medicine = "Hey, I don't have to work for anything now, so why work?"

If you work hard, you get privileges Sure, I can follow that.

If you don't work hard, you don't get privileges. Fine, I can also agree with that.

But, health is not a privilege - it is a right. I don't care what R_R says about the subject either - everyone deserves the opportunity to succeed, and the government should do all it can to further that opportunity. Covering health costs and keeping your population healthy - not sick, dying and unproductive - is just one way.

Socialism eliminates the will to succeed.

Socialism does eliminate the will to succeed. But it also gives citizens the opportunity to succeed, regardless of their circumstances. The only issue is that fact is negated when you have nothing to succeed in, which is why pure socialism is never the right path.

This is why mixtures are always good. Socialism has its pros that can make up the shortfalls in capitalism.

The inherent problem in capitalism is that it doesn't give everyone the fair opportunity to succeed. Socialism can help make up that shortfall by giving its citizens those opportunities, keeping them afloat with at the very least, basic needs.

This is why public healthcare is good - it fulfills a basic need for every individual, health. And when you do that, you have a much more productive society.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 8:52:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Uh, what? Just because there is no private insurance system in the US, does it mean that all healthcare innovation will stop. There is still health needs to be met, and those companies will supply the government and their public healthcare system with supplies. Government doesn't intend to nationalize health supplies - they intend to nationalize coverage.
-Healthcare innovation will stop. If the researchers/doctors/corporations who discover new tech/meds are not rewarded, they will simply not do research. Thus, innovation ends because of the lack of reward. With NHC, the gov't would not pay this corporations for their new tech/meds because there is no need. All the gov't cares about is that everyone is cared about. The whole concept of NHC can be summed up with: Quantity > Quality.

But, health is not a privilege - it is a right.
-I adamantly disagree with you on this. I will agree to disagree though.

I believe that the US is socialized enough at this point. Almost everyone has the same oppurtunity to succeed. Obviously, if you are the child of Bill Gates, you get a great advantage. And obviously, if you are born out of wedlock to a single, unemployed, drug-addicted mother, you are at a great disadvantage. This is a clear flaw in capitalism. I believe that a mix of both in some areas is OK. I also believe that NHC is terrible for the US. I think that NHC for everyone under 18 is not that bad of an idea. But once you are over 18, you are responsible for yourself, the gov't is not your parent.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:13:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 8:52:30 PM, Nags wrote:
-Healthcare innovation will stop. If the researchers/doctors/corporations who discover new tech/meds are not rewarded, they will simply not do research. Thus, innovation ends because of the lack of reward. With NHC, the gov't would not pay this corporations for their new tech/meds because there is no need. All the gov't cares about is that everyone is cared about. The whole concept of NHC can be summed up with: Quantity > Quality.

That is very silly. The companies will be rewarded if they prove to have innovations that are useful and can be applied to the situation.

Example: electronic health records, or "E-health". This vital tool is needed in Ontario and the rest of Canada's provinces due to the myriad of patient files. The provinces contract out to businesses that work in this data-filing system, as well as internet developers, to create a system for them.

How does this stifle innovation? The system always needs improvement, and patients always need new devices to address new - and old - problems. The government will be pressured to get these new technologies as well, because the government is accountable to the taxpayers - if the taxpayers actually pay attention and keep their government accountable, it will work out fine.

I believe that the US is socialized enough at this point. Almost everyone has the same oppurtunity to succeed. Obviously, if you are the child of Bill Gates, you get a great advantage. And obviously, if you are born out of wedlock to a single, unemployed, drug-addicted mother, you are at a great disadvantage. This is a clear flaw in capitalism. I believe that a mix of both in some areas is OK. I also believe that NHC is terrible for the US. I think that NHC for everyone under 18 is not that bad of an idea. But once you are over 18, you are responsible for yourself, the gov't is not your parent.

In Canada, we operate on a similar principle, though not quite to that extent.

If you're under or over a certain age, or have a mental disability, certain things are paid for. This includes prescriptions, counselling, etc. Inbetween, you're expected to pay for that kind of thing. If you're able to pay - you must pay for it.

But, coverage is different, at least to me. Coverage for your health, whether or not you're able to pay, is important. This applies to diagnosis, life-threatening and other important aspects of your health.

Those costs can be crippling to an individual or family, wealthy or not. It is unfair to shove the costs to them, unless they want to pay it themselves. If they do, then why not? Let them do it. I won't stop them.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:24:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 6:52:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 4:13:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Doctor-based decisions on queues and treatment is much better a deciding factor than whether or not you have the right coverage.

Need is a better claim than what you have earned and paid for?

Excuse me, why are you in North America instead of North Korea again?

Well, you see, I believe the needs of a person outweigh what they earn
That would answer the opposite question. Every North Korean agrees with you utterly (except the ones in prison, and even most of them agree with you more than the average North American.

especially in the case of a national healthcare program.
Especially in the case of something extremely expensive which will slowly destroy itself to the exact extent it focuses on need and not earning. The longest-living altruism is the cheapest, the simplest, that requiring the least expertise. The thing you have the most need for-- is the most resistant to being run in it's name. The only thing that permits it to continue for a moment is the willingness of the one who is the victim of the system..

If a person comes to me saying that they need a surgery right away, or they'll die, I will move them in before someone that comes to me and says they need surgery, but it isn't life threatening. This should be taken in account regardless if the first person only makes 25K a year, and the second makes 100K.
Even if focusing on those making 100k will improve the economy to the point that more people on the periphery of it are saved from starvation for longer lives than could ever be saved by your health care program? Even by your premise...

What you do also, is encourage people to make it look as life threatening as possible-- to take as little care of themselves as possible-- to risk their life, or bribe a doctor, in order to reclaim their life from their health the quicker
You also destroy production while you wait.
And risky activities become more enjoyable the more sacrifices one demands.
When one makes the moral purpose of action-- saving people from need-- one makes HAVING a need the most virtous thing to strive for-- to the extent one does it. "Moderating" things will save you from this-- only to the extent that the opposite premise is permitted to operate in conflict with this one-- And not an inch more.


This should be the case in any country, to be honest. To say to someone that they should be denied life-saving surgery just because they don't make enough money is a ludicrous notion to me.
To say that someone should sacrifice any portion of their life to another human being, on the grounds of that human not having produced what they needed themselves, is ludcirous to me.


It isn't to you because the only thing about humans you seem to care about, is that they have the rights to the property they own and the money they make. You don't care about human rights - you care about self-rights.
Are you declaring me nonhuman?


Which is fine. I don't care what you believe, but don't confuse my humanism for some sort of dictatorial need to control everyone.
A "Humanism" that serves, to the extent it is consistent, to eradicate the meaning of human-- is nothing more and nothing less than the source of the illusion of "dictatorial need to control everyone." The need for power is never an ultimate, even for the most depraved, let alone for you-- it is by definition subordinate. And it is not something I believe you have much of anyway-- given the state of the world today, you personally have less need for power than I do. Much less in fact :).

What you have, is a need for others to have power over you.. in a sense you've just admitted by naming your moral premise. You've declared you do not find the self right, not satisfactory-- you need to spend your time serving others do you not?

Don't go naming what I believe of you before I do. And I wouldn't have named it if you hadn't brought it up, because, of course, I am a person who sees little gain in it otherwise and would not have cared to consider the problem, until you chose to make a representation of my thoughts and I want to ensure that all representations of my thoughts available are accurate representations :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:25:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Those costs can be crippling to an individual or family, wealthy or not. It is unfair to shove the costs to them, unless they want to pay it themselves.
Unfair?

You cannot be referring to justice (the law of causality applied to human action) by fairness. What other meaning do you have by that word?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:31:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 9:25:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those costs can be crippling to an individual or family, wealthy or not. It is unfair to shove the costs to them, unless they want to pay it themselves.
Unfair?

You cannot be referring to justice (the law of causality applied to human action) by fairness. What other meaning do you have by that word?

"unfairness - partiality that is not fair or equitable"

Not being able to have access to adequate health based on their wealth is not equitable with those that are able to have access based on their wealth.

And yes, I know, people that can't pay don't deserve health care. It is just stealing from those that are able. It unfairly advantages the poor. Et cetera.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:38:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
How does this stifle innovation? The system always needs improvement, and patients always need new devices to address new - and old - problems. The government will be pressured to get these new technologies as well, because the government is accountable to the taxpayers

Those among the taxpayers to whom any government has ever been accountable (Those who pay the least taxes, usually), cannot conceive of a technology before it has been created. If they cannot conceive of it, they cannot pressure anyone to research it, except in the loosest terms (voters are quite satisfied with corn ethanol :) ). They cannot expect it to occur. They will be satisfied that present technology has been provided. Since they also want low taxes, and the party with the lowest taxes once both accept universal coverage will be the one paying for the least research...

"unfairness - partiality that is not fair or equitable"Not being able to have access to adequate health based on their wealth is not equitable with those that are able to have access based on their wealth.
Why not? It is an output in proportion to the input. That is the meaning of equity in my memory. The dictionary does not provide me with definitions meaningful, except those that point back in the direction of justice (which leaves us square one), fairness (making it circular), reasonable (begging a question), things like that.

And any definition that includes a root of the word it seeks to define is suspect.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:52:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 9:38:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those among the taxpayers to whom any government has ever been accountable (Those who pay the least taxes, usually), cannot conceive of a technology before it has been created. If they cannot conceive of it, they cannot pressure anyone to research it, except in the loosest terms (voters are quite satisfied with corn ethanol :) ). They cannot expect it to occur.

So because they can't conceive the idea of new technology, it must not exist?

That is a very silly thing to say. Companies will bring forth new ideas and new products - and taxpayers will see them and will know of them. The government will also see them and will also know of them.

If these taxpayers keep informed, then they'll know about the new ideas and products and will pressure their government, who also knows about it, to implement those ideas and products for the benefit of the taxpayer. If there is failure to implement those ideas and products, the taxpayers will find someone that will.

Yes, there is that fact that the taxpayers won't understand the technology or its downfalls. That can hamper it - but this is why a private system alongside can be very useful. It can be an example of the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of certain products in terms of medical technology.

Why not? It is an output in proportion to the input. That is the meaning of equity in my memory. The dictionary does not provide me with definitions meaningful, except those that point back in the direction of justice (which leaves us square one), fairness (making it circular), reasonable (begging a question), things like that.

And any definition that includes a root of the word it seeks to define is suspect.

Take that up with those that write these dictionaries, not me.

I will replace "unfair" with "immoral". I am also aware that word is very subjective, and arguing with you would be pointless, as it would be if you argued it with me.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 9:58:21 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 9:52:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 9:38:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Those among the taxpayers to whom any government has ever been accountable (Those who pay the least taxes, usually), cannot conceive of a technology before it has been created. If they cannot conceive of it, they cannot pressure anyone to research it, except in the loosest terms (voters are quite satisfied with corn ethanol :) ). They cannot expect it to occur.

So because they can't conceive the idea of new technology, it must not exist?

That is a very silly thing to say. Companies will bring forth new ideas and new products - and taxpayers will see them and will know of them. The government will also see them and will also know of them.
Which companies, why?
In an industry which has been declared a vehicle for the need of anyone but those who work in it-- can you seriously say that won't hurt innovation, by discouraging people from working in it?
Who pays?
How do they profit, when the government mandates the prices?


Why not? It is an output in proportion to the input. That is the meaning of equity in my memory. The dictionary does not provide me with definitions meaningful, except those that point back in the direction of justice (which leaves us square one), fairness (making it circular), reasonable (begging a question), things like that.

And any definition that includes a root of the word it seeks to define is suspect.

Take that up with those that write these dictionaries, not me.

I will replace "unfair" with "immoral". I am also aware that word is very subjective, and arguing with you would be pointless, as it would be if you argued it with me.
All words are subjective, the question is whether something objective can be given once you assign a given meaning to it (and explain why someone would care about that meaning).

But, since you dismiss it as a lost cause...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 10:06:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 9:58:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which companies, why?
In an industry which has been declared a vehicle for the need of anyone but those who work in it-- can you seriously say that won't hurt innovation, by discouraging people from working in it?

Who won't the needs of those who work in it be met? Where did you come up with that idea? They'll still be paid, they'll still have the materials to create, and they'll always have business to supply to.

Who pays?

Guvmint, as you like to say.

How do they profit, when the government mandates the prices?

Who said the government will mandate the prices? They'll pay the costs the industry decides, based on demand and competition - it is just like the usual government bidding processes.

All words are subjective, the question is whether something objective can be given once you assign a given meaning to it (and explain why someone would care about that meaning).

Good point. I'll keep that in mind.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 10:23:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 10:06:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 9:58:21 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Which companies, why?
In an industry which has been declared a vehicle for the need of anyone but those who work in it-- can you seriously say that won't hurt innovation, by discouraging people from working in it?

Who won't the needs of those who work in it be met? Where did you come up with that idea?
When you declared that need of the patient, not money, comes first. This means that if the need of the patient dictates that an invention be nationalized--

How can anyone set up any business when the only thing determining whether they keep their investment is politically determined need? When people need different things?


Who pays?

Guvmint, as you like to say.
No, I say gunmint. Guvmint is for rednecks. Libertarians alter that to gunmint to make it mean something other than "I am a redneck," and yet have it sound similar enough to be in verbal habits that make rednecks feel comfortable :).


How do they profit, when the government mandates the prices?

Who said the government will mandate the prices?
http://docs.google.com...
The government does, in the system you point to as an example.

They'll pay the costs the industry decides, based on demand and competition - it is just like the usual government bidding processes.
Oh, I see, you're pointing it in the opposite direction, paying thousands of times what is needed. (Which I don't think is how it's likely to work. It doesn't work either way now, simply because there is some semblance of a health care market still left in the world where the government isn't a customer with controlling shares, which sets signals for the rest. Obviously you can't rely on that if you advocate your system everywhere :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 10:25:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Might have misdescribed with "sets signals" (the US market)-- it's main effect is to be the place where research costs are recouped, wherever the drug company is located.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 10:42:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 10:23:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you declared that need of the patient, not money, comes first. This means that if the need of the patient dictates that an invention be nationalized--

Not necessarily, it only means that the needs of the patient dictates the invention be utilized by the government, not nationalized.

This is similar to saying that he needs of White House garden keepers need John Deere tractors - therefore, John Deere tractors must be nationalized.

How can anyone set up any business when the only thing determining whether they keep their investment is politically determined need? When people need different things?

Healthcare can be run like a business, and public healthcare is just a business run by the government. The laws of competition, demand and supply still apply in either case.

If any government knows what it good for them, they will invest, pay for and demand the products be sold to them for use by the taxpayers. This can only happen when taxpayers demand it of the government - just as they demand it of the private companies that they now use.

Politically determined need isn't that different from commercially determined need.

No, I say gunmint. Guvmint is for rednecks. Libertarians alter that to gunmint to make it mean something other than "I am a redneck," and yet have it sound similar enough to be in verbal habits that make rednecks feel comfortable :).

Ah, sorry to make that mistake. I'll need to check my English-to-Libertarian dictionary next time.

The government does, in the system you point to as an example.

I've never necessarily agreed with government control of prescription prices, unless aimed toward a particular group based on certain criteria (mental illness, old age, etc.).

Regulation of prices otherwise is silly, though it does keep the prices down to a level Canadians can afford, and availability is widespread. Price control could increase the amount that consumers buy, therefore negating any loss the pharmaceutical companies take in.

Oh, I see, you're pointing it in the opposite direction, paying thousands of times what is needed. (Which I don't think is how it's likely to work. It doesn't work either way now, simply because there is some semblance of a health care market still left in the world where the government isn't a customer with controlling shares, which sets signals for the rest. Obviously you can't rely on that if you advocate your system everywhere :).

As I've said, I have no problems with private healthcare industries. You could also keep enough of a market going through that, or through competitive government customers, to set those signals.

Under a one-world government healthcare system, that wouldn't work. But since we have competing interests from competing countries with pressing health needs, the market would stay strong - provided that the governments stay out of controlling production and pricing of health tech and products.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 11:00:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 10:42:57 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/20/2009 10:23:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you declared that need of the patient, not money, comes first. This means that if the need of the patient dictates that an invention be nationalized--

Not necessarily, it only means that the needs of the patient dictates the invention be utilized by the government, not nationalized.
If an invention is too costly, it tends to be nationalized when the government is the main customer.


This is similar to saying that he needs of White House garden keepers need John Deere tractors - therefore, John Deere tractors must be nationalized.
The government owns a miniscule portion of the nation's gardens.


How can anyone set up any business when the only thing determining whether they keep their investment is politically determined need? When people need different things?

Healthcare can be run like a business, and public healthcare is just a business run by the government.
This contradicts what you've already stated. A "Business" has two characteristics irreconcilable with public health care-- It relies on willing customers for it's funds-- and it's primary concern with it's services is meeting the needs of those customers, no one else.

The laws of competition, demand and supply still apply in either case.
The law of supply and demand cannot control prices when someone can be forced to pay for something they do not use. A concept different than that of "economic demand" governs that end of the equation.


If any government knows what it good for them
Lol.


Politically determined need isn't that different from commercially determined need.
Yes, it is. Commercially determined need means the same person who needs it pays for it. This means they have an incentive to figure out how badly they need it, and whether it is worth the price.


The government does, in the system you point to as an example.

I've never necessarily agreed with government control of prescription prices, unless aimed toward a particular group based on certain criteria (mental illness, old age, etc.).
Wow.
That's like saying you don't believe in public education except for certain races. Lol.


Regulation of prices otherwise is silly, though it does keep the prices down to a level Canadians can afford, and availability is widespread. Price control could increase the amount that consumers buy, therefore negating any loss the pharmaceutical companies take in.
This is absurd. The two amounts are not likely to be equal-- a company will set whatever price brings it the most profit. Any price control serves to remove possibilities of profit, it cannot add them (since the option to lower prices to increase purchases exists in the absence of control)-- the stricter the control, the fewer inventions may be expected to profit.

Oh, I see, you're pointing it in the opposite direction, paying thousands of times what is needed. (Which I don't think is how it's likely to work. It doesn't work either way now, simply because there is some semblance of a health care market still left in the world where the government isn't a customer with controlling shares, which sets signals for the rest. Obviously you can't rely on that if you advocate your system everywhere :).

As I've said, I have no problems with private healthcare industries. You could also keep enough of a market going through that, or through competitive government customers, to set those signals.
Can you imagine the economies of scale involved in health research?
How many people presently purchase private services in Canada?
At the current exorbitant prices, it takes basically every US patient, plus whatever other semblances of private health care exist in the world to pay off the research costs, and probably most of the profit, of a given drug.

What would it cost when the biggest country left that was still something roughly analogous to a market shrinks it's market to the same proportion as everyone else?

Well, a lot of people at the edge of that upper tier-- would stop being, and opt for public.

And those? The same.


Under a one-world government healthcare system, that wouldn't work. But since we have competing interests from competing countries with pressing health needs, the market would stay strong - provided that the governments stay out of controlling production and pricing of health tech and products.
Provided something that is politically absurd. How many voters who opt for national health care want their taxes to actually pay private companies for the research costs of some drug that's already developed? How many have the foresight to realize if they don't no one will develop any more?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.