This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care? [Archive]

Wolfman

12th February 2008, 09:28 PM

I see, you want the government to make your choices for you and just hope that they do not declare you dead and raid your bank account.

Let us examine your argument. Should the government also control and distribute the food for the nation as some parents will make bad choices for their children?
ROTFLMAO -- Dude, great job at ignoring the entire point that I raised!

"Hey, let's ignore the fact that my OP was entirely lacking in any logic whatsoever, and instead use fear tactics to raise the spectre of the government controlling every aspect of my life, and trying to create the illusion that this is the only alternative!"

There is a thing called balance. Judging from this post, and others that I've seen you make, it is a concept that I doubt you have much understanding of.

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

I'm not in favor of absolute government control of our lives. I am equally not in favor of the chaos of a system where it is essentially every man for himself. I'm in favor of balance between government and individual. The medical system you propose -- that every person is responsible for their own health care -- is perhaps okay for those who have the financial means to afford decent health care. But there are tons of people who lack such means, and personally I'd rather see the government stepping in and taking action, rather than see those families -- especially the children -- suffering because ignorant idiots say, "Oh, the government shouldn't get involved."

Rather than the incredibly stupid argument that you make here, arguing from one individual case, how about examining the system as a whole? Try comparing countries like Canada, Sweden, Denmark, etc., (all of whom have fairly centralize medical systems with strong government control) to countries where the government has little or no involvement in medical issues?

And then compare the relative standards of health care between the two.

That would make for a valid argument.

Not the crap you've posted here.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th February 2008, 09:29 PM

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zVo1QP8EZvEJ:www.knoxviews.com/node/6868+medical+insurance+problems+anecdote&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is the system you want to run health-care?

Elderly people forced to choose which vital prescriptions they need!

Why are people so afraid to work together through their government for a real solution?

That is a made-up story. See if you can tell why.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th February 2008, 09:37 PM

The government always has the ability and right to take money away it has given you if you are dead. Of course, in this case it was a mistake, but what is the problem with the government taking back money it gave you for retirement if you are no longer alive?

A government agency does not have the right to arbitrarily take money from live or dead peoples bank accounts.

Where in the world did you get this idea?

Have you had to deal with an HMO lately? I have, its just as bureaucratic as any govt organization I have ever had to deal with.

Yep, I have never had a problem and neither has anyone one I work with or any one I know.

But I don't want either one of them to make health decisions, that's what single payer systems are for.

A single payer system is making your choices based on what is deemed best for the system not best for you.

What do you mean by this, exactly. That people should pay every dollar for their care directly out of their own pocket? That an HMO should pay a portion? What system do you envision is the "best"?

If everyone payed for their care out of their own pocket; with catastrophic insurance of course, then the cost would dramatically decrease. Don't forget it is government regulation that created the system we currently have.

JEROME DA GNOME

12th February 2008, 09:39 PM

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

Then why do Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket if the "free" Canadian system works better?

JEROME DA GNOME

12th February 2008, 09:43 PM

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

How can you logically claim that everybody needs a government system for health-care but not food distribution?

quixotecoyote

12th February 2008, 09:49 PM

TAXATION IS THEFT.

To the barricades!

:run:

JEROME DA GNOME

12th February 2008, 09:53 PM

TAXATION IS THEFT.

To the barricades!

:run:

Who said or implied that in this thread?

Building straw-men to blow so early in the thread is bad form. :(

Wolfman

12th February 2008, 10:03 PM

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

How can you logically claim that everybody needs a government system for health-care but not food distribution?
Ummmm...dude...remember back when I talked about that whole concept called "balance"?

Get a dictionary. Check it out. Its a concept that could change your whole life.

I am not talking about "everybody being forced into a government system based on exceptions." I am talking about a system which has a balance between government control, and individual choice.

Your entire argument is based on fear-mongering and arguments from extreme. None of which reflects reality.

Here's a challenge for you. Try this one out.

1) Make a list of all the people in the United States who have suffered because the government declared them dead, when they were still alive.

2) Make a list of all the people in the United States who do not have enough money to purchase health insurance, or to pay for adequate health care when they get sick.

3) Compare those two lists, and see which one has the greater adverse impact on society.

shadron

12th February 2008, 10:32 PM

Jerome, I have come to wonder just how much you realize how self-defeating your tirades against government are. Every time you get a fire under you for something, you come out and make fantastic leaps of logic to twist some small mistake, some past event or some tiny slight into an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, government paranoia scenario, and the people here (I think) just laugh. "Here comes the wolf-shrieker, again." Have you noticed that people make up stories and push viewpoints that they would never hold in a serious discussion, just to bait you? All I can think about your motivation is that it must be attention at any cost.

Look at this: you've extrapolated from a simple mistake by some bureaucrat, which will make him the butt of jokes for years to come, into a full fledged argument against health care reform. Can't you see the disproportion of what you do?

PS: You might want to take a close look at your agreement with your bank. Your account is maintained at your risk, and anyone who can convince an officer of the bank that a mistake or fraud has happened can be allowed to charge-back on your account (in the same way as you can charge-back on a credit card purchase), as long as they indemnify the bank against suits for the action. The bank won't be held liable for anything, even up to and including fraud on an employee's part. In reality, the only thing that keeps the system honest is personal liability and the fear of loosing business. If you want safe, use your sock.

About health insurance: the reason for forcing everyone to get it is to spread out the risk. In our past not enough was known about genetics and disease processes to be able to predict who would get sick and who would not, so relatively small groups of people could be reasonably expected to contain a good assortment of risks, so a company wouldn't get swamped by claims. Today you can be scanned for a number of disease genes (with many more to come), and that can be used by you to tip the assumption of risk in your favor, or, on the other hand, the insurance company can do the same thing. The only way to get a balance now is to force everyone into it. That's one argument; there are others.

Not fair? Sorry, Charlie. Neither, in essence, is Social Security, Medicare, and no-fault car insurance. Health insurance as it has been known in this country for the last 100 years is a dead man walking. Perhaps they will allow people to opt out, but if they do it will be permanently - no remorse later, when your arteries start to harden.

mrbaracuda

12th February 2008, 10:33 PM

Hey JEROME DA GNOME,
how old are you?

ETA: And what the hell?

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,289

:eek:

I assume your standard to be quantity, not quality? :p

Wolfman

12th February 2008, 10:43 PM

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,289

:eek:

I assume your standard to be quantity, not quality? :pI think that he works on the principle that if he posts enough claims, at least one or two of them will turn out to actually be correct, just by random chance. Although, from what I've seen of his posts thus far, he seems to be beating the odds.

UserGoogol

12th February 2008, 11:08 PM

But thats not what we are taking about is it?

We are talking about EVERYBODY being forced into a government system based on exceptions.

Who do you mean by we? It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton's health care plan consists of providing various tax subsidized health care plans that people can choose to take if they want and an obligation for people to buy health care from some insurer although it doesn't have to be the government. Obama's plan is similar but doesn't even require people to have any insurance at all. Although, of course, many people do endorse single payer health care anyway, and it is the norm in many countries, so it is not unreasonable to focus on that. But one should not conflate one with the other.

quixotecoyote

12th February 2008, 11:22 PM

Who said or implied that in this thread?

Building straw-men to blow so early in the thread is bad form. :(

Explain to me how i can be forced to support a government program without my money being stolen from me!

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 06:47 AM

I am not talking about "everybody being forced into a government system based on exceptions." I am talking about a system which has a balance between government control, and individual choice.

No, that is exactly what you are advocating. Just read what you have written. You are arguing that because a few people lack health-care that all should be placed into a government system.

Here's a challenge for you. Try this one out.

1) Make a list of all the people in the United States who have suffered because the government declared them dead, when they were still alive.

2) Make a list of all the people in the United States who do not have enough money to purchase health insurance, or to pay for adequate health care when they get sick.

3) Compare those two lists, and see which one has the greater adverse impact on society.

Do you not see that you are attempting to excoriate my argument because it is using an exception whilst you are using and exception to make your argument?

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:05 AM

Jerome, I have come to wonder just how much you realize how self-defeating your tirades against government are. Every time you get a fire under you for something, you come out and make fantastic leaps of logic to twist some small mistake, some past event or some tiny slight into an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it, government paranoia scenario, and the people here (I think) just laugh. "Here comes the wolf-shrieker, again." Have you noticed that people make up stories and push viewpoints that they would never hold in a serious discussion, just to bait you? All I can think about your motivation is that it must be attention at any cost.

Is that so, people make false arguments because they have the inability to dispute facts and logical thought. Interesting.

Look at this: you've extrapolated from a simple mistake by some bureaucrat, which will make him the butt of jokes for years to come, into a full fledged argument against health care reform. Can't you see the disproportion of what you do?

You consider it a simple bureaucratic mistake to declare a live woman dead TWICE and literal theft of her property?

PS: You might want to take a close look at your agreement with your bank. Your account is maintained at your risk, and anyone who can convince an officer of the bank that a mistake or fraud has happened can be allowed to charge-back on your account (in the same way as you can charge-back on a credit card purchase), as long as they indemnify the bank against suits for the action. The bank won't be held liable for anything, even up to and including fraud on an employee's part. In reality, the only thing that keeps the system honest is personal liability and the fear of loosing business. If you want safe, use your sock.

A bank checking or savings account is not the same as a credit card account. Besides, if one disputes a credit card transaction the credit card company contacts the retailer for evidence before the funds are transfered. Monies are not transfered without evidence.

Was this and example of just making stuff up as you suggested in the beginning of your post?

About health insurance: the reason for forcing everyone to get it is to spread out the risk. In our past not enough was known about genetics and disease processes to be able to predict who would get sick and who would not, so relatively small groups of people could be reasonably expected to contain a good assortment of risks, so a company wouldn't get swamped by claims. Today you can be scanned for a number of disease genes (with many more to come), and that can be used by you to tip the assumption of risk in your favor, or, on the other hand, the insurance company can do the same thing. The only way to get a balance now is to force everyone into it. That's one argument; there are others.

Without competition in an industry the cost will increase and the quality will decrease.

Are you aware that current health insurance is regulated today in such a way that people are forced to pay for coverage that they will never use?

Not fair? Sorry, Charlie. Neither, in essence, is Social Security, Medicare, and no-fault car insurance. Health insurance as it has been known in this country for the last 100 years is a dead man walking. Perhaps they will allow people to opt out, but if they do it will be permanently - no remorse later, when your arteries start to harden.

Health funding and insurance has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. You are displaying your ignorance of the subject here.

Darat

13th February 2008, 07:11 AM

...snip...

You consider it a simple bureaucratic mistake to declare a live woman dead TWICE and literal theft of her property?

...snip...

What do you call it?

Wolfman

13th February 2008, 07:12 AM

Do you not see that you are attempting to excoriate my argument because it is using an exception whilst you are using and exception to make your argument?No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:14 AM

Who do you mean by we? It should be pointed out that Hillary Clinton's health care plan consists of providing various tax subsidized health care plans that people can choose to take if they want and an obligation for people to buy health care from some insurer although it doesn't have to be the government. Obama's plan is similar but doesn't even require people to have any insurance at all. Although, of course, many people do endorse single payer health care anyway, and it is the norm in many countries, so it is not unreasonable to focus on that. But one should not conflate one with the other.

Do you remember her plan as first lady in 1993? Even the Dems thought it a horrible idea. U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."

To the current plan she has stated that the government would need to go after the wages of the citizens to pay for the system. How much of a persons labor do you think the government should take for this system?

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:16 AM

What do you call it?

Egregious

Darat

13th February 2008, 07:21 AM

Egregious

So let me get this straight you don't think a mistake was made by a bureaucrat? Or are you saying it was an "egregious mistake"?

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:23 AM

No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.

You are requesting an impossible task. There is no was to quantify quality of care. This request is disingenuous at best.

Please explain why Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket for health-care if the "free" Canadian system has better quality?

kallsop

13th February 2008, 07:24 AM

Just imagine those glorious days ahead when we can all enjoy hospitals that are as well run as the VA hospitals. How great will that be.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:29 AM

So let me get this straight you don't think a mistake was made by a bureaucrat? Or are you saying it was an "egregious mistake"?

Large bureaucracies inherently make egregious mistakes. In this circumstance three mistakes were made by the bureaucracy to one person. I doubt that it was a single bureaucrat which made all three mistakes. Few people are that incompetent.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 07:34 AM

Just imagine those glorious days ahead when we can all enjoy hospitals that are as well run as the VA hospitals. How great will that be.

On that point, I was watching a documentary the other day about global warming and they were using the example of the European heat wave a few years ago as an example. I was struck by the images in Paris of the elderly suffering from heat stroke. In the hospital the way they were treating and cooling the patients down was battery powered hand-held fans. WTF? Paris hospitals do not have air conditioning? Great public system.

WildCat

13th February 2008, 07:46 AM

Large bureaucracies inherently make egregious mistakes.
Even when that "large bureaucracy" is an private insurance company. Your point?

WildCat

13th February 2008, 07:49 AM

WTF? Paris hospitals do not have air conditioning? Great public system.
Very few places in Paris have A/C. Such a heat wave is very rare there.

And several years ago over 500 people died (mostly elderly) of a heat wave here in Chicago, which last I checked was in the country you claim has the best health care in the world.

mrbaracuda

13th February 2008, 08:19 AM

So, how old are you, JEROME?

KoihimeNakamura

13th February 2008, 08:58 AM

Jerome. Wolfman is arguing this:

In regards to health care, I come from a country where health care is largely run by the government (Canada), and despite the fact it certainly has problems, and needs improvement, it still beats the majority of health care systems in the world hands down.

In regards to parents caring for their children, the government absolutely should mandate and enforce basic standards of care, and if parents fail to meet those standards, should step in to A) make the parents comply, or B) failing that, to remove those children and put them in a better situation.

I'm not in favor of absolute government control of our lives. I am equally not in favor of the chaos of a system where it is essentially every man for himself. I'm in favor of balance between government and individual. The medical system you propose -- that every person is responsible for their own health care -- is perhaps okay for those who have the financial means to afford decent health care. But there are tons of people who lack such means, and personally I'd rather see the government stepping in and taking action, rather than see those families -- especially the children -- suffering because ignorant idiots say, "Oh, the government shouldn't get involved."

Now, what he's saying is this: If you cannot buy your own, the government should help out. A balance between your rights to chose if you can, and government providing a baseline amount of care

I realize you love not reading posts and quote mining, but try, okay?

Originally Posted by Wolfman http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2vimto/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3430809#post3430809)
No, what I see is that you are trying to use one, single, isolated incident to draw wide conclusions, while I am trying to use large, cohesive studies that take into consideration a wide variety of factors, and give a look at the whole picture, not one isolated incident.

I've given two different challenges to you. To compare the quality of health care in countries with gov't controlled health systems to countries without them; and to compare how many people suffer due to being falsely declared dead (the entire basis of your original OP) with how many people suffer due to lack of access to adequate health care.

One single story doesn't prove anything about anything. Now, if you can give demonstrable proof that A) countries with gov't controlled health systems have lower levels of health care than countries without them, or B) that the number of people being falsely declared dead by the government is larger than the number of people suffering because they can't get health care, then hey...you've got a case.

You are requesting an impossible task. There is no was to quantify quality of care. This request is disingenuous at best.

Please explain why Canadians come to America and pay out of pocket for health-care if the "free" Canadian system has better quality?

1) The studies exist. Your lack of research is not our problem.

2) Do you have a study that shows a growing trend?

skeptical

13th February 2008, 10:12 AM

A government agency does not have the right to arbitrarily take money from live or dead peoples bank accounts.

Where in the world did you get this idea?

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? SS is a pool of money that you pay into and get to take money out of when you retire. In some cases, you get to take out more than you put in, and in some you don't. If you die, and then get money paid to your accounts from this pool, I cannot see any reason that the govt should not return that money to the pool.

Its exactly the same scenario if you have to be confined to a nursing home and the govt pays for it. You don't get to "double dip" and get both SS and the additional medical care. The funds are pulled from the shared pool to take care of you.

How is any of that "arbitrary"?

Yep, I have never had a problem and neither has anyone one I work with or any one I know.

Then you either don't have children, don't use it much, or are unbelievably lucky. If you have any special medical issues, especially with children, then I can just about promise you that you will run into lots of red tape. One of my children has a medical condition that requires lots of specialists, and bills that will likely run into the hundreds of thousands over the course of several years. I have had to fight red tape with my HMO on and off for months, and this is by far not uncommon.

If you haven't had any problems with your HMO you should count yourself very lucky I assure you.

A single payer system is making your choices based on what is deemed best for the system not best for you.

That is exactly what an HMO does right now, there is not an ounce of difference. The only difference between the HMO systems we have right now and single payer is who pays the bill. There are already caps on coverage of both money and services based on purely financial considerations. I fail to see how that is in any way different from single payer.

If everyone payed for their care out of their own pocket; with catastrophic insurance of course, then the cost would dramatically decrease.

Cost to whom? What about those who cannot get coverage and are routinely denied under the current system? What assumptions are you making to make this statement and what studies back you up?

Medical services do not have to be "catastrophic" to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prescription medications for elderly can cost thousands of dollars a month, but that is only "catastrophic" if they don't get them.

It seems to me you are dramatically simplifying the issues.

Don't forget it is government regulation that created the system we currently have.

The system we have now is primarily corporate, with slight govt oversight corrupted by lobbyists. Its primary motivation is profit. At least under a single payer the primary motivation is to break even. The system we have now is broken in many ways, but the primary fault is the enormous number of people who either cannot afford health care or who can afford it but are denied coverage by HMO's.

Rolfe

13th February 2008, 03:28 PM

I asked the gnome about this idea of his, earlier. I mean, if it's such a good idea, there's nothing to stop companies offering such policies at the moment? Which ones are doing this and how popular are they?

And then, define "catastrophic". When Morgan Spurlock tried to live, with his fiancee, on the minimum wage/social security, he would probably have managed it but for a couple of relatively minor healthcare requirements. As it was, on their restricted budget, these costs were enough to blow their entire budget.

So, who gets to define catastrophic, who says when a specific occurrence isn't covered, and how do people on low incomes afford even a dose of cystitis?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

13th February 2008, 03:29 PM

Damn, I swore I wasn't going to reply on this bloody thread!

Rolfe.

Gord_in_Toronto

13th February 2008, 03:50 PM

Is the funny country that Mr GNOME lives in the same one that wants to bring democracy to the World?

Because in the democracy where I live, we the people elect the government to do what we want. And it mostly works. :eye-poppi

Rolfe

13th February 2008, 04:58 PM

shadron

13th February 2008, 06:15 PM

Not wanting really to get into another pointless stubborn match with you, I'll just point out the obvious and then I'm out of here.

You consider it a simple bureaucratic mistake to declare a live woman dead TWICE and literal theft of her property?

Inasmuch as no individual person actually stole her money (I presume), yes, it was a stupid bureaucratic error, and perhaps the stupid bureaucrat or two will have some kind of problem over it. How would you score it - satanic greed and pitiless malevalence? "Government run amuk" is about the limit; presumably it will get rectified. There are lots worse things going on in government, business and churches at every level.

A bank checking or savings account is not the same as a credit card account. Besides, if one disputes a credit card transaction the credit card company contacts the retailer for evidence before the funds are transfered. Monies are not transfered without evidence.

OK, I'll grant that. The SS thought they had the evidence, and they did what they can, evidently do. Of a certainty, the courts and the IRS have the unilateral power to freeze and garnishee your accounts without your permission.

That last, about disputes before the money is transferred is misleading. Anyone who says that they found a transaction on their bill that they didn't execute, even 3 months after the fact, can initiate a chargeback. It happens all the time; as a software vendor, it has happened to me multiple times, even with a declaration of "no refunds" all over the sale. The CC company doesn't ask; they just do it; it doesn't hurt them, after all.

Health funding and insurance has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. You are displaying your ignorance of the subject here.

My father, who started working a union job in 1935, had a health insurance plan as a benefit. I have essentially the same deal today, except that I contribute into it. The amounts paid in were both based on group underwriting statistics. That is the part that is dead; groups can no longer be counted on to follow underwriters tables, since individuals can find out and act on the knowledge of disease not yet detectable except by genetics, and the insurance company can likewise get a genetic analysis of your blood done and deny insurance based on the results. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

Tata, Jerome. Have fun.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:26 PM

Even when that "large bureaucracy" is an private insurance company. Your point?

Government regulation created the large insurance companies.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:27 PM

So, how old are you, JEROME?

What is your shoe size?

What is your point?

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:38 PM

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? SS is a pool of money that you pay into and get to take money out of when you retire. In some cases, you get to take out more than you put in, and in some you don't. If you die, and then get money paid to your accounts from this pool, I cannot see any reason that the govt should not return that money to the pool.

Its exactly the same scenario if you have to be confined to a nursing home and the govt pays for it. You don't get to "double dip" and get both SS and the additional medical care. The funds are pulled from the shared pool to take care of you.

How is any of that "arbitrary"?

There was no evidence that the woman was dead. That is what I mean by arbitrary. The government is restricted from taking from citizen without due process of law.

Then you either don't have children, don't use it much, or are unbelievably lucky. If you have any special medical issues, especially with children, then I can just about promise you that you will run into lots of red tape. One of my children has a medical condition that requires lots of specialists, and bills that will likely run into the hundreds of thousands over the course of several years. I have had to fight red tape with my HMO on and off for months, and this is by far not uncommon.

If you haven't had any problems with your HMO you should count yourself very lucky I assure you.

You should get a better insurance company. What are you going to do when you have zero choice?

That is exactly what an HMO does right now, there is not an ounce of difference. The only difference between the HMO systems we have right now and single payer is who pays the bill. There are already caps on coverage of both money and services based on purely financial considerations. I fail to see how that is in any way different from single payer.

The HMO system was regulated into a behemoth by government.

Please explain why you think government will be able to correct the problem they created.

Cost to whom? What about those who cannot get coverage and are routinely denied under the current system? What assumptions are you making to make this statement and what studies back you up?

Everyone in America can get health-care.

Medical services do not have to be "catastrophic" to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Prescription medications for elderly can cost thousands of dollars a month, but that is only "catastrophic" if they don't get them.

Doesn't the government already give medicine to the elderly?

How can you use this as an argument for universal health-care if it is not a reality?

It seems to me you are dramatically simplifying the issues.

It seems to me that you are dramatically ignoring reality.

The system we have now is primarily corporate, with slight govt oversight corrupted by lobbyists. Its primary motivation is profit. At least under a single payer the primary motivation is to break even. The system we have now is broken in many ways, but the primary fault is the enormous number of people who either cannot afford health care or who can afford it but are denied coverage by HMO's.

You are just wrong here. The governmnet currently provides health-care to the old and the poor. The HMO system was created by government regulation.

You are arguing that the current system; which was created by government, can be solved by government.

Why are you ignoring the facts?

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:44 PM

I asked the gnome about this idea of his, earlier. I mean, if it's such a good idea, there's nothing to stop companies offering such policies at the moment? Which ones are doing this and how popular are they?

Because it places the control in the hands of the individual is why it is no longer done.

And then, define "catastrophic". When Morgan Spurlock tried to live, with his fiancee, on the minimum wage/social security, he would probably have managed it but for a couple of relatively minor healthcare requirements. As it was, on their restricted budget, these costs were enough to blow their entire budget.

You are aware of life insurance? You can buy all kinds of coverage. Lots of choices for each individuals circumstance. Catastrophic health insurance would be similar.

So, who gets to define catastrophic, who says when a specific occurrence isn't covered, and how do people on low incomes afford even a dose of cystitis?

Rolfe.

It is defined by the market choices of the purchasers.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:50 PM

Inasmuch as no individual person actually stole her money (I presume), yes, it was a stupid bureaucratic error, and perhaps the stupid bureaucrat or two will have some kind of problem over it. How would you score it - satanic greed and pitiless malevalence? "Government run amuk" is about the limit; presumably it will get rectified. There are lots worse things going on in government, business and churches at every level.

If the administration did not have the right to take the money it is theft.

OK, I'll grant that. The SS thought they had the evidence, and they did what they can, evidently do. Of a certainty, the courts and the IRS have the unilateral power to freeze and garnishee your accounts without your permission.

We are not talking about permission. We are talking about due process.

That last, about disputes before the money is transferred is misleading. Anyone who says that they found a transaction on their bill that they didn't execute, even 3 months after the fact, can initiate a chargeback. It happens all the time; as a software vendor, it has happened to me multiple times, even with a declaration of "no refunds" all over the sale. The CC company doesn't ask; they just do it; it doesn't hurt them, after all.

Well, apparently you are being taken advantage of by the CC companies.

All you have to do is provide evidence that the transaction was valid and the CC company will not deduction monies from your account. You should keep better records to avoid this.

My father, who started working a union job in 1935, had a health insurance plan as a benefit. I have essentially the same deal today, except that I contribute into it. The amounts paid in were both based on group underwriting statistics. That is the part that is dead; groups can no longer be counted on to follow underwriters tables, since individuals can find out and act on the knowledge of disease not yet detectable except by genetics, and the insurance company can likewise get a genetic analysis of your blood done and deny insurance based on the results. That is what I said, and that is what I meant.

Nice story, but it has nothing to do with your claim that we have had the same system for 100 years.

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:52 PM

JEROME DA GNOME

13th February 2008, 10:56 PM

In another thread someone pointed out that the government are just people like you and me who have stood for election. That's quite right of course. I knew several of the current MSPs before they were elected, and they're just people.

The Gnome hotly denied this. I think to him, government is some sort of big bad bogey, way out of his ken, that has it in for him.

I think somebody was skiving the day they had the civics lessons.

Rolfe.

Bureaucracy: government characterized by specialization of functions, adherence to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority

Nope; not just people, a bureaucracy.

You do recognize the difference?

mrbaracuda

14th February 2008, 12:34 AM

What is your shoe size?

I'd go with 47 on the scale we use in Germany.

What is your point?

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME? :confused:

Rolfe

14th February 2008, 01:39 AM

It is defined by the market choices of the purchasers.

So, let me get this clear. I'm Daddy Warbucks, and I have several hundred thousand dollars kicking around various places, available for healthcare costs should it be required. As a result, I only require insurance for very severe catastrophes. That's going to be quite a small premium, no problem. I'm all right Jack!

On the other hand, I'm on the minimum wage, struggling to make the rent and the fuel bills and so on. Even something relatively minor is going to cost so much that it completely wrecks my budget. I don't have any spare money supposing I break a leg or catch pneumonia in the winter.

Please do explain how that second category is going to meet its healthcare costs.

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 07:25 AM

So, let me get this clear. I'm Daddy Warbucks, and I have several hundred thousand dollars kicking around various places, available for healthcare costs should it be required. As a result, I only require insurance for very severe catastrophes. That's going to be quite a small premium, no problem. I'm all right Jack!

On the other hand, I'm on the minimum wage, struggling to make the rent and the fuel bills and so on. Even something relatively minor is going to cost so much that it completely wrecks my budget. I don't have any spare money supposing I break a leg or catch pneumonia in the winter.

Please do explain how that second category is going to meet its healthcare costs.

Rolfe.

The cost of health-care will dramatically decrease if people pay out of pocket for care as opposed to the current system.

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 07:27 AM

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME? :confused:

Old enough to vote and not old enough to collect social security.

Rolfe

14th February 2008, 07:31 AM

I'd go with 47 on the scale we use in Germany.

36 on the same scale.

Oh, just curious. So, how old are you, JEROME? :confused:

Less than that, I suspect.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

14th February 2008, 07:33 AM

The cost of health-care will dramatically decrease if people pay out of pocket for care as opposed to the current system.

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?

What is this guy smoking?

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 07:39 AM

What is this guy smoking?

Rolfe.

Reality.

Please explain why food distribution should not also be run by government if health-care is.

Is not food more important than health-care?

WildCat

14th February 2008, 07:39 AM

Government regulation created the large insurance companies.

What is your shoe size?

What is your point?
I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 07:49 AM

I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

The HMO act of 1973 would be a good place to start your education in government regulation which has caused the current circumstance.

ingoa

14th February 2008, 08:11 AM

Solution to the OP story:

If you declare someone dead make sure that he/she remains dead. Troofers believe in vast conspiracies. A little error correction (head shot for the living dead) should be standard procedure. Ergo: no error.

Final outcome:
Jerome is happy and many electrons saved due to a never started thread. :p

KoihimeNakamura

14th February 2008, 08:42 AM

The HMO act of 1973 would be a good place to start your education in government regulation which has caused the current circumstance.

So it would.

The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-222), also known as the HMO Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. § 300e, is a law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) passed by the Congress of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States) that resulted from discussions Paul Ellwood (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Ellwood&action=edit) had with what is today the Department of Health and Human Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Health_and_Human_Servi ces). It provided grants and loans to provide, start, or expand a Health Maintenance Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Maintenance_Organization) (HMO); removed certain state restrictions for federally qualified HMOs; and required employers with 25 or more employees to offer federally certified HMO options alongside traditional indemnity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity) insurance upon request (the "dual choice provision"). HMOs were required to meet three basic requirements. These were to offer a specified list of benefits to all members, charge all member the same monthly premium, and be structured as a nonprofit organization.

(From Wikipedia)

Strangely, it uh.. only states what they are.... doesn't establish any as super. :rolleyes:

Knee jerk reaction, yet again!

Rolfe

14th February 2008, 10:06 AM

Please explain why food distribution should not also be run by government if health-care is.

Is not food more important than health-care?

Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.

mrbaracuda

14th February 2008, 11:09 AM

I think the point is arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old who simply parrots what he has read somewhere but doesn't actually know anything at all about the subject. Your answer to me aptly demonstrates that.

I'd be very surprised if you were out of your teens.

I wasn't gonna be so direct, but yes, you are right. :blush:

36 on the same scale.

German? Or do they use that across Europe? :confused:

Rolfe

14th February 2008, 03:11 PM

They use the same scale throughout Europe. Actually there is a British scale, and on that it's a 4, but all shoes these days have both sizes marked.

To be honest, I had to take a shoe off and check inside it to get the European size!

Rolfe.

Gord_in_Toronto

14th February 2008, 05:42 PM

I disagree with making nations change their governments by the will of an outside nation.

That's ok. I'm using the LOA (qv) to wish that the people who ran Enron get to run your health care plan. ;)

skeptical

14th February 2008, 06:23 PM

There was no evidence that the woman was dead. That is what I mean by arbitrary. The government is restricted from taking from citizen without due process of law.

That is a strange definition of arbitrary. A mistake is usually not classified as arbitrary. I think you mean random, not arbitrary. Arbitrary would be if they said everyone with her last name was getting their money taken.

There must be some malice involved for it to be arbitrary or a DP violation, something more than just a mistake.

You should get a better insurance company. What are you going to do when you have zero choice?

I already have zero choice, my employer chooses my plan and there is only one carrier. I have worked for 5 companies in my 16 years in the IT industry and I have never had a choice in health care providers. Having health care choice is an illusion for most people, they have a strong financial incentive to use whatever plan their employer has.

And, I have had 3 different HMO's and I cannot say that any of them have been any better than another anyway.

The HMO system was regulated into a behemoth by government.

So, you want _less_ regulation of HMO's? They routinely deny needed medical coverage to people who they are required to provide it to already. Do you think less regulation would solve that?

Please explain why you think government will be able to correct the problem they created.

I don't think govt created the problems. Healthcare is complicated for the simple reason that we are trying to half-ass it by using HMO's. HMO's are no less bureaucratic than a govt organization, and they have a strong profit motive to boot.

Any solution to healthcare is going to have problems, the question is what do we value more, having the maximum number of people covered, or cost?

Everyone in America can get health-care.

Are you completely out of your mind? Do you seriously not realize that an HMO can deny people coverage based on pre-existing conditions?

This is a serious question, did you not know that?

On top of which, even those that qualify for coverage, often cannot afford it. There are millions of people who are above the poverty line, but cannot afford even basic coverage.

"The most recent data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that 47 million Americans (about 15.8% of the total population) had no health insurance coverage at some point during 2006.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#_note-Census_2006) Most uninsured Americans are working-class persons whose employers do not provide health insurance, and who earn too much money to qualify for one of the local or state insurance programs for the poor, but do not earn enough to cover the cost of enrollment in a health insurance plan designed for individuals."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Coverage_gaps

Doesn't the government already give medicine to the elderly?

Ummmm, not really, no. Medicare and Medicaid cover some drugs at a reduced price, but not all of them. My wife just spent weeks pulling her hair out trying to figure out which plan to select for her father to make sure his prescriptions are covered, and she had to pick the least bad one.

So no, there are lots of gaps in prescription drug coverage.

How can you use this as an argument for universal health-care if it is not a reality?

Because without some drugs people will die. That seems catastrophic to me.

It seems to me that you are dramatically ignoring reality.

Of what?

You are just wrong here. The governmnet currently provides health-care to the old and the poor. The HMO system was created by government regulation.

They provide _some_ care to _some_ people. They do not provide coverage to people who are not elderly or indigent but simply cannot afford it or who are denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Yes, the HMO system is a govt creation, it is a classic example of a compromise that gets half of what you want, but all the bureaucracy. If we are going to have the bureaucracy, I think we should at least have the benefits to.

You are arguing that the current system; which was created by government, can be solved by government.

I am arguing that paying a little more and making sure every single person has healthcare in a single payer system would be better than what we have now.

Why are you ignoring the facts?

What facts?

Look, there is no perfect system, there never will be. There are tradeoffs in any solution. But if we are going to trade something, don't you think we should trade in favor of getting universal coverage? I would be more than willing to pay a little more in taxes to know that my family, friends and neighbors all have health coverage. Isn't paying a little more money worth it to know no one you know or care about will ever be denied medical treatment because they cannot pay for it?

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 07:52 PM

I am very amused by the responses in this thread.

Ignoring facts and reality the argument is only my age, and platitudes.

:boxedin:

There has not been one logical thought presented in this entire thread on topic outside of mine.

Only Feelings.

:blush:

Matthew Best

14th February 2008, 07:54 PM

I am very assumed by the responses in this thread.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Skeptic Ginger

14th February 2008, 08:04 PM

N.J. Woman Declared Dead By Mistake, Twice (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/social.security.dead.2.650392.html)

The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account! :jaw-dropp

This is what people want to make their health-care decisions?

Why are people so afraid to care for themselves? Medical Errors: The Scope of the Problem: An Epidemic of Errors (http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/errback.htm)

Make No Mistake: Medical Errors Can Be Deadly Serious (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/500_err.html)

Medical errors kill tens of thousands annually, panel says (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9911/29/medical.errors/)

Needless to say, Jerome, you are so naive. What on Earth makes you think the private sector can do no wrong?

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:14 PM

Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.

Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right.

I would encourage you to set and think. Do not succumb to the propaganda. Your argument makes zero logical sense.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:18 PM

Needless to say, Jerome, you are so naive. What on Earth makes you think the private sector can do no wrong?

And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?

Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:19 PM

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I do that from time to time. :o

Matthew Best

14th February 2008, 08:20 PM

Your posts are very assuming.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:22 PM

Your posts are very assuming.

This from time to time as well, but I do not think so in this thread.

Skeptic Ginger

14th February 2008, 08:25 PM

And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?

Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.You have 2 choices, Jerome, government run health care or private run health care. So what were you implying?

See Tom DeLay's out of office outcome. See what consequences Enron got out of.

KoihimeNakamura

14th February 2008, 08:29 PM

Re: Jerome : Uh, yes, I posted that the HMO act wasn't what you thinking it was. Please, though, continue to ignore replies you don't like.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:31 PM

Re: Jerome : Uh, yes, I posted that the HMO act wasn't what you thinking it was. Please, though, continue to ignore replies you don't like.

I am not trying to be rude, but your response was nonsensical.

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 08:32 PM

You have 2 choices, Jerome, government run health care or private run health care. So what were you implying?

The system we currently have is not one of your two choices. How is that possible if there are only two choices?

SezMe

14th February 2008, 09:18 PM

Health-care practitioners want to sell their services and they will charge fair market value set by the consumers and the competition. Currently the costs are determined by the insurance companies regulated by the government.

How about a system in which the consumer and doctor decide the cost of health-care?
Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

JEROME DA GNOME

14th February 2008, 09:25 PM

Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

Let's assume you're flying to Chicago on a half hour notice because your mother is on her death bed. You going price shopping?

Shall the government create a single payer system to fly you to Chicago?

SezMe

15th February 2008, 12:35 AM

No. I'll get on the web and find the best combination of price and service that meets my needs.

See how easy it is to give a direct answer to a direct question, GNOME? So try again.

mrbaracuda

15th February 2008, 01:43 AM

I think we all know now, that the GNOME isn't a friend of answering direct questions with direct answers.

Rolfe

15th February 2008, 06:03 AM

Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right.

Can you spell "reductio ad absurdum", sweetheart?

I said that people's needs for food are all roughly similar, and that almost everybody is able to afford this basic diet. Beyond that is the luxury market. Nobody needs caviare, pate de foie gras and vintage champagne. I also pointed out that your government does provide for the few people who are unable to afford their basic dietary requirements.

I also said that people's healthcare needs are nowhere near roughly similar, leading to the inescapable fact that those whose needs are greater are frequently unable to afford these essentials. The only healthcare you don't need is your face lift.

I then asked you to explain why you thought these two situations were even remotely comparable.

Care to try again?

By the way, what propaganda? I have my healthcare requirements met free at the point of need, I perceive my tax bill to be quite reasonable, indeed modest, and I have no need to worry that any medical condition developed by me, my family or my neighbours will drive any of us into bankruptcy. That's not propaganda, sunshine, that's fact.

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

15th February 2008, 07:26 AM

No. I'll get on the web and find the best combination of price and service that meets my needs.

See how easy it is to give a direct answer to a direct question, GNOME? So try again.

But if there was a single payer system you would have no choice. :mgbanghead

KoihimeNakamura

15th February 2008, 10:34 AM

I am not trying to be rude, but your response was nonsensical.

It.. was a post that explained "no, this only establishes what HMO's are, not that these HMO's are set in stone."

SezMe

15th February 2008, 12:43 PM

But if there was a single payer system you would have no choice. :mgbanghead
The only thing this posts demonstrates is that you have no idea what a single payer system is. Oh, and that you know how to use stupid smilies.

A health care consumer under a single payer system does NOT have his or her choices constrained to one provider.

Now that you have absorbed that fact (you have, yes?) please, for the second time, answer my question.

Fitter

15th February 2008, 03:29 PM

The only thing this posts demonstrates is that you have no idea what a single payer system is. Oh, and that you know how to use stupid smilies.

A health care consumer under a single payer system does NOT have his or her choices constrained to one provider.

Now that you have absorbed that fact (you have, yes?) please, for the second time, answer my question.
And could you please also answer Rolfe's. And I mean answer the question he posed, don't twist his words around and respond with your own question.

JEROME DA GNOME

15th February 2008, 05:34 PM

And could you please also answer Rolfe's. And I mean answer the question he posed, don't twist his words around and respond with your own question.

Which questions would you like me to answer? I vow to answer them all.

SezMe

15th February 2008, 07:14 PM

Then fulfill your vow and answer both Rolfe and me and quit screwing around.

Gord_in_Toronto

15th February 2008, 07:40 PM

And where did I imply that the private sector can do no wrong?

In every second post?

Yet if a private sector retirement investment company was declaring people dead and stealing their money they would be out of business within a year. See ENRON.

Leaving how many dead people behind? Lawyers would be happy but the dead and their relatives would be pretty pissed!

JEROME DA GNOME

15th February 2008, 07:58 PM

Then fulfill your vow and answer both Rolfe and me and quit screwing around.

Make a list.

JEROME DA GNOME

15th February 2008, 07:59 PM

Leaving how many dead people behind? Lawyers would be happy but the dead and their relatives would be pretty pissed!

Are you really making the argument that business kills more people than government?

:boxedin:

balrog666

15th February 2008, 08:01 PM

Which questions would you like me to answer? I vow to answer them all.

Kudos to you, Jerome! I like reading your posts.

;)

SezMe

15th February 2008, 10:54 PM

Everyone's requirement for basic nutrition is roughly similar. Beyond that, we are not talking necessity, we are talking luxury. Much of what most people purchase as food is in the luxury category rather than necessity. Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this? Nowhere near the proportion of the population who cannot purchase necessary healthcare. And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials? I think you'll find it does.

If everyone had roughly similar requirements for healthcare, so that everyone was required to spend about the same amount, then a similar system might work well. However, requirements for healthcare are grossly inequitable. Some people may never require anything much at all. Others may require a great deal. And only seldom can it be predicted who is in which category before the event.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Rolfe.

Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

There, I did extensive thread research taking nearly 30 seconds of my life.

Your turn. Chop, chop. Get to it little man.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 05:51 AM

Why should the government run the distribution of a luxury?

Food is not a luxury. Without food, health-care is not needed. Food is essential to life.

Now, getting back to the necessity level of food supply, how many people as a proportion of the population cannot actually afford to purchase this?

Very few. This is because the market supplies the needs of each individual and society as a whole better than government.

And does your government do anything to help people who are short of money to buy basic essentials?

Yes. Is a poor argument for government to supply food to all citizens because government supplies food to few citizens.

So please explain why you think these two situations are in any way comparable.

Let me see if I understand your thoughts here. Government should not provide food because the people need approximately the same amount and quality of food, and government should provide health-care because people have different needs for health-care.

I am not sure I understand your logic.

Let's assume you're out for a walk, crossing the street and some drunk without insurance runs you down. You've got a concussion (i.e., what little sense was there to begin with is gone) and broken leg. You going price shopping?

I would have accident insurance in the same way I have life insurance.

Fitter

16th February 2008, 05:56 AM

Food is not a luxury. Without food, health-care is not needed. Food is essential to life.

Uh-oh, you did it again. What she actually said was that food ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL of necessity is luxury. But you turned it around to have it appear that she said all food is luxury. Do you understand why this is a dishonest debate tactic?

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 05:58 AM

Uh-oh, you did it again. What she actually said was that food ABOVE A CERTAIN LEVEL of necessity is luxury. But you turned it around to have it appear that she said all food is luxury. Do you understand why this is a dishonest debate tactic?

Than why is government not providing the BASIC level of food to all the people?

Fitter

16th February 2008, 06:38 AM

Than why is government not providing the BASIC level of food to all the people?
Maybe if you read other people's posts you wouldn't need to ask that question.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 06:43 AM

Kudos to you, Jerome! I like reading your posts.

;)

Thanks.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 06:44 AM

Maybe if you read other people's posts you wouldn't need to ask that question.

Maybe if your posts had content they would be useful to the talk.

Fitter

16th February 2008, 07:04 AM

There is a direction to read something that has already been posted in this thread. Do you really need someone to hold your hand as you cross the street?

Rolfe

16th February 2008, 09:04 AM

After the Gnome wilfully misinterpreted my first go at that argument ("Your argument is that food is a luxury and health-care is a right"), I had another go. He also said I was swallowing propaganda. which is what the latter part of the post is about, I notice he hasn't addressed that either.

Can you spell "reductio ad absurdum", sweetheart?

I said that people's needs for food are all roughly similar, and that almost everybody is able to afford this basic diet. Beyond that is the luxury market. Nobody needs caviare, pate de foie gras and vintage champagne. I also pointed out that your government does provide for the few people who are unable to afford their basic dietary requirements.

I also said that people's healthcare needs are nowhere near roughly similar, leading to the inescapable fact that those whose needs are greater are frequently unable to afford these essentials. The only healthcare you don't need is your face lift.

I then asked you to explain why you thought these two situations were even remotely comparable.

Care to try again?

By the way, what propaganda? I have my healthcare requirements met free at the point of need, I perceive my tax bill to be quite reasonable, indeed modest, and I have no need to worry that any medical condition developed by me, my family or my neighbours will drive any of us into bankruptcy. That's not propaganda, sunshine, that's fact.

Why is the government not supplying a basic level of food to all people? Lots of reasons. First, people don't eat a basic diet, then top up on pate de foie gras. They choose a luxury-quality diet over a basic-quality diet if they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap bread and dripping and spam to the middle-classes would be a waste. Second, you could argue that in a sense they are, by allowing an initial percentage of income tax-free to everyone, no matter how rich. This is to ensure that everyone had funds to purchase such basic necessities. Third, there's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going hungry because of an inability to access a basic diet. (Possibly partly because of tax laws.) And because of that there is no demand.

In contrast, as I said, healthcare need vary wildly from person to person, so that for a significant number of people the cost of meeting their needs is more than they can afford.

This is a hugely different situation from food supply. I asked you why you thought the two situations were at all comparable, and you haven't even tried to answer, just come back with more inane questions.

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 10:14 AM

Why is the government not supplying a basic level of food to all people? Lots of reasons. First, people don't eat a basic diet, then top up on pate de foie gras. They choose a luxury-quality diet over a basic-quality diet if they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap bread and dripping and spam to the middle-classes would be a waste. Second, you could argue that in a sense they are, by allowing an initial percentage of income tax-free to everyone, no matter how rich. This is to ensure that everyone had funds to purchase such basic necessities. Third, there's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going hungry because of an inability to access a basic diet. (Possibly partly because of tax laws.) And because of that there is no demand.

Why is the government not supplying a basic level of health-care to all people? People don't consume basic health-care, then get a heart transplant. They choose a luxury health-care procedure because they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap substandard health-care to the middle-classes would be a waste. There's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going without health-care because of an inability to access basic health-care.

Can you not see it is the same argument?

In contrast, as I said, healthcare need vary wildly from person to person, so that for a significant number of people the cost of meeting their needs is more than they can afford.

Actually, I said people have different health-care needs.

Do you really believe that all health-care is needed? You argument stands on the idea that there is no luxury health-care.

SezMe

16th February 2008, 11:39 AM

I would have accident insurance in the same way I have life insurance.
Thanks, JDG. You completely ignored my question. I give up.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 02:18 PM

Thanks, JDG. You completely ignored my question. I give up.

This is a mischaracterization. Are your arguments so weak that you have to lie your way out of the conversation?

You presented a situation and gave only one option to choose from, this is a fallacy. I gave the option I would choose based on the situation which you described.

ZenFountain

16th February 2008, 02:25 PM

Thanks, JDG. You completely ignored my question. I give up.

Join the club. If you take the time to make a cohesive and well researched rebuttal to JDG's little thread droppings he simply ignores it or quotes one line and turns it into a red herring. Seems to be a reoccurring theme.

Rolfe

16th February 2008, 02:47 PM

Why is the government not supplying a basic level of health-care to all people? People don't consume basic health-care, then get a heart transplant. They choose a luxury health-care procedure because they can afford it. Therefore, supplying cheap substandard health-care to the middle-classes would be a waste. There's no necessity - we are not seeing hordes of ordinary citizens going without health-care because of an inability to access basic health-care.

Can you not see it is the same argument?

Actually, I said people have different health-care needs.

Do you really believe that all health-care is needed? You argument stands on the idea that there is no luxury health-care.

Maybe you can get back to me when you've learned to read. My original post recognised the "luxury" healthcare. I don't think you'll find any universal healthcare system will be paying for you facelift or your cosmetic dentistry any time soon.

The fact is that nutritional needs are roughly similar between individuals. There is no disparity where one individual needs only a few dollars a week for food while another needs thousands of dollars. There is no problem with the distribution and purchase of food which needs solving.

There is a problem with your healthcare system. Your healthcare system is broken. It is bankrupting many of your citizens. One day it may bankrupt you. Get your head out of your backside and realise that.

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 02:53 PM

Join the club. If you take the time to make a cohesive and well researched rebuttal to JDG's little thread droppings he simply ignores it or quotes one line and turns it into a red herring. Seems to be a reoccurring theme.

If it makes you feel better to think this... :covereyes

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 03:03 PM

There is a problem with your healthcare system. Your healthcare system is broken. It is bankrupting many of your citizens. One day it may bankrupt you. Get your head out of your backside and realise that.

The problem with the American health-care system is government manipulation of the market. This is why less government intervention is needed, not more.

Ohh, scary! The sky is falling and many are going bankrupt due to health-care costs! Please government save me!

Can you not see this is scary propaganda?

I prefer to look at the reality of government health-care and its poor quality of service.

NHS maternity units falling short (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7207215.stm)

Many maternity units in England are failing to provide top quality care, an independent review suggests.

Older people receive 'poor' NHS care (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/27/equality.longtermcare)

The NHS still fails to treat many older people with dignity and respect despite the introduction of a national plan to end age discrimination, a health service watchdog warned today.

The commission for health improvement (Chi) found that the NHS still provides poor care to many older people despite the introduction of the national service framework (NSF) for older people two years ago.

Just a couple of selections on the poor quality of government care.

No Thanks!

SezMe

16th February 2008, 04:23 PM

Ohh, scary! The sky is falling and many are going bankrupt due to health-care costs! Please government save me!

Can you not see this is scary propaganda?
Propaganda? Read some facts (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml), especially noting these:

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses (14). Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

Secondly, NO politician has proposed anything like the NHS for the USA. To bring the English approach to health care into this discussion about USA healthcare policies is either intellectually stunted or dishonest....or both.

Gord_in_Toronto

16th February 2008, 04:56 PM

Are you really making the argument that business kills more people than government?

:boxedin:

Not in particular. Care to make the argument that Enron ran the electical power system than the public utilities did before it was privatized?

Gord_in_Toronto

16th February 2008, 04:58 PM

Than why is government not providing the BASIC level of food to all the people?

I think you'll find in your country it's called the Food Stamp program.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 07:51 PM

Propaganda? Read some facts (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml), especially noting these:

Secondly, NO politician has proposed anything like the NHS for the USA. To bring the English approach to health care into this discussion about USA healthcare policies is either intellectually stunted or dishonest....or both.

You stat works out to over 1 million people each year filling bankruptcy over medical bills.

I call BS.

3% of the population has declared bankruptcy in the last decade due to medical bills? This is laughable.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 07:53 PM

Not in particular. Care to make the argument that Enron ran the electical power system than the public utilities did before it was privatized?

Enron did not run any electrical power system. Please get your facts straight.

JEROME DA GNOME

16th February 2008, 07:54 PM

I think you'll find in your country it's called the Food Stamp program.

And are all the people required to participate? This is what we are talking about. The poor already get free health-care like the food stamp program.

SezMe

16th February 2008, 10:14 PM

You stat works out to over 1 million people each year filling bankruptcy over medical bills.

I call BS.

3% of the population has declared bankruptcy in the last decade due to medical bills? This is laughable.
You can call BS all you want but that call and $3 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

I gave you some statistics that are damning to your position and gave you the link so you could explore the research yourself to determine its validity. You did not do that, not that I am surprised.

If the statistics are "BS" and "laughable" it should duck soup for you to find data that proves me wrong. To shamelessly quote myself:
Your turn. Chop, chop. Get to it little man.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 06:19 AM

You can call BS all you want but that call and $3 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

I gave you some statistics that are damning to your position and gave you the link so you could explore the research yourself to determine its validity. You did not do that, not that I am surprised.

If the statistics are "BS" and "laughable" it should duck soup for you to find data that proves me wrong. To shamelessly quote myself:

Here you go.

Washington Post January 4, 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303617.html)
More than 800,000 personal bankruptcy filings were made in 2007, compared with more than 573,000 in 2006.

Less than a million bankruptcies nation-wide each of the last two years, and of course not all of those were due to medial bills.

Your "sky is falling" statistic I am sure is using the 2005 data as a base line, if you are unaware the law was changing concerning bankruptcy in 2006 and people scrambled to file in 2005 for this reason.

SezMe

17th February 2008, 12:43 PM

Actually that article you cited supports my contention! Thanks for that cite to help make my argument.

First, regarding the number of bankruptcies, your article says
Personal bankruptcy filings soared to more than 2 million in 2005, with more than 600,000 filings made in October, when the law went into effect.
Right. And the article I cited implied about 1 million bankruptcies in 2005 filed due to medical problems. Perfectly consistent.

Regarding the general number of bankruptcies, your article says
Personal bankruptcy filings for most of this decade had been much higher -- around 1.5 million annually.
a datum you said was "BS" and "laughable".

The whole point of the article you cited is that the years 2006 and 2007 were unusual because of the new bankrupty law. So your selection of those two years to support your point is a beautiful example of cherry-picking of data.

You shot yourself in the foot there, JDG.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 12:49 PM

Right. And the article I cited implied about 1 million bankruptcies in 2005 filed due to medical problems. Perfectly consistent.

Ohh, so one year of data maybe being in line with your assertion evidences your point.

:rolleyes:

You claimed that over 1 million people each and every year file bankruptcy due to medical problems and all you can come up with is data I presented which shows this number has maybe been reached in one year. The year in which people we clamoring to file because the laws were changing.

As I said before, you claim is laughable.

Fitter

17th February 2008, 01:37 PM

Personal bankruptcy filings for most of this decade had been much higher -- around 1.5 million annually.
Most of a decade is more than one year. With my limited math skills I'd say it would have to be at least six years. I know you don't care to read posts from other people but could you at least read your own sources.

jimbob

17th February 2008, 01:38 PM

JdG,

I know that you have been asked this before, but is there any reason why you think that large private bureaucracies are likely to be less bureaucratic than public ones? Especially if an insurer is feeling the pinch and any policy to hinder access to treatment will reduce costs? (Especially with your proposed and undefined curbs on legal interventions into the medical system).

What should happen for people who are bad insurance risks? Should insurers be forced to pay for them? How easy is it for someone with sickle-cell to get comprehensive insurance?

Is a universal healthcare system, such as the NHS better, or worse for people on low incomes, or bad insurance risks than medicaid?

In the UK there is also private provision, but it is far smaller than the NHS.

In the US the private provision is far larger than public.

Medicaid costs a larger percentage of GDP than the NHS does the British taxpayer.
(44.7% of 14.7%=6.6%) was public, as opposed to the UK's (83.4% of 7.7%=6.3%) of GDP Source:

OECD Health Data 2007 - Frequently Requested Data (http://www.oecd.org/document/16/0,2340,en_2649_34631_2085200_1_1_1_1,00.html)

Now I know you are proposing that the state should intervene to prevent lawyers from supplying their services to consumers of healthcare, but I can't see why you think that is OK, but the government spending less yet supplying universal healthcare is such a bad idea.

BTW in an earlier discussion you suggesterd that the (absent) father should pay the costs of care for the daughter:

More from mom:

Maybe Dad should be paying the bill and not the tax payers.There is/was similar system in the UK (the Child Support Agency)

Do you know how well it worked?

BBC news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5208864.stm)

Should the Government waste taxpayers money trying to get absent fathers to pay for something, when it is likely to cost a huge amount? Why should a 19-year old adult be penalised because of parents not paying for health insurance (whether they could afford it in this case or not)?

I consider it a mark of a civilised country that there is a system (however flawed) that attempts to provide treatment for chronic medical conditions as well as acute ones regardless of the circumstances of the patient.

Did you ever answer as to how that would work if the father wasn't interested in looking after his offspring?

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 01:53 PM

JdG,

I know that you have been asked this before, but is there any reason why you think that large private bureaucracies are likely to be less bureaucratic than public ones?

Yes, but that is not the argument I am making.

I have made the argument that the large private bureaucracies have been created by government regulation.

Why is it everyone is caught in this dichotomy?

Ohh, thats right, propaganda and platitudes substituted for thought.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 01:57 PM

... but the government spending less yet supplying universal healthcare is such a bad idea.

Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.

:mgduh

I child can see the fallacy.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 02:03 PM

Did you ever answer as to how that would work if the father wasn't interested in looking after his offspring?

Are you unaware that if the State cares for the children the fathers are free of responsibility?

The State is de facto promoting the devaluation of the family structure. This in turn produces a dependency on the State and the power of the State over the people is extended.

KoihimeNakamura

17th February 2008, 03:27 PM

Most of a decade is more than one year. With my limited math skills I'd say it would have to be at least six years. I know you don't care to read posts from other people but could you at least read your own sources.

^ Aham.

Yes, but that is not the argument I am making.

I have made the argument that the large private bureaucracies have been created by government regulation.

Why is it everyone is caught in this dichotomy?

Ohh, thats right, propaganda and platitudes substituted for thought.

You are in error, sir.

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.

:mgduh

I child can see the fallacy.

You are in error, sir.

Are you unaware that if the State cares for the children the fathers are free of responsibility?

The State is de facto promoting the devaluation of the family structure. This in turn produces a dependency on the State and the power of the State over the people is extended.

You are in error, sir.

(Gee, I like saying that). The correct answer is no, it's a safety net.

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 04:11 PM

^ Aham.

You are in error, sir.

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

I am in error in stating what my argument is? I don't know what my argument is?

O.K., you tell me my argument then you we have talk and I will be your counter point. It will be like taking to a ventriloquist's dummy.

:boggled:

JEROME DA GNOME

17th February 2008, 04:13 PM

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

I am saying that it is a false dichotomy. I am not saying that it could not be a dichotomy.

VKX

18th February 2008, 06:31 AM

Fitter

18th February 2008, 07:01 AM

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.
By that reasoning is it safe to assume that you think it is okay for paramedics to let someone bleed to death if they were involved in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt and were also uninsured?

Kestrel

18th February 2008, 07:19 AM

JEROME DA GNOME

18th February 2008, 01:35 PM

Have the governments of Canada, France, the UK and other countries with government paid health care banned smoking?

No, but they just can't get health-care. :boxedin:

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770)

SezMe

18th February 2008, 01:52 PM

Very interesting link, JDG. I wonder if you actually read it.

Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.

Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

So your link title could hardly be more misleading. The NHS has issued a ruling about smoking for 4 weeks before an operation based on medical research. Sounds like good policy making based on good science. The NHS has NOT, in spite of your misleading sentence, told smokers to quit the habit.

As Fitter said, it might help if you would read your links before citing them.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th February 2008, 01:54 PM

So your link title could hardly be more misleading.

The link title was the article title. So, how exactly was I misleading?

ETA: Were smokers told to quit to receive their health-care or not?

jimbob

18th February 2008, 02:07 PM

Yes, but that is not the argument I am making.

I have made the argument that the large private bureaucracies have been created by government regulation.

Why is it everyone is caught in this dichotomy?

Ohh, thats right, propaganda and platitudes substituted for thought.

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

JEROME DA GNOME

18th February 2008, 02:13 PM

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

You are starting with the premise that the current cost of health-care is correct. This premise is wrong. Competition and deregulation would decrease the costs thus making your other questions invalid.

jimbob

18th February 2008, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob
... but the government spending less yet supplying universal healthcare is such a bad idea.Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.

:mgduh

I child can see the fallacy.

The NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer.

It also does a pretty reasonable job of providing medical care for the entire population.

Does the poorest quartile in the US have better or worse healthcare provision than the poorest quartile in the UK? Does it cost the UK less?

Did you ever answer as to how that would work if the father wasn't interested in looking after his offspring?Are you unaware that if the State cares for the children the fathers are free of responsibility?

The State is de facto promoting the devaluation of the family structure. This in turn produces a dependency on the State and the power of the State over the people is extended.

So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.

I am a father; my children have the right to an education, because the voting population insists on this right. Does the fact that I send my children to school mean that I take no responsibility for their education? No. It does however mean that if I neglected my children's education, the state would provide some protection for the children from the consequences of this neglect.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of your view: how do you get it to work, when similar schemes have failed abysmally?

quixotecoyote

18th February 2008, 02:25 PM

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

:heartbeat::fairy::pixie2The free market!:pixie2 :fairy::heartbeat:

jimbob

18th February 2008, 02:31 PM

You are starting with the premise that the current cost of health-care is correct. This premise is wrong. Competition and deregulation would decrease the costs thus making your other questions invalid.

What size of hospital is needed to economically run a first-rate intensive care unit?

How many employees would be needed?

You need economies of scale. A google search on "Philips MRI scanner cost" suggests that the capital cost is about 2million GBP. This is a standalone piece of equipment, that needs a large unit to be economically viable.

How do you reduce the cost, without economies of scale, and attendant large organisations, and consequent bureaucracy?

volatile

18th February 2008, 04:16 PM

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.

OMG! The draconian UK government has taken away my right not to wear a seatbelt! My inalienable right! How can I ever truly live in freedom when I am not free to plunge headfirst through my own windshield, or into the cranium of the person sitting in front of me?! Where will the madness end! :-O

In other words: Jeepers. You lot are all barmy, I swear.

gc051360

18th February 2008, 04:36 PM

OMG! The draconian UK government has taken away my right not to wear a seatbelt! My inalienable right! How can I ever truly live in freedom when I am not free to plunge headfirst through my own windshield, or into the cranium of the person sitting in front of me?! Where will the madness end! :-O

In other words: Jeepers. You lot are all barmy, I swear.

I have kind of a problem with that line of thought. Despite whether it is considered a good thing or not, I should be free to do as I please. If I don't feel like wearing a seat belt, I shouldn't have to. There need be no law telling me I have to.

About the health care OP. I don't think a single incident makes an entire argument. You can point to individual problems in any system, I don't think that should be the focus of the debate. Who can come up with the bigger, isolated, horror stories.

Fitter

18th February 2008, 04:58 PM

About the health care OP. I don't think a single incident makes an entire argument. You can point to individual problems in any system, I don't think that should be the focus of the debate. Who can come up with the bigger, isolated, horror stories.
Agreed. I (and I'd be willing to bet the majority of the posters to this thread) think that neither system is wholly perfect. Each has its flaws and strengths.

Rolfe

18th February 2008, 05:44 PM

I have kind of a problem with that line of thought. Despite whether it is considered a good thing or not, I should be free to do as I please. If I don't feel like wearing a seat belt, I shouldn't have to. There need be no law telling me I have to.

You know, I thought that before the law came in. I don't any more.

I realised that the law was, weirdly enough, liberating. Before, when I was driving, I was reluctant to belt up because it seemed somehow an admission that I might have an accident. And of course I wasn't! And when I was a passenger, I was reluctant to belt up in case the driver might take it as a vote of no confidence.

After the law came in I just fastened that belt, because the simple reason I was doing it was that I didn't want my licence endorsed. No subliminal reservations, no grandstanding, no bravado.

Same with wearing motorcycle helmets. Which are by definition horrible and take half the fun out of riding the bike. But just might save your life you know.

Of couse there is a terrible consequence for the Health Service. There are far fewer organs available for transplant. :boggled:

Volatile's right. You lot are weirder than a barrelful of monkeys.

By the way, I was watching last week's Ashes to Ashes. In 1981 that macho cop (Hunt?) snapped to the time-travelling detective, "take off that seatbelt, you're a cop, not a vicar!" Was the seatbelt law not much earlier than 1981? Were macho cops still not obeying the law as late as that?

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

18th February 2008, 05:51 PM

What size of hospital is needed to economically run a first-rate intensive care unit?

How many employees would be needed?

You need economies of scale. A google search on "Philips MRI scanner cost" suggests that the capital cost is about 2million GBP. This is a standalone piece of equipment, that needs a large unit to be economically viable.

How do you reduce the cost, without economies of scale, and attendant large organisations, and consequent bureaucracy?

You are attempting to example the inefficiency of a government regulated system and you seem to believe that it is the free market. Why is that?

JEROME DA GNOME

18th February 2008, 05:59 PM

The NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer.

SPAM costs less than roast beef. What is your point?

Does the poorest quartile in the US have better or worse healthcare provision than the poorest quartile in the UK? Does it cost the UK less?

I know that I would rather go to the doctor in America than in the UK.

So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.

Ahh, it is barbarism to accept responsibility for ones family.

I am a father; my children have the right to an education, because the voting population insists on this right. Does the fact that I send my children to school mean that I take no responsibility for their education? No. It does however mean that if I neglected my children's education, the state would provide some protection for the children from the consequences of this neglect.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of your view: how do you get it to work, when similar schemes have failed abysmally?

Your children do not have a right to education. If this is so than all children in the world also have a RIGHT to education.

Shall your country; by force, require that all children have an education. Who determines the proper amount of education for all the children of the world?

jimbob

18th February 2008, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob
The NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer.
SPAM costs less than roast beef. What is your point?

My point is below: I am not arguing that the NHS is perfect, but that:
a) It costs less than medicaid,
b) It is pretty universal, and
c) It provides far more effective coverage for someone relying on it than someone relying on medicaid.

I would have actually thought these would be pretty uncontroversial

Quote:
Does the poorest quartile in the US have better or worse healthcare provision than the poorest quartile in the UK? Does it cost the UK less?
I know that I would rather go to the doctor in America than in the UK.

That is not the question. Are you seriously suggesting that, if you were poor enough to have to rely on medicaid, you would prefer to that, rather than the health care system in virtually any country with a universal provision?

Quote:
So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.
Ahh, it is barbarism to accept responsibility for ones family.

No, but it is barbarous for society to not attempt some protection of the most vulnerable members of that society.

You still haven't explained how one could force an absent parent to pay. You could of course withold medical treatment from the child, but what if the father doesn't care, why do you think it is right that the child should suffer?

Quote:
I am a father; my children have the right to an education, because the voting population insists on this right. Does the fact that I send my children to school mean that I take no responsibility for their education? No. It does however mean that if I neglected my children's education, the state would provide some protection for the children from the consequences of this neglect.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of your view: how do you get it to work, when similar schemes have failed abysmally?

Your children do not have a right to education. If this is so than all children in the world also have a RIGHT to education.

Shall your country; by force, require that all children have an education. Who determines the proper amount of education for all the children of the world?

Didn't you notice I stated that my children have this right, "because the voting population insists on this right."

Rights, like morals and ethics can't be proved logically, in effect they are like aesthetic descisions, and depend ultimately on the values that people have.

I have the right of access to universal healthcare, and to have had an education because members of the British population campaigned for that right, and now there is a consensus that this is a right. I have the right to vote for the same reason.

Darat

18th February 2008, 11:58 PM

...snip...

By the way, I was watching last week's Ashes to Ashes. In 1981 that macho cop (Hunt?) snapped to the time-travelling detective, "take off that seatbelt, you're a cop, not a vicar!" Was the seatbelt law not much earlier than 1981? Were macho cops still not obeying the law as late as that?

Rolfe.

There are quite a few exemptions to having to wear a seatbelt and the police are one of the ones with a blanket exemption:

(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);

Skeptic Ginger

19th February 2008, 12:24 AM

Enron did not run any electrical power system. Please get your facts straight.Really? So having direct control of a power plant doesn't move them from trading to running? How is that?

Tapes Show Enron Arranged Plant Shutdown (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8796)EVERETT, Wash - In the midst of the California energy troubles in early 2001, when power plants were under a federal order to deliver a full output of electricity, the Enron Corporation arranged to take a plant off-line on the same day that California was hit by rolling blackouts, according to audiotapes of company traders released here on Thursday.

The tapes and memorandums were made public by a small public utility north of Seattle that is fighting Enron over a power contract. They also showed that Enron, as early as 1998, was creating artificial energy shortages and running up prices in Canada in advance of California's larger experiment with deregulation.

The tapes provide new details of market manipulation during the California energy crisis that produced blackouts and billions of dollars of surcharges to homes and businesses on the West Coast in 2000 and 2001.

In one January 2001 telephone tape of an Enron trader the public utility identified as Bill Williams and a Las Vegas energy official identified only as Rich, an agreement was made to shut down a power plant providing energy to California. The shutdown was set for an afternoon of peak energy demand.

[snip]... both men laugh.

The next day, Jan. 17, 2001, as the plant was taken out of service, the State of California called a power emergency, and rolling blackouts hit up to a half-million consumers, according to daily logs of the western power grid.

Officials with the Snohomish County Public Utility District in Washington State, which released the tapes, said they believed Enron officials had taken similar measures with other power plants. This tape, they said, was proof of what was going on.

Skeptic Ginger

19th February 2008, 12:29 AM

There are quite a few exemptions to having to wear a seatbelt and the police are one of the ones with a blanket exemption:

(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);Most of the seatbelt laws are by state. There was a national law introduced in 03. I haven't paid attention to whether or not it is now in effect because we have a state law here in WA anyway. But if there is a national law it wasn't in effect in the 80s.

volatile

19th February 2008, 03:18 AM

Most of the seatbelt laws are by state. There was a national law introduced in 03. I haven't paid attention to whether or not it is now in effect because we have a state law here in WA anyway. But if there is a national law it wasn't in effect in the 80s.

He's talking about the UK.

Rolfe

19th February 2008, 03:50 AM

There are quite a few exemptions to having to wear a seatbelt and the police are one of the ones with a blanket exemption:

(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);

I thought about that afterwards. I suspect that these days the cops are directed to wear their seatbelts as SOP, unless there is a very good reason for not doing it. Certainly, almost all of them seem to wear them. I suspect the culture took a little time to turn around!

Rolfe.

KoihimeNakamura

19th February 2008, 08:58 AM

The link title was the article title. So, how exactly was I misleading?

ETA: Were smokers told to quit to receive their health-care or not?

No. They were told to go cold turkey before a operation. You know, because that makes sense?

KoihimeNakamura

19th February 2008, 09:01 AM

Darat

19th February 2008, 09:23 AM

The link title was the article title. So, how exactly was I misleading?

ETA: Were smokers told to quit to receive their health-care or not?

No.

Rolfe

19th February 2008, 09:32 AM

Your children do not have a right to education. If this is so than all children in the world also have a RIGHT to education.

No, gnome. We've been through all this. The rights you have are the rights granted to you by the society in which you live. Thus, I have a right to free health care, while you do not. Children in my country have the right to free education up to the end of secondary school. This does not apply in all other countries.

This fantasy you have of some sort of magical, numinous, inalienable, uiniversal "rights", aside from what society grants you, has been chewed over and spat out and revealed to be totally bogus.

Get over it.

Oh, and while we're at it....

Ahh, it is barbarism to accept responsibility for ones family.

No, it is barbarous to refuse any help to children whose parents have abandoned them. Do you have a problem with that?

Rolfe.

quixotecoyote

19th February 2008, 09:37 AM

Here's what I want to know:

If the doctors told a patient not to eat or drink for X amount of time before surgery, would Jerome claim the government had banned eating and drinking?

jimbob

19th February 2008, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by jimbob
... but the government spending less yet supplying universal healthcare is such a bad idea.Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.

:mgduh

I child can see the fallacy.

What fallacy?

I am choosing to talk about the NHS because it costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer. I also would argue that it is fairly uncontroversial that the NHS provides better provision than medicaid.

The safety net is better, and cheaper. Were is the fallacy?

jimbob

19th February 2008, 02:46 PM

You are attempting to example the inefficiency of a government regulated system and you seem to believe that it is the free market. Why is that?

So could you provide specifics as to how an unregulated system will be so much cheaper and not require large bureaucracies?

What salary can a hospital consultant command, and why would these be lower in an unregulated system?

What are the capital costs of equipment, and why would these be lower in an unregulated system?

What are the running costs of equipment, and why would these be lower in an unregulated system?

If a patient is referred to a specialist, who examines the patient for an hour, and then referrs the patient for MRI scans, and later the patient needs several hours of surgary, with an entire support team, how can that not be expensive? I am ignoring drugs costs.

I have a £20 note in front of me, and on the reverse there is a picture of Adam Smith, with an illustration of "The division of labour in pin manufacturing".

This alludes to the fact that economies of scale tend to reduce costs.

The trouble with economies of scale is that, with the possible exception of pin manufacture, they come attendant with bureaucracy.

In an unregulated system, how do you ensure the safety of patients, and the competence of doctors?

Your proposal is not only uncivilised, it is also impractical.

So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.
Ahh, it is barbarism to accept responsibility for ones family.
No, but it is barbarous for society to not attempt some protection of the most vulnerable members of that society.

Actually Rolfe, you said it better, but the same sentiments:

Oh, and while we're at it....

No, it is barbarous to refuse any help to children whose parents have abandoned them. Do you have a problem with that?

Rolfe.

AkuManiMani

19th February 2008, 02:59 PM

Why are people so afraid to work together through their government for a real solution?

Just because government is a necessary evil doesn't mean we have to trust it implicitly.

Rolfe

19th February 2008, 04:03 PM

I prefer to look at the reality of government health-care and its poor quality of service.

NHS maternity units falling short (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7207215.stm)

Older people receive 'poor' NHS care (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/may/27/equality.longtermcare)

Just a couple of selections on the poor quality of government care.

No Thanks!

Well, we seem to have missed this little fallacy.

Gnome, the stories you linked to were news. News is what is unusual, or scandalous, or in the public interest.

If I felt like it, I could find plenty stories of "substandard" care in the USA too. It would be news for just the same reason, so such a googlefight would be pointless.

You seem to assume you know better than we who live with the system, that our system is flawed, poor quality or otherwise insupportable. Where are you getting that information from, apart from your prejudices?

Yes, we reserve the right to bitch about the NHS for as long and as hard as we like. It's a British pastime, like complaining about the weather. But would anyone change the system? Would anyone want to move to the US for the system there? Believe it or not, it's a big disincentive to moving to the USA - it was for me.

You know, the reason there aren't lots of good news stories is that we don't have big enough newspapers. I did post a link to a particularly good news story about a little girl who needed a heart transplant, but the heart was a poor match and wouldn't do, so they kept her alive with a mechanical heart until a better match was available and then she had the transplant. Lots of emergency helicopter flights and so on. All standard of care in the NHS. And it was news because it was a world first.

But the other reason the routine good news stories don't get posted is that everybody knows a number of people who have had their backsides pulled out of the fire by the NHS, or it's happened to them. For me, it was acute pneumonia a few months after I'd moved to a new house in a new area. I was living alone. I had a temperature of 103F. I hadn't even registered with the doctor. I phoned, and within an hour she was at my house. I deteriorated despite treatment, and soon there was an ambulance to take me to hospital and the isolation ward. I was nursed, I was treated, I got better. A week in hospital, lots of tests and x-rays and drugs and so on. I was so broke that my house didn't have carpets on the floor at that point. But I never even had to think about money for my medical care.

My cousin had a hip transplant last year. She was pushed up the waiting list because of clinical need and got it within a few weeks of going on the list. Howling success.

My neighbour also had a hip transplant. She was taken to a former private hospital that went bust, and was taken over by the NHS to deal with elective surgery only. They even took over the adjacent hotel that was built to go with it, and patients' relatives can stay there FOC while their loved ones are hospitalised. Neighbour had the surgery, and then the hospital told her they knew she would need the other hip done, the assessments had all been done, so when she felt the time had come, just call them directly and cut out the middle-man. She's skipping around like a two-year-old.

I could go on but it's getting late. How dare you tell us this system is substandard! Stuff happens, sometimes, and someone drops the rifle. But again public pressure - such as newspaper articles and other high-profile griping, the things you see from your inverted telescope across the pond - helps see to it that stuff is fixed.

Our politicians know very well which side their bread is buttered on. Any suggestion of cutting back on the NHS by introducing more private medicine is a complete vote-loser, and any party that suggested it would be unelectable for a generation.

You say that you would rather access healthcare in the USA. Well, would you? I've not seen much to commend its quality apart from convenience. (And before you start, waiting lists are organised by clinical need, and journalists like to quote worst case scenarios, but trust me you do not have to wait three weeks if you need your appendix removed!) You are assuming in that assessment that you would be able to meet the costs.

What if it was your little girl who needed the heart transplant and the mechanical heart? What if you didn't have the wherewithal to pay for it?

Rolfe.

INRM

19th February 2008, 04:27 PM

I honestly think this issue over healthcare in the media is meant as a diversion. Get everybody riled up over this while the administration does something while we're not looking.

There is a bill called S.1959 aka the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" which while designed to prevent radical ideologies and terrorism from spreading online seems to be outlawing beliefs rather than outlawing actions as in the past.

We have rules that restrict freedom of speech and expression. Ever heard of "Clear and Present Danger"? The government can intervene if a person poses a clear and present danger. You're not allowed to incite riots as well.

So why is this legislation needed if we already have provisions under the law to deal with it?

I honestly think it will be mis-used to regulate the internet, and to crack down on free-speech potentially as the loose wording, and the definition of force, which is not clearly defined enough (normally not a big deal with an administration like ours which has taken every opportunity to erode the constitution, big deal), which is open to interpretation (it might be considered forceful to repeatedly send messages to your senator or congressman, which is legal, a protest might be considered forceful... it doesn't really define it as physical violence or physical force.)

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:22 PM

No, gnome. We've been through all this. The rights you have are the rights granted to you by the society in which you live. Thus, I have a right to free health care, while you do not. Children in my country have the right to free education up to the end of secondary school. This does not apply in all other countries.

One must understand that if one allows the majority to determine ones rights that society may take ones life as the majority can deem ones life a burden to society.

It is easy to agree with society when one thinks society is providing one with some benefit that one thinks is greater than one can achieve on ones own.

People tend to forget what happens when society changes its mind.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:23 PM

No.

The article was not telling the truth?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:25 PM

I am choosing to talk about the NHS because it costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer. I also would argue that it is fairly uncontroversial that the NHS provides better provision than medicaid.

The safety net is better, and cheaper. Were is the fallacy?

Why do you keep attempting to compare a government system to another government system?

I am arguing against government systems.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:28 PM

My cousin had a hip transplant last year. She was pushed up the waiting list because of clinical need and got it within a few weeks of going on the list. Howling success.

I do not have a waiting list where I live.

Are you getting it yet?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:33 PM

How dare you tell us this system is substandard!

How dare you participate in a thread about the American system, espouse the benefits of the UK system, and become offended when your system is critiqued.

Why is it that you become upset when your system is critiqued while you are in the process of critiquing another system?

Fitter

19th February 2008, 05:37 PM

I do not have a waiting list where I live.

Are you getting it yet?
And how did your hip replacement go? Back to walking again, physiotherapy worked out all right then?
What do you do for a living that you know all about waiting lists for the multitude of medical procedures out there?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 05:39 PM

And how did your hip replacement go? Back to walking again, physiotherapy worked out all right then?
What do you do for a living that you know all about waiting lists for the multitude of medical procedures out there?

Right. Unless I have had a hip replacement or participate in hip replacement surgery I am to be discounted. The facts matter not.

:boggled:

Are you sure your in the correct forum?

Grasshopper

19th February 2008, 05:56 PM

As a newbie here, may I have the audacity to suggest a way to weigh the benefits of each type of system? I'll admit my conclusions here are from memory, years of reporting on this and related issues, and being married to a woman who is intimately involved in the health-care issue, and at this point I won't provide links.

Based on the studies I've read, I've concluded that:
1. If you want to solve the high cost of health care, eliminate insurance. Then you'll introduce true free enterprise into the equation and return to the days when doctors didn't have access to good science and bartered health care for chickens and other goods. That's when truly rich could get what care they want and, although perhaps not supported by government-funded science and, if the doctors had time, others could, too.
2. If you want to solve the problem of access, implement socialized medicine or some version of it. That'll mean that somebody -- possibly government -- will decide whether the care you want is worth it, but at least you'll be guaranteed some care based on what the system (like it or not) decides is worth it.
3. If you want to solve the problem of the drag on the economy, perhaps you're screwed. Socialized medicine seems to be less expensive, in terms of percentage of GDP, but free enterprise currently is the flavor of the day and creates a lot of wealth in the health-care industry.

Personally, I went through a big change in attitude as a newspaper reporter covering companies from Finland who were negotiating union contracts in Minnesota. Basically, the companies said they couldn't afford to pay wages in Minnesota that were comparable to Finnish wages because health-care and retirement costs were too high here. Those same costs were socialized in Finland. In fact, an economist for a major international bank pointed out that health-care costs in the United States were putting us at a competitive disadvantage -- even with other highly industrialized countries.

That says to me that we're at a competitive disadvantage with countries that recognize that such costs are more efficient when socialized.

Personally, I'd like to believe otherwise. Can anybody provide evidence otherwise?

Fitter

19th February 2008, 05:58 PM

Right. Unless I have had a hip replacement or participate in hip replacement surgery I am to be discounted. The facts matter not.

:boggled:

Are you sure your in the correct forum?
You haven't presented any facts, you've made a statement. My father is a registered visitor for patients who've had ostomy surgery. The surgeons call him at home and tell him that someone has had or will be having this type of surgery and could he please drop by and help them with any questions they may have about post-operative lifestyle changes. I would classify him as very knowledgeable about ostomy surgery and waiting lists for them in his area. I highly suspect he doesn't have a clue about waiting lists for corneal transplants. You come on to this forum and make a broad all-knowing statement like that I have to assume that you either work in the medical field or that you are full of it. Guess which one I suspect?

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 06:03 PM

You haven't presented any facts, you've made a statement. My father is a registered visitor for patients who've had ostomy surgery. The surgeons call him at home and tell him that someone has had or will be having this type of surgery and could he please drop by and help them with any questions they may have about post-operative lifestyle changes. I would classify him as very knowledgeable about ostomy surgery and waiting lists for them in his area. I highly suspect he doesn't have a clue about waiting lists for corneal transplants. You come on to this forum and make a broad all-knowing statement like that I have to assume that you either work in the medical field or that you are full of it. Guess which one I suspect?

Ask your father how many in America are waiting in queue for surgery.

volatile

19th February 2008, 06:07 PM

Ask your father how many in America are waiting in queue for surgery.

And ask him how many are struggling with debts or chronic illnesses because they can't afford treatment or insurance, and ask him how many people in America develop major problems because they avoid going to the doctor whilst its still minor.

Ten Reasons America Healthcare is so Bad: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_reasons_why_american_health_c are_is_so_bad

"Our wait times are low because many of us aren't getting care at all. It's true, Americans do have short waits for non-elective surgeries. Only 4 percent of us wait more than six months. That's more than in Germany and the Netherlands, but considerably less than the Canadians (14 percent) or the Britons (15 percent). But our high performance on the waiting times only account for individuals who get the care they need. Our advantage dissipates when you see the next question, which asks how many patients skip care due to cost. And here, America is far worse than anywhere else."

You'll note, of course, that the German and Dutch systems, nationalised healthcare both, are even better than you.

Look J - in the UK we pay less per head in GDP than Americans do for Medicare, but we all get manifestly better healthcare. How is that so hard to understand?

Fitter

19th February 2008, 06:10 PM

Ask your father how many in America are waiting in queue for surgery.
Hey you got it. He's not an expert on surgeries outside his area. He wouldn't offer a WAG just so he could think he put the smackdown on somebody on an internet forum. You've made the claim that there is no one waiting for medical treatment in your area now please provide some proof of this.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 06:17 PM

Hey you got it. He's not an expert on surgeries outside his area. He wouldn't offer a WAG just so he could think he put the smackdown on somebody on an internet forum. You've made the claim that there is no one waiting for medical treatment in your area now please provide some proof of this.

You claimed to have the information which refutes my statement. Why are you declining to present it?

Is your claim false?

Fitter

19th February 2008, 06:19 PM

You claimed to have the information which refutes my statement. Why are you declining to present it?

Is your claim false?
Could you please show me where I made this claim because I certainly don't remember making it.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 06:20 PM

Ten Reasons America Healthcare is so Bad: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ten_reasons_why_american_health_c are_is_so_bad

Your opinion piece evidences what? Someones opinion.

Look J - in the UK we pay less per head in GDP than Americans do for Medicare, but we all get manifestly better healthcare. How is that so hard to understand?

I have asked a couple of times now why are people trying to compare government health-care to government health-care.

This is not my argument.

I am not arguing for government health-care.

JEROME DA GNOME

19th February 2008, 06:22 PM

Could you please show me where I made this claim because I certainly don't remember making it.

You are tedious.

Fitter

19th February 2008, 06:25 PM

You are tedious.
So I didn't make the claim you suggested?

jimbob

19th February 2008, 10:23 PM

Why do you keep attempting to compare a government system to another government system?

I am arguing against government systems.

Sorry, I thought hoped you shared the assumption that even poor people should get healthcare.

jimbob

19th February 2008, 10:27 PM

Why do you keep attempting to compare a government system to another government system?

I am arguing against government systems.

The poorest, by definition, won't be able to pay for their healthcare, so a safety net is needed. At the moment the safety net in the US has lots of holes and is called medicaid.

Who will pay for the safety net? Religious orders used to do a lot of this in the medieval period. Of course, then medical care was pretty cheap as care only consisted of first-aid, herbal remedies, and care that was provided by unpaid workers.

No, gnome. We've been through all this. The rights you have are the rights granted to you by the society in which you live. Thus, I have a right to free health care, while you do not. Children in my country have the right to free education up to the end of secondary school. This does not apply in all other countries.One must understand that if one allows the majority to determine ones rights that society may take ones life as the majority can deem ones life a burden to society.

It is easy to agree with society when one thinks society is providing one with some benefit that one thinks is greater than one can achieve on ones own.

People tend to forget what happens when society changes its mind.

One must understand that if one allows the majority to determine ones rights that society may take ones life as the majority can deem ones life a burden to society.

I have just found a signature.

So, what "rights" do you have, why do you think that you have these rights, and more importantly, how do you attempt to enforce these rights if someone tries to violate them?

Please link to your answer on the "rights" thread.

KoihimeNakamura

20th February 2008, 08:42 AM

Think I agree. Sigged.

pbergeron

20th February 2008, 02:07 PM

...

The Social Security Administration has the ability and right to take money from your bank account! :jaw-dropp

...

Hmmm... here's what I found on the ssa dot gov web-site regarding the matter:

How to Report a Death

A family member or other person responsible for the beneficiary's affairs should do the following:

Promptly notify Social Security of the beneficiary's death by calling SSA toll-free at 1-800-772-1213. (TTY 1-800-325-0778.)

If monthly benefits were being paid via direct deposit, notify the bank or other financial institution of the beneficiary's death. Request that any funds received for the month of death and later be returned to Social Security as soon as possible.

If benefits were being paid by check, DO NOT CASH any checks received for the month in which the beneficiary died or thereafter. Return the checks to Social Security as soon as possible.

Point #2 seems as though it is the responsibility of someone acting on behalf of the deceased recipient to report the death and to request funds be moved back to SSA. This is somewhat different than what the article seems to imply, because at no point does the SSA seem to have any control over the process other than to request refund. Somewhat misleading.

Having said that though, we need to do away with SSA. At the very least, I should be able to opt out, which by law I cannot. Let me get this straight, I can put in ~$300 / month * 12 * (~40 yrs) = $144,000 for a lifetime, die 1 year after retiring and the remainder goes back to the gov't??? At least with private savings and other retirement mechanisms, I could liquidate and give everything to my kids. Please tell me I am misinformed.

I also see much talk of the insurance companies being responsible for the high costs of health care, but are not doctor's responsible as well? I say this because I was going to have a procedure performed about a month ago and the difference in costs for the surgery between me being insured and not insured was about $10K ... 10K difference for a $6000 surgery. Uhhh, is someone trying to take advantage of insurance or am I again mistaken?

Rolfe

20th February 2008, 03:23 PM

I do not have a waiting list where I live.

Are you getting it yet?

You might have one helluva wait if you didn't have the money.

Are you getting it yet?

A wait of a few weeks, for guaranteed treatment without the word "money" even passing anyone's lips? Are you in that big a hurry?

Look J - in the UK we pay less per head in GDP than Americans do for Medicare, but we all get manifestly better healthcare. How is that so hard to understand?

Are you getting it yet?

And I note you completely ignored the information about the world first with the Berlin heart and the girl with the congenital three-chambered heart. Could any private system have done any better?

Are you getting it yet?

Rolfe.

Rolfe

20th February 2008, 03:34 PM

One must understand that if one allows the majority to determine ones rights that society may take ones life as the majority can deem ones life a burden to society.

It is easy to agree with society when one thinks society is providing one with some benefit that one thinks is greater than one can achieve on ones own.

People tend to forget what happens when society changes its mind.

I take it then that you simply dictate what "rights" you have, and then.... Oh noes, society still might do what the hell it likes if it doesn't agree with you.

Silly me, I thought the whole point of society was that it provides all of us with benefits that are greater than what we can achieve on our own. Do explain my error. If you can.

You know, every time you try to formulate this nonsensical belief system you have about rights, the less rational it sounds. And Gnome, when a theist starts saying things like that to you, you're in trouble.

And consider. Several times now you have tried to defend this superstitious nonsense by declaring that if your belief system is not true, then all sorts of bad consequences will flow.

News flash. Reality is the way it is, regardless of whether or not you happen to like the consequences.

Rolfe.

skeptical

21st February 2008, 01:44 PM

Your opinion piece evidences what? Someones opinion.

Even opinion pieces can have facts. It is a fact that one of the reasons that the wait times in the US are low is because some people cannot afford the care they need AT ALL, so they never get it. You don't put yourself on a wait list if you cannot afford it in the first place. That skews the results for the US wait time.

This is a simple fact. Just because you may not like it doesn't magically transform it into an opinion.

I am not arguing for government health-care.

Quite right, you are arguing for a complete free market system. Under such a system, it is indisputable that a large number of people would not be able to afford medical care or would be denied insurance for pre-existing conditions and they would die or suffer with their ills in silence. Of course, such a system would be cheaper to individuals who are healthy and never have any major medical issues. So, such a system is best if you are ONLY trying to minimize the individual costs to individual members of a society.

The real question is one of values. If you value ensuring basic care to every citizen, then the free market approach cannot work. If you value minimizing your individual costs, then a free market approach might work.

I will repeat the question I posed in post #62: Isn't paying a little more money worth it to know no one you know or care about will ever be denied medical treatment because they cannot pay for it?

skeptical

21st February 2008, 01:57 PM

One must understand that if one allows the majority to determine ones rights that society may take ones life as the majority can deem ones life a burden to society.

I have a newsflash for you: If you live in the US, that's the system you live under right now.

The rights you have are a function of:

1) The US Constitution
2) Your individual state constitution

Either of these can be changed if enough people want them changed. Your rights could be changed tomorrow if enough people want them changed to alter the constitutions.

The only thing democracy does is raise the bar to violating/altering someones rights, it does not remove the possibility. In fact, significant portions of the US population have recent memories of their rights being routinely violated.

I am not aware of any governmental system that can guarantee individual rights forever and all time. Of course, a cave, a rifle and a lifetime supply of pork and beans is always an option. :)

jimbob

21st February 2008, 01:58 PM

Skeptical, I think I have found the underlying difference between our view and Jerome's

Sorry, I thought hoped you shared the assumption that even poor people should get healthcare.

Remember medicaid is bad, not because it is ineffective, but because it exists at all.

boooeee

21st February 2008, 02:14 PM

I also see much talk of the insurance companies being responsible for the high costs of health care, but are not doctor's responsible as well? I say this because I was going to have a procedure performed about a month ago and the difference in costs for the surgery between me being insured and not insured was about $10K ... 10K difference for a $6000 surgery. Uhhh, is someone trying to take advantage of insurance or am I again mistaken?

Which number was higher, the insured cost or the not-insured cost?

Rolfe

21st February 2008, 02:57 PM

balrog666

21st February 2008, 03:57 PM

Darat

22nd February 2008, 12:49 AM

Unethical? Restaurants can refuse to serve any one they want, why can't doctors? :boggled:

Rolfe is saying that the vet only took on insured animals so that he (the vet) could increase his revenue by carrying out non-medically indicated treatments that he knew the insurance company would pay for.

I have a personal anecdote that suggests this may sadly be quite widespread, one of my cats was having to have an operation to remove a cracked tooth and prior to the operation the vet suggested he have a wide range of blood tests. When I asked why and how much they would be the vet's first answer was "oh the insurance company will pay for it." On further questioning I ended up agreeing to have a subset of the blood tests she had initially suggested because they seemed they could help inform the operation.

But hey that's a private system for you i.e. profit not health-care at the heart of the system.

Rolfe

22nd February 2008, 04:38 AM

I once got a circular from a company selling DIY lab testing machines to vets. The text said, "your clients are now ready for pre-anaesthetic profiles in young healthy animals". At that time, the company concerned didn't even have a vet in their employ.

They were (and still are) flogging toy blood testing machines that were not in any case fit for purpose, to vets with no training or experience in running a pathology lab, with the sales pitch that they could do the tests themselves and so keep the money. (What they didn't say was that in fact the DIY machine would cost the vet more to run than sending his samples to a professional lab!)

Many vets being a tad gullible, this line sold like hot cakes. Vets who had previously been very stingy about requesting blood tests suddenly started doing them wholesale. This of course increased the practice turnover. It took quite a lot of them a long time to realise it was doing nothing for their profits. Some of them never realised. The results are questionable anyway, and the whole thing is just one massive waste of money. It's exceedingly rare for any unsuspected problem to come up in such testing, and even rarer to find a problem you can do something constructive about. Mostly you get incidental abnormalities, which can cause all sorts of problems as people start fussing about these numbers and putting off necessary surgery and ordering more unnecessary tests.

When that circular came round I was shocked, and pointed out to a few people that this was entirely illegitimate advice, coming from people whose only aim was to market their product, and come to think of it, if I (as their professional colleague, not an unqualified salesman) had said the same thing but suggested they send the blood samples to my lab, would they not quite rightly see it as a cynical marketing exercise?

Nevertheless, the practice has become widespread. The Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists has tried to stop it, and various academics are finally realising what a pointless exercise it is and weighing in (though unfortunately some naive academics fell for the hype originally and passed the advice on to students). More widespread insurance cover has certainly made matters worse, as practices who might have had qualms about ripping off the poor owner are quite happy to rip off the insurance company. Of course they wouldn't see it as ripping off. (One of the insurance companies asked me about this a long time ago, and I told them what I thought, but nothing changed. I suspect they don't want to restrict cover because it might put them at a marketing disadvantage, and they don't have the meddling ethos the US human medical insurers seem to have - they don't dictate to the vet what is clinically appropriate.)

Many people have realised that the results are unreliable and the process very costly, but they have tied themselves in a marketing knot by boasting to clients how quickly they can get the blood tests done, and very few practices are prepared to step back and consider the fact that few blood test requests are genuinely urgent, especially pre-anaesthetic ones before elective surgery, and what they should be doing is sending all the routine stuff to be handled by people who know what they're doing (for about a third of the price of doing it themselves), and concentrating on identifying what is needed for genuine emergencies - a completely different set of requirements and kit as it happens. So this bad practice is seriously ingrained in the profession now I'm afraid. Some practices actually have a section on their anaesthetic consent form, making clients who decline these blood tests sign a disclaimer. I think that's moral blackmail.

The company selling the dodgy instruments became so successful that they bought out my business, hence my recent change of job. In the short period I worked for them I tried to put forward my view on the matter. I had a arts graduate saying "but wouldn't you want to pay the extra just to be absolutely sure?" I couldn't get it through that there was no way such testing could make anyone absolutely sure, and on the contrary a false sense of security could be a bad thing. I also pointed out that the more common situation was that incidental abnormalities caused a lot of trouble. She wasn't listening. Her own hype was completely ingrained, and in any case it was all about profit - "we have a duty to the shareholders".

I've had two elective surgeries myself, both private - one paid for by BUPA and one self-funded. Both times I had a pre-anaesthetic consultation. Neither time was any blood testing suggested. The second time (BUPA-funded) I asked the nurse, aren't you going to do a pre-anaesthetic blood test? She of course didn't realise my tongue was in my cheek, and said worriedly, no, why do you think you might need one, is there something you're not telling me? A colleague is going in for elective orthopaedic surgery in two weeks. She had her pre-anaesthetic consultation on Monday. No suggestion of any blood tests. This is simply not done in human medicine, so I can see no reason for vets to take this line.

I was at a class reunion last year, when one guy started boasting about how much money he was making. I challenged him about his practice of insisting on blood testing everything before it was anaesthetised. Pure profiteering (and remember, I make my living by doing blood tests - the only difference is I like to do them properly, and there is enough that nees doing without inventing it anyway). He argued back. Then it was revealed that a man in the same conversation, the husband of a classmate, was a consultant surgeon at a top teaching hospital - an orthopod I think. He also started criticising the profit-happy vet, saying that such testing was entirely unnecessary. A friend commented, you'll never persuade Richard out of that one, he's been adamant for years about blood testing everything. She then reminded me that Richard had been the dunce who had taken ten years to complete a five-year course (not actually allowed by the rules but they somehow got bent), and what was he doing at the party anyway because he hadn't graduated with us.

I sighed and wandered off to talk to more congenial company.

Sorry, this is a rant, but it drives me mad. If any vet suggests blood testing for general screening (as opposed to a real diagnostic requirement), you probably want to say no. (It doesn't fool everybody. My neighbour had a cat with a bite abscess and I had a look at him late one evening. I said best take him in first thing in the morning. The abscess burst on the consulting room table, but she still ended up with a big bill. She said to me, "I was stupid, I fell for that stuff about blood tests." She'd worked it out for herself.)

Pre-anaesthetic blood testing for no specific clinical reason is the veterinary equivalent of the extended five-year warranty.

[/rant]

Rolfe.

JEROME DA GNOME

22nd February 2008, 04:48 AM

I have a newsflash for you: If you live in the US, that's the system you live under right now.

The rights you have are a function of:

1) The US Constitution
2) Your individual state constitution

Rights are not given by the Constitutions, the Constitutions were created to guarantee the natural rights which inherently exist in the individual.

lupus_in_fabula

22nd February 2008, 05:11 AM

Rights are not given by the Constitutions, the Constitutions were created to guarantee the natural rights which inherently exist in the individual.

Oh no, not again... you were already shown how natural rights are social constructs. :eusa_wall:

Francesca R

22nd February 2008, 05:13 AM

Rights are not given by the Constitutions, the Constitutions were created to guarantee the natural rights which inherently exist in the individual.Prove it.

OK - the split about inherent/social rights has (yet again) been split and appended to the last split thread created to discuss the topic. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=104301

balrog666

22nd February 2008, 09:29 AM

Rolfe is saying that the vet only took on insured animals so that he (the vet) could increase his revenue by carrying out non-medically indicated treatments that he knew the insurance company would pay for.

I have a personal anecdote that suggests this may sadly be quite widespread, one of my cats was having to have an operation to remove a cracked tooth and prior to the operation the vet suggested he have a wide range of blood tests. When I asked why and how much they would be the vet's first answer was "oh the insurance company will pay for it." On further questioning I ended up agreeing to have a subset of the blood tests she had initially suggested because they seemed they could help inform the operation.

But hey that's a private system for you i.e. profit not health-care at the heart of the system.

Now back to my point - many doctors and clinics in the USA refuse to accept Medicare, or especially various state Medicaid-plan, patients. And usually for financial reasons (i.e., they prefer to get paid for their services). I, for one, don't see a problem with that.

boooeee

22nd February 2008, 09:53 AM

Working as I do in a wholly private area of healthcare, which has seen insurance coverage of the patients increase from negligible to quite a significant proportion during my career, I can tell you it does happen. There was one guy who simply announced that he did not take uninsured clients, end of story. And as far as I know her got away with it. Others are at the very least strongly suspected of loading insured clients' bills with all the extraneous blood tests and so on they think they can get away with, necessary or not.

It's bloody unethical, and insurance companies need to fight it. So do professional bodies.

However, that should not preclude a genuinely needy client being offered a pared-down procedure or service if they can't affort state-of-the-art, because if it's state-of-the-art or nothing, then it may turn out to be nothing.

Rolfe.

I can confirm that this is a common problem in the US Healthcare system in which physicians and hospitals are reimbursed on a per service basis (also called Fee-For-Service).

We actually tried to address this problem back in the 70's with HMO's. Instead of reimbursing physicians for each blood test they perform, they were given a flat amount of money per month for every patient they were responsible for. It was up to the physician to prioritize care since they had no incentive to run unnecessary tests. By and large, this approach worked in terms of controlling costs. Unfortunately, a backlash began in the early 90's. My own opinion is that much of the backlash was created for political gain (that's not to say that some HMO's weren't engaging in abusive practices).

As I understand it, the British Health system basically works like one big HMO.

Rolfe

22nd February 2008, 10:02 AM

As I understand it, the British Health system basically works like one big HMO.

From what I've heard, this seems about right.

Rolfe.

Rolfe

22nd February 2008, 10:04 AM

Now back to my point - many doctors and clinics in the USA refuse to accept Medicare, or especially various state Medicaid-plan, patients. And usually for financial reasons (i.e., they prefer to get paid for their services). I, for one, don't see a problem with that.

This is somethnig different. They only take insured patients. That means they don't take clients who are paying in person.

The point is that people who are paying in person might actually ask the sort of questions Darat did about why some of this stuff needs doing. There might be market pressure just to do what's needed, or what the client can afford. Can't have that!

Rolfe.

shadron

22nd February 2008, 11:16 AM

Having said that though, we need to do away with SSA. At the very least, I should be able to opt out, which by law I cannot. Let me get this straight, I can put in ~$300 / month * 12 * (~40 yrs) = $144,000 for a lifetime, die 1 year after retiring and the remainder goes back to the gov't??? At least with private savings and other retirement mechanisms, I could liquidate and give everything to my kids. Please tell me I am misinformed.

And if you started using that $144,000 for income at your presumed $5000/month level it would last you 28 months after your retirement. SS is not designed to provide for *you*, but rather all those other people retiring this year - something like 1.5 or so per wage earner. You are providing, presumably, 100% of their income now, so you better get digging. You'll get yours from some poor person who is not yet born.

I also see much talk of the insurance companies being responsible for the high costs of health care, but are not doctor's responsible as well? I say this because I was going to have a procedure performed about a month ago and the difference in costs for the surgery between me being insured and not insured was about $10K ... 10K difference for a $6000 surgery. Uhhh, is someone trying to take advantage of insurance or am I again mistaken?

You understand how insurance works with hospitals, right? Since insurance represents a block of people, they can demand, and get, discounts from their vendors - doctors and hospitals. That's how they keep their costs down, while demanding the best that technology provides. These vendors cannot simply accept to absorb the discounts (and not have that interfere with golf schedules or irate shareholders), so they pass the additional costs along to the uninsured. The uninsured have to absorb their own costs plus the discounts, and since more insured people use the facilities than uninsured, the share of the discounts is often greater than the real cost of the care. Double or nothing. Same thing applies to pharmacies, auto repair places, funeral parlors, etc.

WildCat

22nd February 2008, 11:34 AM

You are providing, presumably, 100% of their income now, so you better get digging. You'll get yours from some poor person who is not yet born.
Are you familiar with the demographics of this country? How many working people will be supporting every retired person in 40 years?

This is the problem of SS.

WildCat

22nd February 2008, 11:37 AM

And if you started using that $144,000 for income at your presumed $5000/month level it would last you 28 months after your retirement.
Actually, using a conservative 7% rate of return his retirement savings would be worth $787,444 in 40 years at a $300/month contribution rate. Enough to last many years at $5,000/month.

boooeee

22nd February 2008, 03:31 PM

You understand how insurance works with hospitals, right? Since insurance represents a block of people, they can demand, and get, discounts from their vendors - doctors and hospitals. That's how they keep their costs down, while demanding the best that technology provides. These vendors cannot simply accept to absorb the discounts (and not have that interfere with golf schedules or irate shareholders), so they pass the additional costs along to the uninsured. The uninsured have to absorb their own costs plus the discounts, and since more insured people use the facilities than uninsured, the share of the discounts is often greater than the real cost of the care. Double or nothing. Same thing applies to pharmacies, auto repair places, funeral parlors, etc.

Actually, the cost shifting works in the opposite direction. The insured population is subsidizing the costs of the uninsured.

Now, it is true that insurance companies negotiate discounts with hospitals. It is also true that what a hospital will bill an uninsured individual is much higher than what it would bill an insured individual.

The missing piece is that hospitals tend to collect very little of what they bill an uninsured person. Either they get no payment at all, or they settle for a fraction of the cost, realizing that something is better than nothing when it comes to an uninsured individual of limited financial means.

One of the main problems with the US healthcare system is that private insurance tends to subsidize a lot of care. Hospitals don't have a lot of leverage in the reimbursements they get from Medicare and Medicaid. They can't get much money from the poor and uninsured. Any shortfall tends to be made up with higher reimbursement rates for the privately insured, making private insurance more expensive.

balrog666

22nd February 2008, 05:14 PM

This is somethnig different. They only take insured patients. That means they don't take clients who are paying in person.

The point is that people who are paying in person might actually ask the sort of questions Darat did about why some of this stuff needs doing. There might be market pressure just to do what's needed, or what the client can afford. Can't have that!

Rolfe.

Utterly wrong - they refuse government insured patients because of the roadblocks that bureaucrats throw up to impede lawfull payment for services rendered. Cash is *ALWAYS* readily accepted. :rolleyes:

Try again.

JEROME DA GNOME

22nd February 2008, 05:18 PM

And if you started using that $144,000 for income at your presumed $5000/month level it would last you 28 months after your retirement. SS is not designed to provide for *you*, but rather all those other people retiring this year - something like 1.5 or so per wage earner. You are providing, presumably, 100% of their income now, so you better get digging. You'll get yours from some poor person who is not yet born.

It's called either a Pozi scheme or pyramid scheme.

balrog666

22nd February 2008, 07:34 PM

It's called either a Pozi scheme or pyramid scheme.

Ponzi --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd February 2008, 07:49 PM

Ponzi --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. From your link:

Retirement programs run by national governments, though they involve the taxes paid in by workers being redistributed to pensioners, nevertheless differ in a number of basic features that are usually found in Ponzi schemes, but are not fundamental to them:
Retirement systems, like Social Security, are openly declared for what they are.[citation needed] In a genuine Ponzi scheme, the perpetrators falsely claim that there is some business that generates the promised revenues. In Social Security, people know where the money comes from, and actuaries supply written predictions of future cash in-flows and out-flows. The exception may be in tax payer's expectations that Social Security tax payments are actually invested within a national retirement system. The taxes received are instead used immediately for general government expenditures, one of which is payments to current retirees.
Retirement systems promise a stipend to the country's retired persons, not the quick and exorbitant profits to current investors that Ponzi schemes invariably offer.
Retirement systems rely on the taxing power of the state to ensure continuous funding, as opposed to voluntary investor contributions. In practice, this taxing power has been used primarily for dedicated revenues (taxes), although in theory general tax revenues could be used to supplement worker payments into the systems. (Historically in the U.S., Social Security has almost always been in surplus, so this has not yet become an issue.) When and if the political process is used to raise required contributions via retirement taxes, or to reduce benefits (including raising the retirement age), there would certainly be opposition from those who would pay more or get less, but politicians have only those two choices (plus borrowing) if revenues are inadequate, aside from gradually ending the New Deal completely.
The idea of making Social Security a "fully funded" system has been discussed several times but always floundered on the cost. The cost has gone up as making any fundamental change has been deferred.
In the long run, retirement systems pay out an approximately equal amount to what was paid in, per contributor, plus interest[citation needed]. In the short run, pension surpluses can be used to cover a government's current general-revenue shortfall, as has been happening in the United States since Social Security contribution rates were increased in 1983.
Retirement systems are in many ways insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in. And someone disabled, even at a relatively young age (well before he/she can make significant payments into the system, or have significant private investments), still receives payments until the end of his/her life. Due to this, the typical retiree who does not become disabled early sees a lower rate of return than the risk free rate.
Unlike a Ponzi scheme, government receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that time frame. A sudden collapse is therefore unlikely[citation needed], depending on one's definition of "sudden".
The U.S. Social Security Administration provides the following response[24] to the "Ponzi scheme" accusation as applied to a pay-as-you-go system like Social Security:
There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. So we could [imagine] that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.

JEROME DA GNOME

22nd February 2008, 07:54 PM

SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. From your link:

I guess that even if it has all the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme that if Wiki says government Ponzi schemes are not Ponzi schemes then they are not.

:boggled:

JEROME DA GNOME

22nd February 2008, 08:00 PM

SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. From your link:

Did you not read?

There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end.

SS says it is not a Ponzi scheme and then describes itself as such.

BTW, the Supreme Court said that SS is NOT a retirement program and NO individual has any right to the money that they contribute.

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd February 2008, 08:09 PM

Did you not read?

SS says it is not a Ponzi scheme and then describes itself as such.

BTW, the Supreme Court said that SS is NOT a retirement program and NO individual has any right to the money that they contribute.

That's not all a Ponzi scheme is:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business.

And by all means, ignore the rest of the list provided.

Retirement systems, like Social Security, are openly declared for what they are.[citation needed] In a genuine Ponzi scheme, the perpetrators falsely claim that there is some business that generates the promised revenues. In Social Security, people know where the money comes from, and actuaries supply written predictions of future cash in-flows and out-flows. The exception may be in tax payer's expectations that Social Security tax payments are actually invested within a national retirement system. The taxes received are instead used immediately for general government expenditures, one of which is payments to current retirees.
Retirement systems promise a stipend to the country's retired persons, not the quick and exorbitant profits to current investors that Ponzi schemes invariably offer.
Retirement systems rely on the taxing power of the state to ensure continuous funding, as opposed to voluntary investor contributions. In practice, this taxing power has been used primarily for dedicated revenues (taxes), although in theory general tax revenues could be used to supplement worker payments into the systems. (Historically in the U.S., Social Security has almost always been in surplus, so this has not yet become an issue.) When and if the political process is used to raise required contributions via retirement taxes, or to reduce benefits (including raising the retirement age), there would certainly be opposition from those who would pay more or get less, but politicians have only those two choices (plus borrowing) if revenues are inadequate, aside from gradually ending the New Deal completely.
The idea of making Social Security a "fully funded" system has been discussed several times but always floundered on the cost. The cost has gone up as making any fundamental change has been deferred.
In the long run, retirement systems pay out an approximately equal amount to what was paid in, per contributor, plus interest[citation needed]. In the short run, pension surpluses can be used to cover a government's current general-revenue shortfall, as has been happening in the United States since Social Security contribution rates were increased in 1983.
Retirement systems are in many ways insurance rather than investment systems. A person who dies before retirement gets no money back (regardless of what he/she paid in). Someone who lives to a very old age continues to get payments regardless of the amount of money he/she has paid in. And someone disabled, even at a relatively young age (well before he/she can make significant payments into the system, or have significant private investments), still receives payments until the end of his/her life. Due to this, the typical retiree who does not become disabled early sees a lower rate of return than the risk free rate.
Unlike a Ponzi scheme, government receipts (taxes) and payouts (entitlements) can be calculated quite accurately in the short term (five to ten years), and predicted (with a range of assumptions) for periods beyond that time frame. A sudden collapse is therefore unlikely[citation needed], depending on one's definition of "sudden".

WildCat

22nd February 2008, 08:12 PM

SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. From your link:
Oh, but it is. This was particularly insightful:
It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever.
Problem is, there isn't a "rough balance". People are living longer, and having fewer children. The number of workers supporting each retiree has dropped steadily over the years. They "fix" this by increasing the taxes on workers, while cutting back on the benefits of retirees. TB, by the time you retire you'll be lucky to feed your cat on the proceeds of your SS check.

JEROME DA GNOME

22nd February 2008, 08:27 PM

That's not all a Ponzi scheme is:

And by all means, ignore the rest of the list provided.

I read the entire link, but thank for reposting the same quote again. :rolleyes:

The only difference is in the government Ponzi scheme you are required to participate through the force of a gun.

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd February 2008, 10:18 PM

I read the entire link, but thank for reposting the same quote again. :rolleyes:

Well you didn't try to rebute any of the points, so I take it you agree with them?

The only difference is in the government Ponzi scheme you are required to participate through the force of a gun.

... You sure you read the quotes? Because it lists the differences. And this is a democracy, not a libertopia.

Tsukasa Buddha

22nd February 2008, 10:19 PM

Oh, but it is. This was particularly insightful:

Problem is, there isn't a "rough balance". People are living longer, and having fewer children. The number of workers supporting each retiree has dropped steadily over the years. They "fix" this by increasing the taxes on workers, while cutting back on the benefits of retirees. TB, by the time you retire you'll be lucky to feed your cat on the proceeds of your SS check.

But this isn't an inherent part of the SS system, it has to do with population shifts which change over time. And even if we have to increase the payments, it still won't be a Ponzi scheme.

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 06:08 AM

But this isn't an inherent part of the SS system, it has to do with population shifts which change over time. And even if we have to increase the payments, it still won't be a Ponzi scheme.

The tax was DOUBLED in the early 80's.

The benefits are taxed as income. You understand that this means one pays income tax on the same money twice. This means that the average taxpayer pays 60% income tax on his SS benefit.

The benefits have been decreased.

KoihimeNakamura

23rd February 2008, 12:11 PM

Jerome and Wildcat: In order to keep it.. viable. Of course, you could stop paying attention to that and just go 'doom and gloom!'

WildCat

23rd February 2008, 12:33 PM

Jerome and Wildcat: In order to keep it.. viable.
Not gloom and doom, just ditching a system that is unworkable in the long run.

"Keeping it viable" just for the sake of "keeping it viable", when it is no longer capable of serving its original purpose (retirement income one could live off) seems foolish to me.

Rolfe

23rd February 2008, 12:35 PM

Utterly wrong - they refuse government insured patients because of the roadblocks that bureaucrats throw up to impede lawfull payment for services rendered. Cash is *ALWAYS* readily accepted. :rolleyes:

Try again.

Sunshine, I don't know what you think you're talking about, but you're not even on the right page.

I'm talking about a vet in England who declared that he would only treat animals which were covered by pet health insurance policies. The only other alternative method of payment is cash. He was refusing to take any clients who would have paid cash.

The reason, apparently, was that the insurance companies would not query what he chose to do and how much he chose to charge. While people paying cash might have asked awkward little questions like "why is this blood test needed?"

Rolfe.

WildCat

23rd February 2008, 12:37 PM

And even if we have to increase the payments, it still won't be a Ponzi scheme.
The only thing keeping it from being a true Ponzi scheme is that it won't ultimately collapse completely, since participation is mandated by law.

A forced 401(k) type plan would be a much better way to go if mandatory government retirement plans are desired by the population.

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 01:21 PM

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 02:11 PM

The only thing keeping it from being a true Ponzi scheme is that it won't ultimately collapse completely, since participation is mandated by law.

A forced 401(k) type plan would be a much better way to go if mandatory government retirement plans are desired by the population.

But Social Security covers other things as well, like disabilities.

And in a Ponzi scheme, you "invest" in a company and get really high returns, which is generated from the "investments" of other people who want to get the really high returns as well. However, you don't know that that is what the company is really doing. This can continue as long as the number of investors is consistently increasing at an exponential rate. Once it can't keep the rate up, it breaks down.

It is only similar to SS in that the investments of current members are given as returns to the older members.

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

And, of course, there isn't a guy getting rich quick behind the scenes ;) .

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 02:17 PM

And, of course, there isn't a guy getting rich quick behind the scenes ;) .

The government is taxing under false pretense. You are aware that the government collects more than they pay out and spend all the excess.

WildCat

23rd February 2008, 04:36 PM

But Social Security covers other things as well, like disabilities.
Believe it or not, so does private insurance.

And in a Ponzi scheme, you "invest" in a company and get really high returns, which is generated from the "investments" of other people who want to get the really high returns as well.
Funny, that's exactly how SS works! The early recipients got way more out of it than they put in. Recipients in the future (maybe now?) will get less than they put in.

balrog666

23rd February 2008, 05:20 PM

But Social Security covers other things as well, like disabilities.

And in a Ponzi scheme, you "invest" in a company and get really high returns, which is generated from the "investments" of other people who want to get the really high returns as well. However, you don't know that that is what the company is really doing. This can continue as long as the number of investors is consistently increasing at an exponential rate. Once it can't keep the rate up, it breaks down.

It is only similar to SS in that the investments of current members are given as returns to the older members.

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

And, of course, there isn't a guy getting rich quick behind the scenes ;) .

So, if you "invest" in Social Security and are promised (or receive) much more than you put in, it's a Ponzi scheme.

But if you get out less or nothing (i.e., you die before age 67), then it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Oh, yeah, I understand you now. :rolleyes:

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 06:25 PM

Believe it or not, so does private insurance.

401k programs cover disability, survivorship, etc?

Funny, that's exactly how SS works! The early recipients got way more out of it than they put in. Recipients in the future (maybe now?) will get less than they put in.

Way to ignore the rest of what I posted.

I said that the current members dues going to the older members returns was the only way they were similar. And I am not saying that changes won't have to be made to adapt to other variables like changing demographics. However, these changes won't involve an exponential expantion of people paying into the system.

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 06:27 PM

So, if you "invest" in Social Security and are promised (or receive) much more than you put in, it's a Ponzi scheme.

But if you get out less or nothing (i.e., you die before age 67), then it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Oh, yeah, I understand you now. :rolleyes:

Oh noes, the strawmen!

Where the hell did I say that?

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 08:30 PM

Oh noes, the strawmen!

Where the hell did I say that?

What are you saying?

How is it not a Pozi?

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 08:47 PM

What are you saying?

How is it not a Pozi?

To repeat:

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

Have you bothered reading the list I posted earlier as well?

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 08:50 PM

To repeat:

Have you bothered reading the list I posted earlier as well?

You have not repeated anything. You have posted anonymous quotes stating that it is not.

Please explain in your words how it is not. Quoting someone else stating that it is not means nothing. It's not even an appeal to authority.

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 09:06 PM

You have not repeated anything. You have posted anonymous quotes stating that it is not.

Please explain in your words how it is not. Quoting someone else stating that it is not means nothing. It's not even an appeal to authority.

:dl:

Those were my own words from my post!

JEROME DA GNOME

23rd February 2008, 09:15 PM

:dl:

Those were my own words from my post!

You got me there. These are your words:

"But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse."

Let us take these differences one by one.

1. People do not know how the system will work. It changes.

2. There were fantastic returns for the initial recipients.

3. The number of dollars has increased at a huge rate or else it would have collapsed.

Tsukasa Buddha

23rd February 2008, 09:50 PM

You got me there. These are your words:

"But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse."

Let us take these differences one by one.

1. People do not know how the system will work. It changes.

People know what they are paying into. People know that the money they are putting in goes to the people on SS now (And if you want to say "Well so and so didn't know" don't bother, the info is freely out there). In a Ponzi scheme this isn't the case.

2. There were fantastic returns for the initial recipients.

:rolleyes: What does that have to do with anything? Or are you admitting that there were only fantastic returns for the very initial recipients, but not for people after? Which would make it not a Ponzi, in which new members get uber-high returns right away up until the system collapses.

3. The number of dollars has increased at a huge rate or else it would have collapsed.

Yes, population, inflation, and other variables have to be accounted for. Of course the number of dollars would have increased. And the rate isn't that huge compared to the rate that the investors in a Ponzi system have to increase. And the fact that SS has a relatively stable number of "investors" is evidence that it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

JEROME DA GNOME

24th February 2008, 07:19 AM

People know what they are paying into. People know that the money they are putting in goes to the people on SS now (And if you want to say "Well so and so didn't know" don't bother, the info is freely out there). In a Ponzi scheme this isn't the case.

You seem to think that SS knowledge is in the vacuum of today.

:rolleyes: What does that have to do with anything? Or are you admitting that there were only fantastic returns for the very initial recipients, but not for people after? Which would make it not a Ponzi, in which new members get uber-high returns right away up until the system collapses.

This is what makes it worse than a traditional Ponzi. The vast majority receive less than they put in.

Yes, population, inflation, and other variables have to be accounted for. Of course the number of dollars would have increased. And the rate isn't that huge compared to the rate that the investors in a Ponzi system have to increase. And the fact that SS has a relatively stable number of "investors" is evidence that it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

The percentage of income taxed has increased dramatically. This fact invalidates the other factors you have presented.

jimbob

24th February 2008, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why do you keep attempting to compare a government system to another government system?

I am arguing against government systems.

Sorry, I thought hoped you shared the assumption that even poor people should get healthcare.

Are you actually arguing that poor people shouldn't get any healthcare (except, possibly from charities)? Or are you arguing that they should, but that they should magically fund it from their (by definition) insufficient funds? Or are you arguing something else?

JEROME DA GNOME

24th February 2008, 08:03 AM

Are you actually arguing that poor people shouldn't get any healthcare (except, possibly from charities)? Or are you arguing that they should, but that they should magically fund it from their (by definition) insufficient funds? Or are you arguing something else?

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

jimbob

24th February 2008, 08:19 AM

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor. How, and why?

How can someone on 6USD/hour afford a consultation with a professional at say 100USD/hour, then say an MRI scan on a machine that cost 2million USD, which has to be depreciated ofver five years, plus the fees of the technical support staff, and maintenence, plus any cost of drugs, especially if their job does not allow them any sick pay.

How does a person with a chronic medical condition get an insurer to take them on? With no regulation, an insurer isn't going to touch a money sink.

Insurers have to make a profit. This means that on average the income from insurance has to cover both the expected medical costs plus the insurer's costs plus the insurer's profits. This means insurers are betting, that on average, that they will receive more money in from their clients than they will pay out in claims.

If someone has a chronic medical condition, or even a genetic predisposition to such a condition, the expected fees to cover this are going to be very large. How can any deregulation of the market allow a poor person pay this?

jimbob

24th February 2008, 08:42 AM

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

So, how exactly would deregulation reduce the costs in the cases below:

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

Or was quixotecoyote's answer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3447929#post3447929) correct?

balrog666

24th February 2008, 09:38 AM

To repeat:

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

Social Security doesn't have "investors", it has captives. The last opt out period ended 25 years ago and isn't coming back.

Social Security has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second — and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom.

But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth — or of more artful lies. Just like Enron.

Tsukasa Buddha

24th February 2008, 09:57 AM

You seem to think that SS knowledge is in the vacuum of today.

Qua?

This is what makes it worse than a traditional Ponzi. The vast majority receive less than they put in.

Evidence? And what does it matter? SS isn't meant to be an investment system, that's why I've been putting "invest" in quotes when comparing it to a Ponzi. One could look at it from the perspective of it being an insurance (Though that doesn't fit it completely). But it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

The percentage of income taxed has increased dramatically. This fact invalidates the other factors you have presented.

Evidence? And I don't see why that would "invalidate" population and inflation being the reason for it costing more.

Tsukasa Buddha

24th February 2008, 10:02 AM

Social Security doesn't have "investors", it has captives. The last opt out period ended 25 years ago and isn't coming back.

Ugh, now they are tossing in "pyramid scheme", which is an even worse comparison than Ponzi scheme.

And the SS system can undergo some simple reforms to keep it soluble for when the baby boomers retire.

And lol at the captives label :rolleyes: .

WildCat

24th February 2008, 11:58 AM

401k programs cover disability, survivorship, etc?
Since when is a 401(k) "private insurance"?

Way to ignore the rest of what I posted.

I said that the current members dues going to the older members returns was the only way they were similar.
And that's the essence of a Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

And I am not saying that changes won't have to be made to adapt to other variables like changing demographics. However, these changes won't involve an exponential expantion of people paying into the system.
Now you're catching on! Fewer people paying into the system while more people are collecting money out of the system. I suppose if you define a pyramid scheme in just the right way SS won't qualify... :rolleyes:

I really wish you'd explain to me how this system can be considered worthwhile, since it certainly won't be able to fulfill it's original purpose.

WildCat

24th February 2008, 11:59 AM

And the SS system can undergo some simple reforms to keep it soluble for when the baby boomers retire.
Explain what you think these reforms will entail. Even higher SS witholdings? Lower benefits? Means testing of benefits? A combination of the above?

balrog666

24th February 2008, 02:56 PM

Explain what you think these reforms will entail. Even higher SS witholdings? Lower benefits? Means testing of benefits? A combination of the above?

To socialists, higher taxes solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't taxed enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.
:pigsfly

quixotecoyote

24th February 2008, 05:00 PM

To socialists, higher taxes solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't taxed enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.
:pigsfly

Ohh is the new text generator out already?

Lemme check....

Yep!

"To [group I don't like], [gross generalization of their position] solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't [past tense of gross generalization] enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.
:pigsfly"

Let's test it!

"To libertarians, reducing regulations solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't reduced regulations enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

:pigsfly"

"To anarchists, destroying governments solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't reduced destroyed governments enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

:pigsfly"

"To Christians, enacting Christian governments solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't enacted Christian governments enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

:pigsfly"

"To skeptics, demanding evidence will solve everything wrong with the world. :rolleyes:

But I guess we just haven't demanded evidence enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

:pigsfly"

Beautiful!