HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

NYC seeks to ban large soft drinks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2012, 02:54 PM
  #201
Tekneek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,297
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
just don't worry about the costs.
If you're worried about the costs, single-payer has the lowest per-capita expense. We already have the highest per-capita healthcare expenses in the world. This is while our life expectancy is declining. Hmmm.

Tekneek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 03:41 PM
  #202
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,898
vCash: 500
http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-fergus...n-private-care

Argue any points therein.

OlTimeHockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 03:46 PM
  #203
Yoshimitsu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
That doesn't necessarily support the idea that single-payer isn't cheaper, but only that Medicare and Medicaid are broken in many ways, which most of us already knew.

Yoshimitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 04:41 PM
  #204
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 500
I like how a health care "researcher" publishes the results of his "research" through a think tank instead of an academic journal.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 05:19 PM
  #205
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu View Post
That doesn't necessarily support the idea that single-payer isn't cheaper, but only that Medicare and Medicaid are broken in many ways, which most of us already knew.
But the entity running those programs will be the single payer operator. And Amtrak. And SSI. They will be the ones allowed to divert money to other budgets. Run deficits.

Single payer in a homogeneous society works well to fairly well. Try it in the US or other societies. It doesn't.

Just like types of rule, the people dictate it. The US has consumer hunger, systematic abusers, corruption, etc. I just think many look at it from an academic standpoint but not based in reality.

How is Mass. doing with it? Has any fix heped Medicare? Medicaid?

I say the best fix is just elsewhere. But both parties have their ideas and want support and voters are ardent partisans so the search for a fix is lost to the battle over concept.

Add in tort reform. Rebirth of the private clinic. Allow (the Obama banned) Catastrophic care policy so the insured would get all the high dollar procedures insured but have to pay cash out of pocket for smaller procedures (surprise! It's cheaper that way!).

Many ideas just won't ever see the light of day because we have a religious like movement to insure all via government or we want no government whatsoever.

(disclosure: I want the government to insure the poorest of the poor and invalids, and to ensure the elderly get care they paid into)

OlTimeHockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 05:54 PM
  #206
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
Single payer in a homogeneous society works well to fairly well. Try it in the US or other societies. It doesn't.
what does this mean, "homogeneous." why can single payer work well in, say, australia but not in the US.



Quote:
Add in tort reform.
lol

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:04 PM
  #207
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Mann View Post
I like how a health care "researcher" publishes the results of his "research" through a think tank instead of an academic journal.
i also like how his PhD is in american government and political philosophy, and how all of his work is published in right wing newspapers and journals.

i mean, you can read the guy's stuff, but let's not kid ourselves about him coming into it with an agenda. he's a staunch conservative and shockingly his research is confirming everything he already believed.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:06 PM
  #208
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
what does this mean, "homogeneous." why can single payer work well in, say, australia but not in the US.





lol
311 Million lives vs 22 Million lives.

Single payer would be even more efficient if you only had to cover 1 Million lives. It would be super efficient if you had to cover 10,000 lives.

We have seen what a government run health care in America will do. Its called Medicare. And it is going bankrupt.

And here are some numbers for you to think about.....

48 Million lives.

That's the number of Americans on Medicare.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:10 PM
  #209
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
i like how when medicare struggles financially, it's a severe indictment of why government run health care can't work in america. but when the USA spends like 70% more than any other nation on health care (as percentage of GDP), has a higher percentage of its population without health care than pretty much any other developed nation, and experiences alarming rates of medical-related bankruptcies, well that's not at all an indictment of the profiteering private health care system.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:14 PM
  #210
OlTimeHockey
Registered User
 
OlTimeHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: home
Country: China
Posts: 15,898
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
i like how when medicare struggles financially, it's a severe indictment of why government run health care can't work in america. but when the USA spends like 70% more than any other nation on health care (as percentage of GDP), has a higher percentage of its population without health care than pretty much any other developed nation, and experiences alarming rates of medical-related bankruptcies, well that's not at all an indictment of the profiteering private health care system.
Or could it be GROSS inefficiency and outright bloat in bureaucracy? Does anything become more efficient with fewer parts?

The goal is to make care less expensive.

Tell me ANY system cheaper than cash for services?

Now tell me why catastrophic care is so much affordable compared to any other policy? What does it lack?

Can the care it lacks be paid in cash?

There's your answer, unless you have something more affordable.

(and, of course, the government is relegated to caring for the poor and indigent, a much smaller pool, correct?)

OlTimeHockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:20 PM
  #211
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
i like how when medicare struggles financially, it's a severe indictment of why government run health care can't work in america. but when the USA spends like 70% more than any other nation on health care (as percentage of GDP), has a higher percentage of its population without health care than pretty much any other developed nation, and experiences alarming rates of medical-related bankruptcies, well that's not at all an indictment of the profiteering private health care system.
You can spin all you want but the reality is that the American Government run Medicare will be bankrupt in 2024. Twelve years away.

And that is the government covering 48 million lives. There are 311 million people in America.

And a government plan covering 48 million cannot remain solvent?

You do not, in your simple mind's way of thinking, understand the enormity of covering that many lives. In your little world of 22 million people, life is wonderful, and it also displays your ignorance to reality regarding the size and scope of American health care.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:36 PM
  #212
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OlTimeHockey View Post
Or could it be GROSS inefficiency and outright bloat in bureaucracy? Does anything become more efficient with fewer parts?

The goal is to make care less expensive.

Tell me ANY system cheaper than cash for services?

Now tell me why catastrophic care is so much affordable compared to any other policy? What does it lack?

Can the care it lacks be paid in cash?

There's your answer, unless you have something more affordable.

(and, of course, the government is relegated to caring for the poor and indigent, a much smaller pool, correct?)
"cash for services" is such an overly simplistic strawman. health care can never work like fixing a car because some people suffer serious illnesses and serious injuries that require ongoing treatment (which is very expensive), and some people stay healthy. (yes i know some people have car trouble and some don't, but the difference in scale is enormous)

i have already said what i'd do - implement cost controls for procedures (i.e., an MRI costs this much, etc), create a universal system while maintaining a private system that wealthier people are incentivized to use (through taxes). then other things to encourage healthier living, like fewer work hours, sin taxes and various other things that you conservatives would find way too Stalinist.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:41 PM
  #213
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
You can spin all you want but the reality is that the American Government run Medicare will be bankrupt in 2024. Twelve years away.

And that is the government covering 48 million lives. There are 311 million people in America.

And a government plan covering 48 million cannot remain solvent?

You do not, in your simple mind's way of thinking, understand the enormity of covering that many lives. In your little world of 22 million people, life is wonderful, and it also displays your ignorance to reality regarding the size and scope of American health care.
please, share with me your expert plan on the american health care system. or are you of the opinion that it's the best system in the world? or that every developed country with a lot of people will inevitably have health care costs that far outpace costs in every other country on earth?

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:42 PM
  #214
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
"cash for services" is such an overly simplistic strawman. health care can never work like fixing a car because some people suffer serious illnesses and serious injuries that require ongoing treatment (which is very expensive), and some people stay healthy. (yes i know some people have car trouble and some don't, but the difference in scale is enormous)

i have already said what i'd do - implement cost controls for procedures (i.e., an MRI costs this much, etc), create a universal system while maintaining a private system that wealthier people are incentivized to use (through taxes). then other things to encourage healthier living, like fewer work hours, sin taxes and various other things that you conservatives would find way too Stalinist.
OlTimeHockey is right. You are wrong.

The explosion of health care costs began when Managed Care began and swept across the country.

Its pre-paid health care. You pay for your health insurance and then only have a co-pay when you visit the doctor. Your procedures might cost $300 but YOUR bill is only $20. Therefore, your sense of responsibility is diminished.

In the past, when people had a cold, they stayed at home and toughed it out for the 3 days they felt like ****. Now, with a co-pay, its off to the doctor's office.

Every doctor visit should be cash and insurance should be only for catastrophic illness requiring hospitalization. Free market forces (Doctor Smith charges $40 for a visit and Doctor Jones charges $100.........who are you going to go to if you are cost conscious) would drive costs down.

Same for the prescription drug co-pays as well. The drug may cost $200 but you only pay $40. HUGE disconnect.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:45 PM
  #215
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
OlTimeHockey is right. You are wrong.

The explosion of health care costs began when Managed Care began and swept across the country.

Its pre-paid health care. You pay for your health insurance and then only have a co-pay when you visit the doctor. Your procedures might cost $300 but YOUR bill is only $20. Therefore, your sense of responsibility is diminished.

In the past, when people had a cold, they stayed at home and toughed it out for the 3 days they felt like ****. Now, with a co-pay, its off to the doctor's office.
well this certainly explains why japan, a country with a high population and is full of hypochondriacs, has significantly lower (as percentage of GDP) health care costs despite its average citizen making significantly more doctor visits per year than the average american citizen.

oh wait it doesn't explain that at all.

P.S. pretty much every country (including the one in which i currently live) have co-pay systems in which a good chunk of the doctor's visit cost is covered by insurance. so yet another one of your points is easily blown out of the water.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:52 PM
  #216
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
please, share with me your expert plan on the american health care system. or are you of the opinion that it's the best system in the world? or that every developed country with a lot of people will inevitably have health care costs that far outpace costs in every other country on earth?
Best in the world in America.

According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology :

American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.

American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent compared to only 47 percent for European men.

Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.

These figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.

For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596



SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:54 PM
  #217
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
well this certainly explains why japan, a country with a high population and is full of hypochondriacs, has significantly lower (as percentage of GDP) health care costs despite its average citizen making significantly more doctor visits per year than the average american citizen.

oh wait it doesn't explain that at all.

P.S. pretty much every country (including the one in which i currently live) have co-pay systems in which a good chunk of the doctor's visit cost is covered by insurance. so yet another one of your points is easily blown out of the water.
Just because a country has a co-pay system does not blow anything out of anywhere.

Can you blow out the cancer survivability chart?

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:54 PM
  #218
Yoshimitsu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
The quality of doctors and treatments has never been in question, only whether or not they're affordable for the majority of the population and whether or not we have adequate preventative care, which we don't.

Every day in this country there are people that have to make a choice between going to the doctor and being able to afford food.

Yoshimitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 06:57 PM
  #219
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu View Post
The quality of doctors and treatments has never been in question, only whether or not they're affordable for the majority of the population and whether or not we have adequate preventative care, which we don't.

Every day in this country there are people that have to make a choice between going to the doctor and being able to afford food.
Wow.

Medicaid anyone?



It has already been shown that the biggest majority of uninsured people in America are the ones who CHOOSE not to buy insurance. You know, the younger people who do not get sick so they choose not to spend money on health insurance.

Hospitals write off countless numbers of stays if people cannot afford to pay.


Edit to add.....

Under EMTALA, (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) no patient who arrives in a hospital with an emergency condition will be turned away or transferred unnecessarily. Anyone who shows up in a hospital emergency room will be screened to determine the severity of his or her condition. If the condition is deemed an emergency, the hospital is obligated to stabilize the patient. The hospital can transfer patients only when it lacks the ability to stabilize the patient beyond a certain limit; a transfer to a charity hospital merely to avoid treating the patient is a violation.



You are simply spewing more leftist pap.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:01 PM
  #220
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
here are some other charts and images that might be relevant to the discussion:




Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:08 PM
  #221
SouthernHab
Registered User
 
SouthernHab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 10,529
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
here are some other charts and images that might be relevant to the discussion:



More liberal propaganda from you that is easily dismissed.




Americans drive automobiles more than any other nation. Sadly, America is a very violent country with a lot of murders.

Take away accidental deaths from the life expectancy data and America has the HIGHEST life expectancy in the world.

Your charts are simply propaganda bull ****. Sorry buddy. Australia is 9 positions behind America on the list.

SouthernHab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:10 PM
  #222
Yoshimitsu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 5,020
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
Wow.

Medicaid anyone?
Yeah, what about it? Wait, you don't actually think that Medicaid covers every poor person, do you?

Quote:
It has already been shown that the biggest majority of uninsured people in America are the ones who CHOOSE not to buy insurance. You know, the younger people who do not get sick so they choose not to spend money on health insurance.
I know people who choose not to buy insurance because they can't afford the premium or the deductible.

Also, it's people that never get preventable care that end up getting sick down the road, raising the cost for everyone else.

Quote:
Under EMTALA, (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) no patient who arrives in a hospital with an emergency condition will be turned away or transferred unnecessarily. Anyone who shows up in a hospital emergency room will be screened to determine the severity of his or her condition. If the condition is deemed an emergency, the hospital is obligated to stabilize the patient. The hospital can transfer patients only when it lacks the ability to stabilize the patient beyond a certain limit; a transfer to a charity hospital merely to avoid treating the patient is a violation.
What are you talking about? No one said anything about people being "turned away." We're talking about people who may be ill but choose not to receive medical care because they can't afford the financial burden of a large medical bill. I have no doubt that in your mind being in financial ruin because you got sick is just tough luck. Something about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, probably.

Yoshimitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:11 PM
  #223
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 10,309
vCash: 500
wow so the average american lives an extra 10 months longer than the average australian, as long as (s)he isn't shot or killed in a car crash? better make those 10 months worthwhile, since you're paying an extra $340,000 over the course of your life to have them.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 07:19 PM
  #224
Hugh Mann*
Hey! Hey! You! You!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: New Westminster, BC
Country: Greenland
Posts: 17,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernHab View Post
311 Million lives vs 22 Million lives.

Single payer would be even more efficient if you only had to cover 1 Million lives. It would be super efficient if you had to cover 10,000 lives.

We have seen what a government run health care in America will do. Its called Medicare. And it is going bankrupt.

And here are some numbers for you to think about.....

48 Million lives.

That's the number of Americans on Medicare.
As usual, you have it completely ass-backwards. Efficiency increases geometrically with population, because you have a greater base across which to distribute cost. A true single-payer system should, disregarding other factors, be more efficient in the United States than in Australia.

Hugh Mann* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2012, 09:49 PM
  #225
mooseOAK*
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
well this certainly explains why japan, a country with a high population and is full of hypochondriacs, has significantly lower (as percentage of GDP) health care costs despite its average citizen making significantly more doctor visits per year than the average american citizen.

oh wait it doesn't explain that at all.

P.S. pretty much every country (including the one in which i currently live) have co-pay systems in which a good chunk of the doctor's visit cost is covered by insurance. so yet another one of your points is easily blown out of the water.
While they may be called hypochondriacs frequent visits to the doctor means that problems can be caught early and treated instead of running out of control and becoming expensive to treat. That is the biggest problem with the US and that is people not being encouraged to get regular checkups because of the cost.

mooseOAK* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.