User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 98

  1. #61
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    We need to rule out increased taxation. It will not work. Look what happened with real estate. The government tried to make housing available to more people by essentially giving out free money. But all that did was to cause housing prices to skyrocket until it became unaffordable again.

    The same thing will happen with health care. Increasing the supply of money through taxation would only cause the price of services to rise. We will end up in the exact same place.

    The only viable solution is to reduce the cost of services.
    Those two aren't really comparable, a more comparable solution would be comparing a paid public good with another paid public good.

    The system would neither be free, nor will it be as expensive as private health insurance costs now as the cost is diffused within everyone living in the U.S.. Everyone that lives in the U.S. and works will need to contribute some portion of their income. It is like military expenditure, I seriously do not care as much as someone in another state getting hit. Likewise, I'm quite sure someone in another state could careless if my city got hit. But the cost to upkeep individual military operations would cost a lot more if border protection were completely state driven than it would be if every state contributed to the military that protected every state.

    But like I said, it would be a transaction of parts of the medicare system and social security system into the new system that has a broader range which mitigates the cost a lot more than the two system currently have.

    Also, do you know what the idea of a pooling system is? It would be something like contributing to a lottery group. Everyone that wants to be part of the group needs to pay a certain amount of their money. If, by any chance, one of the ticket hits the jackpot, everyone who invested in the group will receive a portion of the jackpot.

    Theoretically speaking, you spend less to be part of the lottery group that gets 5 tickets each week than it would of cost you to buy 5 tickets yourself.

  2. #62
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Well yeah it depends, I generally am young and don´t have a car or motorbike, thus I rarely need to use health care, and thus it seems to be a lot of money. But I guess for older people, especially with children, it would be completely reasonable.
    What does your healthcare pay for? I'm sure it helps to pay for exams, check-ups, and etc. Correct?

    If that is, then I'm quite sure just because you don't have a car or motorbike, you can still access it for a lot of other reasons like something as simple as getting sick.

  3. #63
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    What does your healthcare pay for? I'm sure it helps to pay for exams, check-ups, and etc. Correct?

    If that is, then I'm quite sure just because you don't have a car or motorbike, you can still access it for a lot of other reasons like something as simple as getting sick.
    Sure, it pretty much pays for everything - even a good portion of my dental care, but usually I´m not sick more than once a year or so, and it´s generally just a flu...but ok, you never know what might happen in the future.

    In a pooling process for health insurance, usually young and healthy people with no kids are those who "lose out", but it´s okay - still, 15.5% of your gross salary is a lot of money.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    These are not comparable situations at all. Their natures are very much at odds with one another.
    They are comparable where it counts.

    You do not "increase the supply of money through taxation". You could say that forced allocation of spending would cause the price of services to rise. This has been thoroughly rejected, as demonstrated through the multitude of public systems worldwide. Costs do not rise when adopting these public systems.
    Public systems are grossly inefficient. They are competitive only with near monopolies.

    A solution cannot be a generality. You would need a specific mention of how to reduce the cost of services.
    One of the main reason why health care is so expensive, is because of unnecessary restrictions on who is allowed to provide even trivial medical services. Restrict the supply and prices go up.

    Besides, you have a viable solution already. It's just inefficient and running at roughly equilibrium. "Improvements" on the current system are likely only to make it worse, at least until you approach a public option.
    A system is not viable if it cannot be maintained indefinitely. Costs are skyrocketing. You can't just keep throwing money at it. You will run out eventually.

    You are making unsubstantiated assertions. There is no proof that deviations from current practice will make things worse. It is just as likely to make things better.

    Canada has free health care. But costs are astronomical. It is projected to collapse in the near future if something isn't done.

  5. #65
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    They are comparable where it counts.
    No, they aren't. You are comparing a theoretical public system to a private system in which financial leverage, derivatives, secondary markets, (lack of) regulation and unique political intervention contributed to a run away bubble.

    Worse, medical care is a fundamental requirement to economic efficiency: the amount of work that can be produced is directly linked to the health of the population. Economic growth suffers directly by not adopting a medical system that ties into general health.

    Inputs and outputs are completely different.


    Public systems are grossly inefficient. They are competitive only with near monopolies.
    Every medical public system of note is more efficient than the US' monopoly/oligarchy (depending on your POV of US insurance and regulatory systems). Even if your generality is true (it's false in more than just monopolies), medical care tends to work itself into that definition due to the need for insurance to level out cost spikes.

    A system is not viable if it cannot be maintained indefinitely. Costs are skyrocketing. You can't just keep throwing money at it. You will run out eventually.
    Irrelevent to the discussion: if one system is paying more into a system and getting less from it, it will collapse before another system that pays less and gets more.

    You are making unsubstantiated assertions. There is no proof that deviations from current practice will make things worse. It is just as likely to make things better.
    *shrug* It's substantiated but it's only an assertion. It's generally accepted outside of the US.

    Canada has free health care. But costs are astronomical. It is projected to collapse in the near future if something isn't done.
    The costs are not astronomical; they are substantially less than the US (IIRC, approximately 60% of the cost, while not removing a segment of the population from care).

    It won't collapse, service will simply be drawn back, systemically, until it becomes rebalanced. The regulation in Canada generally prevents run-away situations. Real estate, to go back to your example, is a classic example. Canada barely registered the crash. Same with banking; our banks remain solid. Our medical system isn't quite so robust, but it is a lot more solid than you hear in the US.

  6. #66
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Sure, it pretty much pays for everything - even a good portion of my dental care, but usually I´m not sick more than once a year or so, and it´s generally just a flu...but ok, you never know what might happen in the future.
    Generally speaking, it is good to get regular check-ups from anything as simple as blood pressure or getting sick. The same goes for dental and eye check-ups.

    If I had the healthcare to provide for it, I'd be going to the family doctor at least 4 times a year, the dentist at least twice a year, and an eye doctor for at least once a year. I would go even more than that if there are any concerns.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    In a pooling process for health insurance, usually young and healthy people with no kids are those who "lose out", but it´s okay - still, 15.5% of your gross salary is a lot of money.
    In that situation, it'll be working like social security and medicare as it is (or was until the healthcare law made it possible for people to stay on a parent's coverage until ~26) in the states. The only difference is that instead of having everything only apply to old people, the young can get healthcare. We'd see the real benefits as we grow older, but we'll still see the benefits as we are now.

    Most of the healthcare laws (and even social programs) and bills we have in place are mostly directed to the old, the children, the poor or people with disabilities (going in that order of the greatest to least.) Most of the younger people our age aren't really missing out on anything if we included it or not because one of the least insured group is our group, the 18-30 year old people.

    The old pays for social security through their lifetime, as for medicare, that is a different story. Children do not increase revenue for these programs, but they are considered part of the future revenue. The programs for the poor is to keep inequality from getting out of control, and the people with disabilities would be people who may of hurt themselves while at a job or were "born" with it. All four of these groups can be disputed that they do not create any revenue immediately. The only group you can assume will have future revenue to sustain these programs are the children, or the poor (to a lesser extent.)

    I'd think a progressive tax as one person grows older (lower as one hits 18 and higher as once hits close to 65) would be appropriate in this situation.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    Those two aren't really comparable, a more comparable solution would be comparing a paid public good with another paid public good.
    It doesn't matter whether it's public or private. If demand increases, the suppliers will be able to raise prices without incurring a reduction in sales volume.

    Also, do you know what the idea of a pooling system is? It would be something like contributing to a lottery group.
    The idea behind insurance is that only a small percentage of the people who paid into it will actually draw from it. Those who are unfortunate enough to need it, are being subsidized by the rest. But as the population ages, too many people will be drawing from it. This will place excessive financial burden on the contributors.

  8. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No, they aren't. You are comparing a theoretical public system to a private system in which financial leverage, derivatives, secondary markets, (lack of) regulation and unique political intervention contributed to a run away bubble.
    I am comparing two systems where the supply of available money is increased at someone else's expense . This effectively increases demand and prices rise. In real estate, the bubble is temporary because high profits motivate more people to become suppliers. In health care, the artificial barriers to entry prevents too many people from becoming doctors. This creates a permanent shortage situation which causes the price to stay high indefinitely.

    Worse, medical care is a fundamental requirement to economic efficiency: the amount of work that can be produced is directly linked to the health of the population. Economic growth suffers directly by not adopting a medical system that ties into general health.
    That is untrue. While it is not nice, working people to death can be very profitable. Just ask sweat shop owners.

    Every medical public system of note is more efficient than the US' monopoly/oligarchy (depending on your POV of US insurance and regulatory systems).
    As I've said, a public system is efficient only when compared to monopolies.

    medical care tends to work itself into that definition due to the need for insurance to level out cost spikes.
    How does this address what I've said about public systems being inefficient?


    *shrug* It's substantiated but it's only an assertion. It's generally accepted outside of the US.
    Just because people believe it doesn't mean it's true. People believe the earth was flat at one point.

    The costs are not astronomical; they are substantially less than the US (IIRC, approximately 60% of the cost, while not removing a segment of the population from care).
    Just because it cost less than a really crappy system does not mean that costs are reasonable. If the system cannot be sustained, then it's no good.

    It won't collapse, service will simply be drawn back, systemically, until it becomes rebalanced. The regulation in Canada generally prevents run-away situations.
    Passing debt to future generations is unfair. They are required to pay into it. When it "becomes rebalanced" they end up short changed.

  9. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    No, they aren't. You are comparing a theoretical public system to a private system in which financial leverage, derivatives, secondary markets, (lack of) regulation and unique political intervention contributed to a run away bubble.
    I am comparing two systems where the supply of available money is increased at someone else's expense . This effectively increases demand and prices rise. In real estate, the bubble is temporary because high profits motivate more people to become suppliers. In health care, the artificial barriers to entry prevents too many people from becoming doctors. This creates a permanent shortage situation which causes the price to stay high indefinitely.

    Worse, medical care is a fundamental requirement to economic efficiency: the amount of work that can be produced is directly linked to the health of the population. Economic growth suffers directly by not adopting a medical system that ties into general health.
    That is untrue. While it is not nice, working people to death can be very profitable. Just ask sweat shop owners.

    Every medical public system of note is more efficient than the US' monopoly/oligarchy (depending on your POV of US insurance and regulatory systems).
    As I've said, a public system is efficient only when compared to monopolies.

    medical care tends to work itself into that definition due to the need for insurance to level out cost spikes.
    How does this address what I've said about public systems being inefficient?


    *shrug* It's substantiated but it's only an assertion. It's generally accepted outside of the US.
    Just because people believe it doesn't mean it's true. People believe the earth was flat at one point.

    The costs are not astronomical; they are substantially less than the US (IIRC, approximately 60% of the cost, while not removing a segment of the population from care).
    Just because it cost less than a really crappy system does not mean that costs are reasonable. If the system cannot be sustained, then it's no good.

    It won't collapse, service will simply be drawn back, systemically, until it becomes rebalanced. The regulation in Canada generally prevents run-away situations.
    Passing debt to future generations is unfair. They are required to pay into it. When it "becomes rebalanced" they end up short changed.

  10. #70
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Not_Me View Post
    I am comparing two systems where the supply of available money is increased at someone else's expense.
    I realise this. They are not comparable situations. They simply do not reflect each other in their natures. The argument is fine; the example is not.

    That is untrue. While it is not nice, working people to death can be very profitable. Just ask sweat shop owners.
    False equivalency.

    As I've said, a public system is efficient only when compared to monopolies.
    Demonstratably false, notably in healthcare.

    How does this address what I've said about public systems being inefficient?
    Your assertion is false; public health care systems are demonstratably more efficient.

    Just because people believe it doesn't mean it's true. People believe the earth was flat at one point.
    It is evidenced and researched. The US system is akin to continuing to believe the earth is flat, not the other way around.

    Just because it cost less than a really crappy system does not mean that costs are reasonable. If the system cannot be sustained, then it's no good.
    The cost referred to here is a measurement of efficiency; cost of a "unit of care", subjective as it may be.

    Passing debt to future generations is unfair. They are required to pay into it. When it "becomes rebalanced" they end up short changed.
    The moral point is subjective, however the cost of care is the same whether or not someone pays. The requirement to pay into is no less moral than not helping people who need aid, especially when the net utilitarian value is positive in providing aid. Most moral systems support the net utilitarian value over the black and white moralistic value of forced participation; most countries follow the same viewpoint.

    The tangible points would require far too much effort to show the positive economic return on general heath care is returned many fold to which all future generations gain as well as how deficit spending does not lead to or require collapse.

Similar Threads

  1. When did the term alt-right get expanded to encompass anyone not on the far left?
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 10-09-2017, 08:54 PM
  2. Why are we pessmistic when the world is getting better?
    By Typh0n in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-22-2016, 05:50 PM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 11-15-2016, 03:27 PM
  4. When will we see the return of the hero?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-31-2014, 12:45 PM
  5. Replies: 81
    Last Post: 03-16-2008, 09:46 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO