|
Heathcare in your country (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Comrade Stalin |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Knowing the facts that every single government social welfare/entitlement program balloons to exponential costs far beyond any "thought to be" realistic estimate in the beginning, what kind of stupid sucker actually believes this bill will improve quality, efficiency, access, reduce the deficit, and lower health care costs when you dump 30 million people into the system? So ing dumb. |
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just said the healthcare bill would reduce deficits by $1.2 trillion over 20 years.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34627.html |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
And enough already with the insurance company demonizing. It's such bull. They work on about a 2% profit margin and all the profits of all the insurance companies in this country COMBINED could sustain our healthcare system for 48 hours. |
:haha:
Last I looked when I was checking it was closer to 3+% and even then there is a lot of misleading information out there in regard to 'Profit Margin' being bandied about.
That profit margin is their return on equity.
As an insurer, they don't have a lot of 'equity' in terms of material assets, instead they have an arseload of just good old fashioned hard cash... your corner store probably has a higher ROE than an insurer if you where to put them side by side.
Didn't hear any mention on their earnings before interest & tax or their invested capital did we? No.
Because if you actually bothered to dig around or know these things, you'd also know that their EBIT is up there with "WOOHOO! We're off to snort coke party" levels of cash floating around.
I know damn well their EBIT is up there around the 14-15% margin on a BAD YEAR, because I, as a shareholder equity holder knows damn well that is where their money is... and it isn't in their little rented offices, company cars and buildings or the funds they use to maintain the business.
The next time an insurance company says to you, 'we're poor', punch them very soundly in the balls for lying. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Comrade Stalin
So, is a national health service really that bad? |
It obviously depends upon the particular implementation of the service.
Does the national health service actually provide more people with more health care services that they need, or does it merely redistribute the deficit on the basis of availability rather than cost? Does it counteract the moral hazard effects of health insurance or exacerbate them? What treatments and tests will be covered, what treatments and tests will not be covered, who decides, and how do those choices affect the economic efficiency and medical efficacy of the national health care service? What systemic effects is the service likely to have on the medical services industry and related industries?
These questions, and many more like them, are the ones that ought to be forming the basis for a discussion of a national health service in the United States. Instead, we get virtually nothing but inanities: transcendental nonsense like discussions of whether health care is a "right"; statistics of extant health care systems taken out of context; false dichotomies between our current state of irregulation and some single, yet conveniently undefined national health care program; anecdotes of dubious relevance and even more dubious generalizability; and so forth and so on. Put briefly, the dialogue consists almost exclusively of non-sequiturs, non-evidence, and statements that are either meaningless on their face (e.g., "health care is not a 'right'") or so vague and indefinite as to be meaningless as a practical matter (e.g., "we should have a national health care program.")
The babbling of lunatics is more coherent, and the barking of dogs has greater intellectual merit. Given this backdrop, we should count ourselves fortunate if the system we end up with does a better job of allocating health care than we would get by just using a random number generator. |
|
|
| Lews |
| Quoting the Daily Mail invalidates your argument, I'm sorry. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Banora
In 2006 I was drugged at a party and my heart stopped. One ambulance ride later, ER visit, and 4 hour stay in ICU my bill was in the $10,000's, not counting 'other' bills and charges I somehow racked up while unconscious, then the suicide counseling service that was forced on me despite me stating over and over again I was drugged, I didn't try to kill myself. Irony is, I was working a job that gives you insurance... if you get more than 20+ hours a week, regardless if you were full or part time. All part-timers would get between 10-18 hours, only management got 20+ hours. |
Have you met a cat by the name of Bill Ashley? You guys would get along great! :gsmile: |
|
|
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I can't wait for a national health service in America..
It sounds awesome!! |
yeah, the daily mail is the biggest stirrer of them all. It likes to think itself as being above the celebrity-infused dirt sheets but it's just a paranoid hate-fueling waste of ink. Some of the stories may be true but the way they're reported they cause . We've had them talking about fuel going up, so now everyone goes out to panic-buy, and the prices go up faster cos they're making a quick killing off it.
National health, well it isn't great but it's better than nothing. It'll revive you if you pass out for example! But overall it's becoming more & more apparent that the way forward is non-compulsory contributions with a healthcare company. My friend is with one and she gets miles better treatment on everything.
And for our 'comrade' - we have bad teeth because candy here is awesomely sweet. It took me a while in north america to appreciate muffins & cookies cos they're not as sugar filled but your chocolate sucks badly. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian
But overall it's becoming more & more apparent that the way forward is non-compulsory contributions with a healthcare company. |
And round the merry-go-round we go.. Europeans moving towards non-compulsory private systems...Americans moving away and towards a compulsory public system.. Communist dictatorships like China cutting taxes and decontrolling industry.. "Free market" countries like America doing the opposite..
The history books in 50 years are gonna be interesting. |
|
|
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
And round the merry-go-round we go.. Europeans moving towards non-compulsory private systems...Americans moving away and towards a compulsory public system.. Communist dictatorships like China cutting taxes and decontrolling industry.. "Free market" countries like America doing the opposite..
The history books in 50 years are gonna be interesting. |
It's not sustainable to an acceptable level of care. It can do the basics but there are a lot of issues they can't or won't deal with. There just isn't the funding, and the way they're spending a lot of it to prevent things like sexually transmitted stuff, lots of 'quit smoking' info packs etc leaves even more of a hole. This country in general is in the ter and the things needed to fix it won't be done. |
|
|
| Fledz |
The American health care system can't get off the ground for two reasons that are in fact linked:
A. Your people are greedy
B. Your people are stupid
Point A - All people care about is money and that's not just in America, though it does seem to be hyper inflated there. The issue with this becomes very clear when you understand the next point.
Point B - Secondary prevention costs far more than primary prevention does. I can't remember the exact figures, but I believe it costs 10x more to treat a patient after a heart attack than it does to prevent one.
Americans are either too stupid, ignorant, brainwashed or all three to realise that by screaming "Why the should I pay for someone elses healthcare!?", they are actually losing out on money. We all pay taxes, which in turn funds the healthcare system. If you fail to provide that system with adequate funds to educate and treat people before they have an event, they will then end up having one and costing the tax payers multiple times the amount than had they pumped the money in early to prevent any sort of event.
That's what it boils down to. You guys can't get it off the ground because your population is both greedy and stupid, which we all know is a deadly combination.
Australia doesn't have the perfect system but it sure as hell is one of the best, not to mention the PBS which is arguably the best medical prescription rebate system in the world. The downside is it costs money and a whole heap of it. You can perfectly see the issues now where we're no longer pumping sufficient funds into the healthcare system and it's starting to suffer, but it sure as hell is better than the "I'll look after myself, thanks" system that the Yanks have going, or not going. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| you fledz, you're not getting my whopping 1.5% levy at tax time you greedy communist! :mad: |
|
|
| Fledz |
It's socialism you Nazi :mad:
Ok it's not but by golly, I'll pretend it ing is! |
|
|
|
|
