|
Your opinion on national health insurance (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
If anyone can figure out a solution to this that is cost-effective and makes everyone happy, there's a Nobel Prize waiting... |
Make kev pay for it. even if it didn’t work, it’d make people happy. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
National health insurance is unsound policy because all health insurance is unsound policy. Health care costs are simply not the sort of discrete, sudden expenses which lend themselves to an insurance model.
There are good alternatives, but I'm afraid that I must decline to disclose what they are. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Probably because Conservatives are in power again and want to get rid of anything "socialist?" Not to mention they are trying to save a lot of money in bureaucracy (which seems like a good idea to me and most liberals). |
Most liberals drive for government expansion... therefore saying lots of them think decreasing the size of bureaucracy is a good idea is contradictory.
Let's also not forget that Europe freeloads off of American innovation, as 75% of pharmaceuticals and medical technology stems from here... things produced in the free market, not by politicians. Ok well if you want me to "do better" in shining some sunlight on the NHS's fabulous socialist health care system, no problemo. Let's start with last month.
| quote: | | The families of 1,200 patients who died prematurely in recent years while in the care of NHS doctors and nurses might beg to differ. A shocking 2010 report by Queen's Counsel Robert Francis found that NHS patients were left unattended "for unacceptable amounts of time" in urine- and feces-soaked beds. At one NHS hospital, four members of the same family -- including a newborn girl -- died within 18 months of each other because of medical blunders. |
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...l-97512649.html
Also curiously not reported in the lapdog media:
| quote: | -British cancer outcomes don't just trail U.S. results, they rival those of Eastern European nations. A 2008 study showed that cancer survival rates in the U.K. trail far behind those of the United States. American men, for example, "have an 80 percent better chance of surviving prostate cancer than do their English counterparts... and there are similar disparities in comparative survival rates for victims of breast, colon and rectal cancers."
-Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom.
-56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them. |
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/op...s_bad_medicine/
And this is from 1 week ago. It outlines the several ways in which the NHS is about to collapse under its own weight:
| quote: | | Axe falls on NHS services: NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured. |
Read it for yourself. Here are a couple of gems to get you started:
*Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.
*The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.
*Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7...S-services.html
Oh, the good news? This is what Obama's stealth pick to head all of Obamacare, Donald Berwick, believes... in his own words:
| quote: | "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
"I am romantic about the NHS; I love it. All I need to do to rediscover the romance is to look at health care in my own country... it is such a seductress... a global treasure."
"Among the primary functions of health regulation is to constrain decentralized, individual decision making and to weigh public welfare against the choices of private consumers." |
I for one, feel like my healthcare situation is about to improve. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | | Originally posted by Arbiter There are good alternatives, but I'm afraid that I must decline to disclose what they are. |
You want people left to their own "fate" or forced to be healthy? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You want people left to their own "fate" or forced to be healthy? |
Well, what I'd really like is a nice, robust form of intellectual property protection ensuring that I would be sufficiently well-compensated if anyone wanted to use my ideas.
Absent that, as far as I'm concerned the people here in the U.S. and their ridiculous government can do whatever they want. Whatever they do will assuredly be foolish, so most of them will get exactly what they deserve. I'll just devote myself to personally avoiding the adverse consequences of their decisions. And in the exceedingly improbable event that the people ever decide to cast aside their ignorance and seek enlightenment . . . well, I'm happy to entertain offers. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Well, what I'd really like is a nice, robust form of intellectual property protection ensuring that I would be sufficiently well-compensated if anyone wanted to use my ideas. |
Publish a book or an article and... wait, does that mean you're going to prevent people from citing you unless they pay you? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Publish a book or an article and... wait, does that mean you're going to prevent people from citing you unless they pay you? |
No, that's not it at all.
Suppose everyone decided that my ideas were great and told their elected representatives to enact legislation requiring adherence to them. I don't want to be the guy that everybody loves because he came up with a great solution to the health care issue, I want to be the guy receiving 0.02% of each transaction conducted under the new system. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, that's not it at all.
Suppose everyone decided that my ideas were great and told their elected representatives to enact legislation requiring adherence to them. I don't want to be the guy that everybody loves because he came up with a great solution to the health care issue, I want to be the guy receiving 0.02% of each transaction conducted under the new system. |
Oh... well, I'd tell you to publish a book with a catchy name, hope it becomes a best-seller, and use all your knowledge about law to make sure you get what you deserve... but I'm sure you've got something similar in mind already :p |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I don't want to be the guy that everybody loves because he came up with a great solution to the health care issue, I want to be the guy receiving 0.02% of each transaction conducted under the new system. |
Bingo. This guy has the right idea. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
No, that's not it at all.
Suppose everyone decided that my ideas were great and told their elected representatives to enact legislation requiring adherence to them. I don't want to be the guy that everybody loves because he came up with a great solution to the health care issue, I want to be the guy receiving 0.02% of each transaction conducted under the new system. |
You’d have to be bringing a lot more to the table than a public policy framework if that’s the case. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Most liberals drive for government expansion... therefore saying lots of them think decreasing the size of bureaucracy is a good idea is contradictory.
|
I am all for government expansion. There is a difference between government expansion, bureaucracy, and pointless bureacracy that slows things down and makes things worse. It's the pointless kind that they are hopefully getting rid of, though I'm sure they're just going to get rid of a lot of .
What is the U.K.'s policies on welfare for this who have lost their jobs? Will be funny (not really) if the U.K. ends up paying jobless benefits to the people they just fired to save money. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
I am all for government expansion. There is a difference between government expansion, bureaucracy, and pointless bureacracy that slows things down and makes things worse. It's the pointless kind that they are hopefully getting rid of, though I'm sure they're just going to get rid of a lot of .
What is the U.K.'s policies on welfare for this who have lost their jobs? Will be funny (not really) if the U.K. ends up paying jobless benefits to the people they just fired to save money. |
This would be interesting. I bet that will happen.
So to what degree are you all for government expansion? Do you not think our bureaucracy is big enough yet? It's already 30% larger than the height of Bush's "out of control government expansion". Simultaneously, the private sector is a lot smaller. Remember- the economic pie is a "zero sum game" for the most part; the larger our govt gets, the more it needs the corresponding shrinking private sector to feed off of. What we have now is a tumor that's killing its host organism with increasingly frantic demands for greater nourishment. As Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money". |
|
|
|
|
