Socialized Medicine - Let's Discuss!

[maskedmelon]

This is a very popular thing with some people and an equally unpopular thing with other people. I love free stuff and cooperation, but I've a couple snags with regards to socialized medicine.

1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?


And before somebody cleverly points out that babies are unable to care for themselves, I'll try not to be stupid if you will do the same ^^

[fash]

I love free stuff

It's not free. Someone else pays for it.

1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?

No. People aren't equal. A crackhead on the street is less valuable than someone selling me a service I want.

It is unreasonable to subsidize less desirable outcomes. Why incentivize less desirable outcomes? People in a society shouldn't be forced to subsidize degenerates. Subsidizing degenerates only incentivizes their behavior and dependence.

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?

It's not about refusing to give. It's a matter of whether to legalizing theft. Also, why does selfishness matter in this context? That's not relevant to the issue. Selfishness is not immoral, if that's what you're getting at.

And before somebody cleverly points out that babies are unable to care for themselves, I'll try not to be stupid if you will do the same ^^

The problem with welfare isn't that it does legitimately helps some people. The problem is it incentivizes degenerate behavior (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0) on other peoples dime, rather than being productive and saving for your own retirement/emergencies/etc.

In a low trust society (e.g. society with severe multiculturalism), the negatives outweigh the positives.

[MrSparkle001]

Socialized medicine is great if everyone is contributing. When you have a sizeable segment of the population getting benefits but not contributing the rest have to pay more.

There's also the bigger problem of cost, at least in the US. The cost of care is through the roof and so far nothing at all has been done to address it. You can try to force every citizen to purchase health insurance (which I still say is unconstitutional) but all that does is benefit the insurance companies. It does nothing to address the cost of care. Too much profit at stake.

[Pokesan]

Health insurance is a form of socialism.

[derpcake]

The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

[Alarti0001]

The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money.

A really dumb quote. If you actually think about it a second you'd realize there wouldn't be any money if that ever happened. That's a different problem.

[Alarti0001]

There's also the bigger problem of cost, at least in the US. The cost of care is through the roof and so far nothing at all has been done to address it.

This is the true problem with US healthcare... Socialism debate is just loaded words to distract you from the cost of drugs/healthcare/procedures compared to other countries.

[derpcake]

A really dumb quote. If you actually think about it a second you'd realize there wouldn't be any money if that ever happened. That's a different problem.

I'm not following your reasoning, but it seems you are a socialist, so I'm fine with that.

[maskedmelon]

Anyone have thoughts on either of my two conundra? They really apply more broadly to social aid and redistribution in general, not just medicine. Looking for alternative views, because there are a lot of people who support redistribution on moral grounds, rational grounds or both. How do you get passed those question? Have they occurred to you? Do you ignore them? Do you care about humanity as a whole? How do you reconcile the conflicts?

[Pokesan]

i only support redistribution if a for-profit company gets to take a cut.

[Archalen]

Yes minimum sustenance and minimum tools for survival (you can decide on what that is) should be provided to a pathological individual who refuses to contribute, on elementary moral grounds. The reality is a phenomenon of "refusing to contribute" is something to be studied as it is a marker of poor mental health. Living on minimum sustenance would be miserable and unfulfilling. Always try to understand before assigning blame.

[fash]

there are a lot of people who support redistribution on moral grounds, rational grounds or both. How do you get passed those question?

Their ethics are inconsistent if they argue forced redistribution is in some way moral. But you misunderstand what they're doing. They aren't arguing from morality nor are they reasoning. They are using rhetoric. It's a mistake to think you can argue against their rhetoric with logical reasoning. You have to use rhetoric yourself.

Do you care about humanity as a whole? How do you reconcile the conflicts?

Most people who push the welfare agenda in a state like the US don't care about humanity as a whole. They are ignorant of welfare's effects, want the gibsmedats, or simply spout the my feels rhetoric to virtue signal.

[maskedmelon]

Yes minimum sustenance and minimum tools for survival (you can decide on what that is) should be provided to a pathological individual who refuses to contribute, on elementary moral grounds. The reality is a phenomenon of "refusing to contribute" is something to be studied as it is a marker of poor mental health. Living on minimum sustenance would be miserable and unfulfilling. Always try to understand before assigning blame.

So you do not see a rational argument for it then? It is an entirely moral argument?

[maskedmelon]

Their ethics are inconsistent if they argue forced redistribution is in some way moral. But you misunderstand what they're doing. They aren't arguing from morality nor are they reasoning. They are using rhetoric. It's a mistake to think you can argue against their rhetoric with logical reasoning. You have to use rhetoric yourself.



Most people who push the welfare agenda in a state like the US don't care about humanity as a whole. They are ignorant of welfare's effects, want the gibsmedats, or simply spout the my feels rhetoric to virtue signal.

I'm not actually looking to win an argument or persuade anyone. I'm trying to learn something. It fascinates me that intelligent people can arrive at radically different conclusions. I accept that my current understandings could always be wrong and that is why I shared these two questions.

For the most part I agree with the assessments in your first post. I don't see the difference between the two behaviors in my second point and I do not see a rational justification with regard to the detriment greater humanity as addressed in my first point.

[Archalen]

So you do not see a rational argument for it then? It is an entirely moral argument?

I think a rational argument would not generalize the questions to a philosophical level (often the more you generalize; the more impossible it becomes to find an answer). A rational discussion in my mind focuses on a cost-benefit analysis of possible solutions within a specific context, like single-payer in the United States. There's an abundance of literature on that specific question so no need to ask it here. If you refer to a logical discussion on a philosophical level them I'm not aware of one, would be happy to learn about it.

[big_ole_jpn]

much like comped tuition, comped healthcare will never be properly administered (ie, to the net benefit of the polity) in a democratic system with women's suffrage where saying no to the undeserving is political suicide.

If you don't want an authoritarian state and you're not stupid enough to believe idiot retards deserve your money for treating their obesity and lung cancer and getting women's studies degrees, suck it up and learn to make money to buy your own services. The system works.

[Lune]

1. Is it wise to indefinitely care for those who are unable or unwilling to care for themselves? I guess the more basic question here is, "Are all individuals equally beneficial to society?" If not, why is it reasonable to subsidized less desirable outcomes?

Of course all individuals aren't equally beneficial to society, but one of the core principles of our social contract is that we aren't going to kill you or let you die simply because you are injured, weak, or otherwise helpless*

*Ideally

To do otherwise would be anarchy. Our constitution and the political philosophy that underpins it guarantees the same rights to the weak as it does the strong. It's reasonable to take care of the weak because even strong people often experience a period of weakness or vulnerability when they must rely on others, and not letting them die is a net positive for society.

For example, when we enacted Medicare and Social Security in the 1930's, the US decided we would rather not be left to die if we find ourselves elderly and low on resources, sometimes through no fault of our own (A market implosion for example, Great Depression). We figured it was reasonable that we should protect the old, and expect the same protection when we are old. It's still an extremely popular (if mismanaged and poorly executed) idea, and neither party can touch medicare or social security without sinking their career.

Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (Germany, Japan, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, etc) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?


I don't know if you thought this was a thought provoking question or something, but it's just a ridiculous, simplistic way to try and frame the issue of socialized medicine.

[big_ole_jpn]

Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (lists a bunch of 80-90+% ethnically homogenous countries) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.

great argument, see how it works for anything?

[Lune]

great argument, see how it works for anything?

Nice attempt at misdirection, but limit the statistics to 80-90% ethnically homogenous US states, or even just American Whites, and we still lag behind.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires are always so recalcitrant about admitting our more collectivist peers outperform us.

"B-b-b-but we have b-b-black people!"

Yea and their currency isn't the world's reserve currency, providing absolutely massive benefits to economic performance and standard of living.

[big_ole_jpn]

Nice attempt at misdirection, but limit the statistics to 80-90% ethnically homogenous US states, or even just American Whites, and we still lag behind.

Temporarily embarrassed millionaires are always so recalcitrant about admitting our more collectivist peers outperform us.

"B-b-b-but we have b-b-black people!"

Yea and their currency isn't the world's reserve currency, providing absolutely massive benefits to economic performance and standard of living.

I wasn't arguing that black people are the issue, I was explaining that you are cherrypicking your pet political position and blaming every nuance of the condition of America on it without controlling for any variables

ie you have not yet made an argument

[Danth]

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.

Swish and Lune get it. Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful. Medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the United States even among people with insurance. Many families are one serious or unexpected illness away from financial ruin. The present system we have in this country is hideously broken and in many cases, outright sociopathic. We can do better as a nation. We don't, because healthy people outnumber sick people and everyone's vote counts the same. Sigh.

You want all able-bodied people to work? Problem: The United States already has an oversupply of workers, and that problem will grow worse over time, not better. You think it's bad today, just wait a couple decades when automation starts eliminating truck drivers and warehouse workers and many service jobs. It's coming. What do you do with all these redundant people? Ignore 'em because you don't care if it isn't happening to you? I find that mindset distasteful. You either make work (TVA round two?) or accept that an increasing number of perfectly fit people simply won't be needed as part of a shrinking labor force.

Socialization of some form is the future, like it or not. The real question is whether we choose to maintain ourselves a nation worth living in, or wind up with some form of "Soylent Green" hellscape. Fixing our health care system is one step of many we'll have to take.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

Danth

[big_ole_jpn]

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.

Swish and Lune get it. Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful. Medical bills are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the United States even among people with insurance. Many families are one serious or unexpected illness away from financial ruin. The present system we have in this country is hideously broken and in many cases, outright sociopathic. We can do better as a nation. We don't, because healthy people outnumber sick people and everyone's vote counts the same. Sigh.

You want all able-bodied people to work? Problem: The United States already has an oversupply of workers, and that problem will grow worse over time, not better. You think it's bad today, just wait a couple decades when automation starts eliminating truck drivers and warehouse workers and many service jobs. It's coming. What do you do with all these redundant people? Ignore 'em because you don't care if it isn't happening to you? I find that mindset distasteful. You either make work (TVA round two?) or accept that an increasing number of perfectly fit people simply won't be needed as part of a shrinking labor force.

Socialization of some form is the future, like it or not. The real question is whether we choose to maintain ourselves a nation worth living in, or wind up with some form of "Soylent Green" hellscape. Fixing our health care system is one step of many we'll have to take.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

Danth

oh look, an "argument" for socialized healthcare based entirely in emotion and moral high-horsedry. The form of retardation you exhibit is why we can't have conditional socialized medicine for the deserving (those in whom an investment profits the state) in a society with unconditional suffrage.


Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap because he got permanently disabled at work and can't do his job anymore. How this nation treats the sick, elderly, and infirm is outright shameful.

I know you've heard of workman's comp. Why, then, did you put these two sentences adjacent unless you are attempting some disingenuous appeal to emotion? Do you write Common Core curriculum?

[maskedmelon]

Of course all individuals aren't equally beneficial to society, but one of the core principles of our social contract is that we aren't going to kill you or let you die simply because you are injured, weak, or otherwise helpless*

*Ideally

To do otherwise would be anarchy.

Could you elaborate on the bolded piece a bit? I don't see how the former can only occur in anarchy.


To do otherwise would be anarchy. Our constitution and the political philosophy that underpins it guarantees the same rights to the weak as it does the strong. It's reasonable to take care of the weak because even strong people often experience a period of weakness or vulnerability when they must rely on others, and not letting them die is a net positive for society.


Why/how is caring for productive people during temporary periods of lessened/no productivity equivalent to caring for people who are indefinitely unproductive?

That is akin to saying that because employers may choose to pay employees for missed work days when they are sick, employers should pay anyone who is sick whether they work or not. And no, that is not the same as a pension because pensions are paid to employees who have worked and they are paid as incentives to attract the best employees (though they are not offered much at all anymore). Governments do not have the luxury of being so selective with its citizenry.


For example, when we enacted Medicare and Social Security in the 1930's, the US decided we would rather not be left to die if we find ourselves elderly and low on resources, sometimes through no fault of our own (A market implosion for example, Great Depression). We figured it was reasonable that we should protect the old, and expect the same protection when we are old. It's still an extremely popular (if mismanaged and poorly executed) idea, and neither party can touch medicare or social security without sinking their career.


Of course we would rather not be left to die. That is self interest. It's why we exist. How does our continued existence subsidized by others benefit humanity though? How is it a productive use of society's resources?



I don't know if you thought this was a thought provoking question or something, but it's just a ridiculous, simplistic way to try and frame the issue of socialized medicine.

Dismiss it if you like. As I said to Fash though, I'm looking for answers and be it ridiculous or simplistic, it's an honest question. I am not sure what I think the answer is, though I am inclined to believe both are equally selfish.

[MrSparkle001]

Just in: A forum full of healthy 20- and 30-year olds, most of whom have never faced serious illness, exhibits little understanding of why socialized health care is beneficial to society as a whole. While unfortunate, it's also typical and fully expected.


You mean it can be beneficial, so long as everyone in society contributes to it. When not everyone does you wind up with situations like the US has now, where people are forced to purchase insurance for $300/month with a $5,000 deductible to subsidize the leeches.

As an aside, I opposed the Affordable Care Act, and still do. It's at best a band-aid which fails to address the core problems inherent to our system.

The core problem inherent to our system is the cost, not the amount of people insured. Forcing them to purchase insurance (unconstitutionally, I don't care what the Supreme Court says) does not address the cost, it only guarantees insurance companies retain a profit.

I ever tell you guys about the $1,800 I was charged to have a bandaid changed?

With social security you pay into it now and get out of it later. It's ultimately unsustainable as it is right now, but not many are leeching off it. They paid into it over the course of their workable years.

Not so with this Affordable Care Act. Now leeches everywhere can get "free" health care at the cost of everyone else who are getting extorted to pay for it.

[fash]

Consider the fact that more egalitarian, more collectivist cultures with a strong safety net (Germany, Japan, Denmark, Australia, Netherlands, etc) perform better in nearly every metric for human quality of life than the more individualistic, sink-or-swim United States.

More importantly, these countries are ethnically homogeneous. We're talking 80-90% majority ethnicity, except Australia, which is still 90% white but with different ethnicities, English, Irish, Scottish, etc. That homogeneity means a great deal when it comes to building a high trust nation. Compare that to US's slightly above half white demographic.

Calling Japan's culture egalitarian is a stretch. I'm not sure about the Netherland's culture wrt egalitarianism.

[Danth]

various insults

It's difficult or impossible to have a useful discussion with someone who regards anyone who harbors an opinion different from his own as "retarded."

Of course there's an appeal to emotion there; emotion lies at the very core of issues like this one. If you eliminate all emotion, you're left with cold unfeeling logic--which will determine that it's most efficient to simply cull any unproductive or excess members of society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the infirm isn't efficient or logical. Plenty of other species don't do it. However it's the humane thing to do. I go a further step and claim that people should not face financial ruin simply because they get hurt or sick. Protecting people from the problems life can throw at them is the fundamental reason we build nations in the first place.

You think worker's comp is all great? Guess what, they start you out--if you're lucky--at 70% of your pre-injury earnings (that's the maximum here in OH) and whittle it down from there. Oh, and they don't adjust it for inflation, either, so have fun a decade later when your already paltry compensation has lost another third of its buying power. You think that's fair? I call it sociopathic.

I know what it means to have to deal with the system. I watched both my parents develop long-term illnesses that bankrupted and ruined them and left them destitute before they finally succumbed. They lost their house, land, life savings, and most of their possessions. Logically? Within our present system my parents would've been better off shooting themselves as soon as they got sick. I find that reality disgusting. I've watched other family members suffer injuries at the job and lose most of what they had, exchanging a solid middle-class life for scraping by at poverty level. I've watched, with ever growing anger, other family members get denied necessary treatments by for-profit insurance companies that care only for their bottom line, while the suffering continues and conditions worsen. None of these people are or were slackers or in any way deserving of mistreatment. It's wrong, and we can and should do better.

------------------------------

Folks who're out of work don't particularly bother me in an environment where there are more available workers than useful jobs for them. Again, either work has to be made, or society has to accept a (likely to increase) proportion of adults who simply aren't needed in the workforce. Denigrating such people as slackers or worthless fails to even slightly address the reality of that issue.

Danth

[Lune]

Could you elaborate on the bolded piece a bit? I don't see how the former can only occur in anarchy.

A survival-of-the-fittest paradigm, or killing the weak actively or through neglect, is the antithesis of the values of Western civilization. It is the state of nature opposed to Locke's social contract (the foundation of our political system)

Why/how is caring for productive people during temporary periods of lessened/no productivity equivalent to caring for people who are indefinitely unproductive?

That is akin to saying that because employers may choose to pay employees for missed work days when they are sick, employers should pay anyone who is sick whether they work or not. And no, that is not the same as a pension because pensions are paid to employees who have worked and they are paid as incentives to attract the best employees (though they are not offered much at all anymore). Governments do not have the luxury of being so selective with its citizenry.

I didn't state they were equivalent, I just assumed you weren't focusing only on the "indefinitely unproductive" because you wanted a reasonable and good faith discussion of socialized medicine. Why focus on the indefinitely unproductive? Of course some people are going to be unworthy of society's investment in them; does that invalidate the entire notion of a safety net, in spite of all the good it does saving productive people who are vulnerable? (more on this below)

Of course we would rather not be left to die. That is self interest. It's why we exist. How does our continued existence subsidized by others benefit humanity though? How is it a productive use of society's resources?

It benefits humanity because it improves the quality and pleasure of our lives being able to live past the age of 60 and enjoy some period of retirement. Even then, is it necessary for it to be a productive use of resources? Sure, it would probably be more productive to just kill people as soon as they reach the age of 65 or whenever they stop being productive. But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life. It's the same reason we don't kill everyone below an IQ of 80 or people who wasted years playing an emulated MMO from 1999. It's a compromise humans make-- the state of nature is the ultimate form of efficiency, and it's why capitalism is such a powerful and efficient force. However, it is also brutally disgusting, as both Hobbes and Locke concluded, and humans should aspire for more. It's almost like humans trying to create ordered systems in defiance of free market forces is entropically unfavorable. It's difficult, it takes work, and skill, but working against entropy is what makes life possible, and I'd argue, in the case of civilization, makes life worthwhile.

Dismiss it if you like. As I said to Fash though, I'm looking for answers and be it ridiculous or simplistic, it's an honest question. I am not sure what I think the answer is, though I am inclined to believe both are equally selfish.

With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically. We've found, at least in Western cultures, that kind of lifestyle really isn't human nature. Once a society reaches a certain level of human development, people generally aren't content to be parasites, and those who are are too small a population to matter-- and furthermore, the opportunity provided by more collectivist safety net societies are more conducive to preventing the formation of an inherited, multi-generational, low-achieving underclass like we have in the US.

Thus, my conclusion is this: It takes a sufficiently productive and sophisticated culture to support socialist institutions. When I argue in favor of universal healthcare, it's more that I'm arguing for the cultural attributes that support it, ie coming a little further toward a sense of collective responsibility and selflessness, rather than selfishness, pettiness, and individualism. As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

[fash]

Society shouldn't just toss a person out to the trash heap and more rhetoric

Nobody here has denied that bad things happen to good people and that they need some form of recourse.

[fash]

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically.

Those "few" parasites are imporant to consider when welfare has the potential to be abused with negative societal effects.

As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

Ehh.. it's that a low-trust individualist culture shouldn't have socialized welfare, because it creates perverse incentives.

[maskedmelon]

A survival-of-the-fittest paradigm, or killing the weak actively or through neglect, is the antithesis of the values of Western civilization. It is the state of nature opposed to Locke's social contract (the foundation of our political system)

I didn't state they were equivalent, I just assumed you weren't focusing only on the "indefinitely unproductive" because you wanted a reasonable and good faith discussion of socialized medicine. Why focus on the indefinitely unproductive? Of course some people are going to be unworthy of society's investment in them; does that invalidate the entire notion of a safety net, in spite of all the good it does saving productive people who are vulnerable? (more on this below)

It benefits humanity because it improves the quality and pleasure of our lives being able to live past the age of 60 and enjoy some period of retirement. Even then, is it necessary for it to be a productive use of resources? Sure, it would probably be more productive to just kill people as soon as they reach the age of 65 or whenever they stop being productive. But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life. It's the same reason we don't kill everyone below an IQ of 80 or people who wasted years playing an emulated MMO from 1999. It's a compromise humans make-- the state of nature is the ultimate form of efficiency, and it's why capitalism is such a powerful and efficient force. However, it is also brutally disgusting, as both Hobbes and Locke concluded, and humans should aspire for more. It's almost like humans trying to create ordered systems in defiance of free market forces is entropically unfavorable. It's difficult, it takes work, but working against entropy is what makes life possible, and I'd argue, in the case of civilization, makes life worthwhile.

With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.

Again, if you get fixated on those few people who never work, and live completely parasitic lives, and think that small minority invalidates the entire notion of socialized medicine, you're thinking simplistically. We've found, at least in Western cultures, that kind of lifestyle really isn't human nature. Once a society reaches a certain level of human development, people generally aren't content to be parasites, and those who are are too small a population to matter-- and furthermore, the opportunity provided by more collectivist safety net societies are more conducive to preventing the formation of an inherited, multi-generational, low-achieving underclass like we have in the US.

Thus, my conclusion is this: It takes a sufficiently productive and sophisticated culture to support socialist institutions. When I argue in favor of universal healthcare, it's more that I'm arguing for the cultural attributes that support it, ie coming a little further toward a sense of collective responsibility and selflessness, rather than selfishness, pettiness, and individualism. As it currently stands, Americans as a whole simply don't deserve these nice institutions; we're too fucking stupid and amoral.

Our conclusions don't really differ then and we agree on most of the points, other than anarchy being requisite for pruning. Though we may not really disagree on that either. You seem to suggest it is more of a betrayal of our political system than anything else and I think you point to it as anarchy because you favor an authoritarian government. It seems to me that a significant degree of coordination and denial of liberty inherent of a strongly authoritarian government could serve as an ample and perhaps superior substitute for the cruelty of nature.

I don't think socialist institutions are practical on a national scale with regards to a culturally amorphous society like the US. The rabid individualism embraced throughout the political spectrum in the US is an irreparable perversion of liberty promoted at the cost of community.

I find it interesting though that you consider it a uniquely human quality to sublimate reason for carnal impulse. I've considered the opposite to be true, i.e. man possesses the unique ability to deny his feelings. That is something I'll have to think on.

[MrSparkle001]

With socialized medicine you aren't taking something for nothing. You paid taxes that acted as a form of public insurance, fulfilling the same role as other civic responsibilities; ie, you pay for police and firefighters even though there's a chance you'll never personally need them.

"Paid taxes" yeah right.

And if you think people on welfare are a small minority you're wrong. They're a minority but hardly small.

And what about those who make just enough to not qualify for large insurance subsidies so they have to piss away a good chunk of their monthly income on insurance they can't use because of very high deductibles?

[Lune]

"Paid taxes" yeah right.

And if you think people on welfare are a small minority you're wrong. They're a minority but hardly small.

And what about those who make just enough to not qualify for large insurance subsidies so they have to piss away a good chunk of their monthly income on insurance they can't use because of very high deductibles?

I'm talking about the concept of socialized medicine, aka universal healthcare, not the perverse cartel that is US healthcare and Obamacare. Being forced to buy into insurance middlemen who pull the strings of our political representatives is one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed, and it's no way to handle healthcare. I'd even prefer completely free market healthcare over what we have.

So to answer your question, insurance companies should not be involved at all. It's a completely parasitic industry.

[Archalen]

Our conclusions don't really differ then and we agree on most of the points, other than anarchy being requisite for pruning. Though we may not really disagree on that either. You seem to suggest it is more of a betrayal of our political system than anything else and I think you point to it as anarchy because you favor an authoritarian government. It seems to me that a significant degree of coordination and denial of liberty inherent of a strongly authoritarian government could serve as an ample and perhaps superior substitute for the cruelty of nature.

I don't think socialist institutions are practical on a national scale with regards to a culturally amorphous society like the US. The rabid individualism embraced throughout the political spectrum in the US is an irreparable perversion of liberty promoted at the cost of community.

I find it interesting though that you consider it a uniquely human quality to sublimate reason for carnal impulse. I've considered the opposite to be true, i.e. man possesses the unique ability to deny his feelings. That is something I'll have to think on.

Sublimating reason for carnal impulse is not characteristic of morality (if that's what you meant, if it's not this still bears on discussion). Morality is related in conscious processes involving learning, reflection, and aspiration. Man does possess a unique ability to deny his feelings, and this is a notion that has implications in the study of linguistics, where language for humans offers the singular character of not being environmentally or hormonally stimulated. But morality is not a hormonal manifestation, rather a quite conscious and reflective one, although there is an emotional element insofar as cognitions effect our emotional responses which in turn can shape unconscious moral decisions. Again, there is much literature on this, if you were interested.

[big_ole_jpn]

It's difficult or impossible to have a useful discussion with someone who regards anyone who harbors an opinion different from his own as "retarded."

Of course there's an appeal to emotion there; emotion lies at the very core of issues like this one. If you eliminate all emotion, you're left with cold unfeeling logic--which will determine that it's most efficient to simply cull any unproductive or excess members of society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the infirm isn't efficient or logical. Plenty of other species don't do it. However it's the humane thing to do. I go a further step and claim that people should not face financial ruin simply because they get hurt or sick. Protecting people from the problems life can throw at them is the fundamental reason we build nations in the first place.

You think worker's comp is all great? Guess what, they start you out--if you're lucky--at 70% of your pre-injury earnings (that's the maximum here in OH) and whittle it down from there. Oh, and they don't adjust it for inflation, either, so have fun a decade later when your already paltry compensation has lost another third of its buying power. You think that's fair? I call it sociopathic.

I know what it means to have to deal with the system. I watched both my parents develop long-term illnesses that bankrupted and ruined them and left them destitute before they finally succumbed. They lost their house, land, life savings, and most of their possessions. Logically? Within our present system my parents would've been better off shooting themselves as soon as they got sick. I find that reality disgusting. I've watched other family members suffer injuries at the job and lose most of what they had, exchanging a solid middle-class life for scraping by at poverty level. I've watched, with ever growing anger, other family members get denied necessary treatments by for-profit insurance companies that care only for their bottom line, while the suffering continues and conditions worsen. None of these people are or were slackers or in any way deserving of mistreatment. It's wrong, and we can and should do better.

------------------------------

Folks who're out of work don't particularly bother me in an environment where there are more available workers than useful jobs for them. Again, either work has to be made, or society has to accept a (likely to increase) proportion of adults who simply aren't needed in the workforce. Denigrating such people as slackers or worthless fails to even slightly address the reality of that issue.

Danth

this guy has 1000 posts and apparently signs every one manually. lol

Posted from my iPhone

[Lune]

I find it interesting though that you consider it a uniquely human quality to sublimate reason for carnal impulse. I've considered the opposite to be true, i.e. man possesses the unique ability to deny his feelings. That is something I'll have to think on.

Nah that's what I said-- we sublimate what is natural (and chaotic, efficient) into what is man-made (and ordered, entropically unfavorable). In other words, reason over feelings.

[maskedmelon]

Nah that's what I said-- we sublimate what is natural (and chaotic, efficient) into what is man-made (and ordered, entropically unfavorable). In other words, reason over feelings.

I was referring to this,

But the thing about humans is that we have ethics and morals and we know when to sublimate productivity and the cruelty of nature for pleasure and quality of life.

You are suggesting then that man is inherently destructive and applies reason to surpress cruel inclinations. I think that makes perfect sense and expresses my view of the nature of man. Being overly empathic however, I was looking at it from the perspective that we posses the ability to surpress irrational feelings of compassion, guilt, shame to do what is needed. Two sides of the same coin, leading to seemingly different conclusions ^^

[MrSparkle001]

I'm talking about the concept of socialized medicine, aka universal healthcare, not the perverse cartel that is US healthcare and Obamacare. Being forced to buy into insurance middlemen who pull the strings of our political representatives is one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed, and it's no way to handle healthcare. I'd even prefer completely free market healthcare over what we have.

So to answer your question, insurance companies should not be involved at all. It's a completely parasitic industry.

The concept of socialized medicine is wonderful. Free, quality healthcare for all? That's utopian.

But who would pay for it, how would you convince doctors to accept lower pay, and how would you convince prospective medical school students to spend all that money to go to medical school knowing they won't make enough money to pay back their loans?

Healthcare is big business and some of these doctors are making an absolute fortune. I'm not talking the small-town community doctor, I'm talking the specialists at NYU and such.

If the US converts to a single payer system doctors will leave the practice and others will be discouraged from pursuing the field at all. Money is a big driving force behind it, not necessarily the desire to help and heal their fellow man. Sad but true.

But yes in an ideal world not driven by greed universal healthcare is wonderful.

Oh and that ideal world does not include generations on welfare who expect government handouts. In an ideal world everyone would contribute and not just through sales tax on minor purchases.

[Lojik]

Single payer systems do have the advantage of reducing administration costs, which currently are about 25% of healthcare costs in the US (i read that somewhere, forget exactly.) The prices in the US are also jacked due to the effects of subsidies for health insurance and also student loans making med school cost a ton. Just to get back the money they spent on med school doctors have to charge an arm and a leg, while (if I'm not mistaken) a lot of European med schools are free. Also with how litigious American society is, doctors pay through the nose for malpractice insurance.

[Jarnauga]

Lune quoting Locke in a P99 thread, how about feeding pigs with caviar

Let's say i got a terminal disease. This disease has a cure. This cure costs something like 50 bucks to produce.

Now you're that company that sell the drug. And you sell it 10,000 bucks. The worst thing is, even if you know it's bullshit, you're gonna everything to find these 10,000 dollars, because it's either that or die.

Now if you think im exagerating things: not long in my own country a NGO called "medecins du monde" (doctors of the world) launch and ad campaign denouncing the margins practiced by big pharmaceutical companies. For example the margin on the leukemia cure is 20 000%. (whole website there, sorry it's in french: https://leprixdelavie.medecinsdumonde.org )

Now if you think it's okay, people making 20 000% margin betting on poor people will to live.. well, i don't want to be part of your world.

I pay a good chunk of my earning to get free healthcare, had to go to E/R not long ago, had full xrays and a free splint, plus one week of rest without losing any salary. I'm probably on the losing side since i'm still young and healthy, but don't care.

I actually remember seeing a good video about healthcare in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

[Lojik]

Lune quoting Locke in a P99 thread, how about feeding pigs with caviar

Let's say i got a terminal disease. This disease has a cure. This cure costs something like 50 bucks to produce.

Now you're that company that sell the drug. And you sell it 10,000 bucks. The worst thing is, even if you know it's bullshit, you're gonna everything to find these 10,000 dollars, because it's either that or die.

Now if you think im exagerating things: not long in my own country a NGO called "medecins du monde" (doctors of the world) launch and ad campaign denouncing the margins practiced by big pharmaceutical companies. For example the margin on the leukemia cure is 20 000%. (whole website there, sorry it's in french: https://leprixdelavie.medecinsdumonde.org )

Now if you think it's okay, people making 20 000% margin betting on poor people will to live.. well, i don't want to be part of your world.

I pay a good chunk of my earning to get free healthcare, had to go to E/R not long ago, had full xrays and a free splint, plus one week of rest without losing any salary. I'm probably on the losing side since i'm still young and healthy, but don't care.

I actually remember seeing a good video about healthcare in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

That cost is most likely just a marginal production cost and doesn't include fixed costs of r & d, which is the big part of the price tag for pharmaceuticals. You also have to factor in all the failed drugs that were researched and not approved or just failures.

[Bazia]

as a US citizen I have zero issues with a free market healthcare system

[maskedmelon]

Lune quoting Locke in a P99 thread, how about feeding pigs with caviar

Let's say i got a terminal disease. This disease has a cure. This cure costs something like 50 bucks to produce.

Now you're that company that sell the drug. And you sell it 10,000 bucks. The worst thing is, even if you know it's bullshit, you're gonna everything to find these 10,000 dollars, because it's either that or die.

Now if you think im exagerating things: not long in my own country a NGO called "medecins du monde" (doctors of the world) launch and ad campaign denouncing the margins practiced by big pharmaceutical companies. For example the margin on the leukemia cure is 20 000%. (whole website there, sorry it's in french: https://leprixdelavie.medecinsdumonde.org )

Now if you think it's okay, people making 20 000% margin betting on poor people will to live.. well, i don't want to be part of your world.

I pay a good chunk of my earning to get free healthcare, had to go to E/R not long ago, had full xrays and a free splint, plus one week of rest without losing any salary. I'm probably on the losing side since i'm still young and healthy, but don't care.

I actually remember seeing a good video about healthcare in the US: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

How 'bout you develop and produce your own drugs? Yeah?

[Bazia]

in fact i prefer the system where I'm not forced to pay for other irresponsible people's healthcare

[Jarnauga]

How 'bout you develop and produce your own drugs? Yeah?

Sanofi S.A. is a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Gentilly, France, as of 2013 the world's fifth-largest by prescription sales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi)

"hurr durr murica owns everything derp"

That cost is most likely just a marginal production cost and doesn't include fixed costs of r & d, which is the big part of the price tag for pharmaceuticals. You also have to factor in all the failed drugs that were researched and not approved or just failures.

repeating the answer given by pharmaceutical lobbies eh ? r&d costs are overestimated and most of the time confidential, how convenient. Not even mentioning that in france at least, a good chunk of that r&d cost is financed by the government itself.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Jarnauga]

Last thing before i go to bed:

http://i.imgur.com/tBtjrnT.gif

42% of profit margin for Pfizer, the largest company. That r&d sure costs a lot.

[Pokesan]

in fact i prefer the system where I'm not forced to pay for other irresponsible people's healthcare

do you not know how insurance works?

[maskedmelon]

Sanofi S.A. is a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Gentilly, France, as of 2013 the world's fifth-largest by prescription sales. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanofi)

"hurr durr murica owns everything derp"



repeating the answer given by pharmaceutical lobbies eh ? r&d costs are overestimated and most of the time confidential, how convenient. Not even mentioning that in france at least, a good chunk of that r&d cost is financed by the government itself.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

No, no, no, no. I mean YOU, not some amoral French or American businessman. Start an ethical pharmaceutical firm and make yourself affordable leukemia cures.

On a more serious note, how many years of R&D do you think went into that drug?
What role do you think dissociation of cost-benefit plays in the price?
What do you think happens when the patent expires?
Do you like apples?

[Bazia]

do you not know how insurance works?

If my opinion differs from yours I must not understand the subject!

Good day sir

[Pokesan]

If my opinion differs from yours I must not understand the subject!

Good day sir

opinions are different than knowledge. i did not comment on your opinion, i questioned your knowledge.

my good chum

[maskedmelon]

opinions are different than knowledge. i did not comment on your opinion, i questioned your knowledge.

my good chum

Insurers don't force you to buy their products.

[Pokesan]

Insurers don't force you to buy their products.

automatic medical bankrupcty is your right as an american

[MrSparkle001]

do you not know how insurance works?

But that's exactly how it works, or at least in a way. Those paying for insurance are subsidizing those who get it for free. That's the whole point of the "Affordable" Care Act - affordable only to the very poor. Without forcing people to purchase insurance the system would collapse. Insurers fought long and hard for the mandate because without it they wouldn't make money.

[Wonkie]

But that's exactly how it works, or at least in a way. Those paying for insurance are subsidizing those who get it for free. That's the whole point of the "Affordable" Care Act - affordable only to the very poor. Without forcing people to purchase insurance the system would collapse. Insurers fought long and hard for the mandate because without it they wouldn't make money.

all insurance plans would collapse without the fit subsidizing the unfit. objection to goverment involvement in the process is a simple pavlovian reaction.

my good chum

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

It's amazing to me how mad it makes some of you when societal leeches get benefits.

My wife and I have probably paid ~200k-250k in income taxes in the last 10 years (Canada). We had 2 healthy kids and have a yearly exam for ourselves. We definitely have paid into the system more than we've gotten out of it although we've closed the gap since the kids. I'm happy know my healthcare system takes care of my neighbors who might take more than they put in. I'm even happier knowing chronic and sustained job loss or maybe catastrophic uninsurable property loss are really the only two things that could bankrupt me.

There's a price to pay for peace of mind and as I get older (30 now) it only gets more important.

I probably won't wave a flag around on July 1st or join in on other bullshit symbolic activities, I'll be thinking about all the exceptional framework that made this life possible.

[maskedmelon]

It's amazing to me how mad it makes some of you when societal leeches get benefits.

My wife and I have probably paid ~200k-250k in income taxes in the last 10 years (Canada). We had 2 healthy kids and have a yearly exam for ourselves. We definitely have paid into the system more than we've gotten out of it although we've closed the gap since the kids. I'm happy know my healthcare system takes care of my neighbors who might take more than they put in. I'm even happier knowing chronic and sustained job loss or maybe catastrophic uninsurable property loss are really the only two things that could bankrupt me.
There's a price to pay for peace of mind and as I get older (30 now) it only gets more important.
I probably won't wave a flag around on July 1st or join in on other bullshit symbolic activities, I'll be thinking about all the exceptional framework that made this life possible.

You are just praising health insurance in general. What you describe is not limited to a national healthcare system. Outside of Canada you could purchase a catastrophic care plan and still have that peace of mind for far cheaper. You could purchase additional coverage if you liked too and be free to seek the services you desire.

[Yumyums Inmahtumtums]

Can you really have peace of mind? Pre existing condition or other disqualifying fine print takes away insurance from an enormous number of people. Enough at least that I wouldn't REALLY have peace of mind.

Also, in what country would health insurance be cheaper in? Most 1st world countries have universal healthcare negating the need to get health insurance in the first place.

[Pokesan]

Can you really have peace of mind? Pre existing condition or other disqualifying fine print takes away insurance from an enormous number of people. Enough at least that I wouldn't REALLY have peace of mind.

Also, in what country would health insurance be cheaper in? Most 1st world countries have universal healthcare negating the need to get health insurance in the first place.

excuse me sir - taxation is theft

[Lojik]

repeating the answer given by pharmaceutical lobbies eh ? r&d costs are overestimated and most of the time confidential, how convenient. Not even mentioning that in france at least, a good chunk of that r&d cost is financed by the government itself.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I mean I'm probably one of the last people who would defend the current state of the pharmaceutical industry; I think there need to be some serious changes in the industry and other industries related to IP. However to present a case where the supposed margin is 20000% and then only give evidence for 40% perfectly illustrates my point that the bulk of the cost is research, not production.

A book I like is Against Intellectual Monopoly. There are some holes in their arguments for sure, but it presents an interesting case against strict IP laws.

[pickled_heretic]

it probably saves everyone money to provide primary care for everyone. ER visits for poor people are exorbitantly expensive and the tax payer pays for those if the person in question can't. primary care is a lot cheaper in the long run.

taxpayer, choose one: 5000 for a few colonoscopies, or 500,000 for expensive end of life care for someone with colon cancer.

[Alarti0001]

in fact i prefer the system where I'm not forced to pay for other irresponsible people's healthcare

do you not know how insurance works?

[Alarti0001]

If my opinion differs from yours I must not understand the subject!

Good day sir

opinions are different than knowledge. i did not comment on your opinion, i questioned your knowledge.

my good chum

This is a very important point that most people don't seem to understand.

[Sage Truthbearer]

in fact i prefer the system where I'm not forced to pay for other irresponsible people's healthcare

Don't you already pay for people's healthcare though? I mean, if you have health insurance, your monthly premiums are going to pay for other people's healthcare. That's how insurance works.

People without insurance just end up in the emergency room where they will get treated and the costs will shift onto someone else. Who do you think pays for that?

Is there a first-world, developed country where people don't pay for other people's healthcare? It seems to me that Americans already pay for other people's care, we just do it in the most inefficient, expensive way possible.

[Alarti0001]

Don't you already pay for people's healthcare though? I mean, if you have health insurance, your monthly premiums are going to pay for other people's healthcare. That's how insurance works.

People without insurance just end up in the emergency room where they will get treated and the costs will shift onto someone else. Who do you think pays for that?

Is there a first-world, developed country where people don't pay for other people's healthcare? It seems to me that Americans already pay for other people's care, we just do it in the most inefficient, expensive way possible.

That is exactly true... It's obvious that Bazia doesn't understand this at all, and was just repeating talking points he heard/read somewhere once.

[maskedmelon]

In a national healthcare setting, would anyone be opposed to linking tax burden with risk and/or usage, perhaps with discounts (credits/deductions) for healthful endeavors?

[Danth]

I oppose that sort of thing. I don't even like seeing penalties for smokers. Government being government, such policies inevitably lead to a slippery slope of ever-increasing penalties and restrictions, as well as financial motivations to avoid fixing the penalized behaviors. I instead prefer to accept a certain element of inefficiency within the system.

Danth

[Jarnauga]

In a national healthcare setting, would anyone be opposed to linking tax burden with risk and/or usage, perhaps with discounts (credits/deductions) for healthful endeavors?

already the case, lots of taxes on tobacco products for example

[Ahldagor]

Wait, are we getting to the point on this piece of yarn where some folks are begininng to realize that the systems in place were thought out by folks that are actually pretty smart and have considered multiple notions on how something could, should be implemented, so in doing so we end up with what is present?

[maerilith]

Ppl should be able to afford reasonable healthcare in a reasonable economy were the rule of law is fair and just for all.

I honestly don't care how that happens.

But a lot of assholes don't respect their country and fellow Americans and are happy denying them access to basic perks of civilization.

[Karkona]

2. How is it less selfish to take something for nothing than it is to refuse to give something for nothing?

It is not selfish to refuse. If I give a homeless man a dollar—THAT is selfish of me. The reason is because I give him the dollar because in return I get something. Whether that something is divine rewards in heaven or boosting my self-esteem the fact remains I did it for some form of gain for myself. I did it because I wanted to. I had to fulfill my desire to give him my money.

With the exceptions of sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom—everything else in life is a selfish action.

[Ahldagor]

It is not selfish to refuse. If I give a homeless man a dollar—THAT is selfish of me. The reason is because I give him the dollar because in return I get something. Whether that something is divine rewards in heaven or boosting my self-esteem the fact remains I did it for some form of gain for myself. I did it because I wanted to. I had to fulfill my desire to give him my money.

With the exceptions of sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom—everything else in life is a selfish action.

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics

[big_ole_jpn]

It is not selfish to refuse. If I give a homeless man a dollar—THAT is selfish of me. The reason is because I give him the dollar because in return I get something. Whether that something is divine rewards in heaven or boosting my self-esteem the fact remains I did it for some form of gain for myself. I did it because I wanted to. I had to fulfill my desire to give him my money.

With the exceptions of sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom—everything else in life is a selfish action.

dam. dats a deep dick pizza doe

[mgellan]

Anyone have thoughts on either of my two conundra? They really apply more broadly to social aid and redistribution in general, not just medicine. Looking for alternative views, because there are a lot of people who support redistribution on moral grounds, rational grounds or both. How do you get passed those question? Have they occurred to you? Do you ignore them? Do you care about humanity as a whole? How do you reconcile the conflicts?

I live in Canada (same town as Yumyums in fact). All people have the right to be put in a position to be successful. For those who are not able to be (whether for mental health or whatever reason) a civlized society bears that burden and tries to help them become productive, or their children. Assigning services to people based on their worth is discriminatory and opens the door to racism, profiling etc.

My country has a single payor health care system with universal access. Doctors are independant contractors who have a collective agreement with their province that sets rates at a sustainable level. Despite what you might hear from the Right, the Canadian system works - not flawlessly. Just like democracy, it's not the best system, it's just better than all the other options. There's all the usual fuckups that happen in any system, but my personal experience with it has been extremely positive. People get the care they need when they need it. Does someone line up for a diagnostic scan for something not life threatening? Yup. Does someone with cancer/CI/stroke etc. go to the front of the line? Hell yes. Thats how it /should/ work.

My Dad had a mild heart attack, was in the hospital Wednesday, and was out with a couple of stents in the following Friday and placed on a rigorous rehab program. All zero cost, very competent, and very fast.

Single payor systems just work, bitches.

Regards,
Mg

[big_ole_jpn]

I live in Canada (same town as Yumyums in fact). All people have the right to be put in a position to be successful. For those who are not able to be (whether for mental health or whatever reason) a civlized society bears that burden and tries to help them become productive, or their children. Assigning services to people based on their worth is discriminatory and opens the door to racism, profiling etc.

My country has a single payor health care system with universal access. Doctors are independant contractors who have a collective agreement with their province that sets rates at a sustainable level. Despite what you might hear from the Right, the Canadian system works - not flawlessly. Just like democracy, it's not the best system, it's just better than all the other options. There's all the usual fuckups that happen in any system, but my personal experience with it has been extremely positive. People get the care they need when they need it. Does someone line up for a diagnostic scan for something not life threatening? Yup. Does someone with cancer/CI/stroke etc. go to the front of the line? Hell yes. Thats how it /should/ work.

My Dad had a mild heart attack, was in the hospital Wednesday, and was out with a couple of stents in the following Friday and placed on a rigorous rehab program. All zero cost, very competent, and very fast.

Single payor systems just work, bitches.

Regards,
Mg

Despite what many might think, socialized medicine is well known across hundreds of nations all over the world. socialized medicine has been around for several centuries and has a very important meaning in the lives of many. It would be safe to assume that socialized medicine is going to be around for a long time and have an enormous impact on the lives of many people.

socialized medicine has a large role in American Culture. Many people can often be seen taking part in activities associated with socialized medicine. This is partly because people of most ages can be involved and families are brought together by this. Generally a person who displays their dislike for socialized medicine may be considered an outcast.

It is not common practice to associate economics with socialized medicine. Generally, socialized medicine would be thought to have no effect on our economic situation, but there are in fact some effects. The sales industry associated with socialized medicine is actually a 2.3 billion dollar a year industry and growing each year. The industry employs nearly 150,000 people in the United States alone. It would be safe to say that socialized medicine play an important role in American economics and shouldn't be taken for granted.

After a three month long research project, I've been able to conclude that socialized medicine doesn't negatively effect the environment at all. A socialized medicine did not seem to result in waste products and couldn't be found in forests, jungles, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc... In fact, socialized medicine produced some positive effects on our sweet little nature.

Oh does socialized medicine ever influence politics. Last year 5 candidates running for some sort of position used socialized medicine as the primary topic of their campaign. A person might think socialized medicine would be a bad topic to lead a campaign with, but in fact with the social and environmental impact is has, this topic was able to gain a great number of followers. These 5 candidates went 4 for 5 on winning their positions.

socialized medicine seem to be a much more important idea that most give credit for. Next time you see or think of socialized medicine, think about what you just read and realize what is really going on. It is likely you under valued socialized medicine before, but will now start to give the credited needed and deserved.

[AzzarTheGod]

^ this *****s a beast.

[Pokesan]

I liked Keker better

[JurisDictum]

Its pretty simple debate.

One side says: look at how it works well all over the world. Its cheaper with same health outcomes and everyone gets covered. No country wants our system after all.

and the other side tries to cherry pick as much data they can to cast doubt on this. They have a religious belief that the free market solves all problems. And by pointing out that free market doesn't solve all healthcare problems -- they get defensive and unreceptive to evidence.

[MrSparkle001]

Its pretty simple debate.

One side says: look at how it works well all over the world. Its cheaper with same health outcomes and everyone gets covered. No country wants our system after all.

"Cheaper" is the operative word here, because it won't be cheaper here in the US. Our health care is ridiculously expensive and the costs are held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry and health care professionals making an incredibly high income charging astronomically enormous fees (the ones that aren't are your friendly neighborhood family practice doctors).

The cost of health care will not be reduced to reasonable levels by insuring everyone. I don't know why people think it will. All that insuring everyone does is ensure the insurance companies remain profitable and doctors, hospitals and big pharma continue to make big bucks.

(I'm aware there are doctors and hospitals that are exceptions and don't make big bucks so no need to mention them. Those hospitals also tend to suck and you wouldn't want to be treated there.)

Until health care isn't a major business it will continue to be prohibitively expensive. Until doctors aren't interested in becoming incredibly high paid specialists that extort insurance companies almost criminally with their fees, until medical malpractice lawsuits are reined in, until hospitals aren't primarily interested in turning hefty profits, until big pharma is more interested in the quality of human life over making huge profits, we will have overly expensive health care in this country.

I've had people from Canada tell me if you want to make good money in the health care industry in their country, you don't become a doctor you become a dentist. I don't know how true that is but I can imagine their doctors don't make anywhere near the money ours do. Again, not talking about the local friendly family doctor, I'm talking specialists in the big hospitals.

[AzzarTheGod]

I've had people from Canada tell me if you want to make good money in the health care industry in their country, you don't become a doctor you become a dentist. I don't know how true that is but I can imagine their doctors don't make anywhere near the money ours do. Again, not talking about the local friendly family doctor, I'm talking specialists in the big hospitals.

Would love to elaborate and enlighten you on how dentistry works and how much of a cash cow it can be when practiced poorly. The more uncaring, reckless, and shitty you are at being a dentist the more dental care you can sell.

I was victimized from about age 14 to age 18 I'd say? I was given 6-7 huge invasive fillings for absolutely no reason. No visible decay of any sort, no problems of any sort prior to getting told I have "cavities" lol.

When I realized I had been taken for a ride and they had done incredible damage to my teeth (heavy drilling to place highly invasive amalgam mercury fillings in. For "cavities" that didn't exist outside of the dentists imagination (X-rays were clean) Preventative dentistry is a joke, the drilling is the most damage the tooth will take without actual visible decay being detectable. The drill process is known as traumatic dentistry (as opposed to atraumatic dentistry, which is the non-evil, non-greedy form of dental care (known as ART, google it). As you can imagine ART is not very popular...not enough churn and burn $$$. They joke in dental school "Drill baby drill" and other stuff I've heard as the more damage you do, the more money you stand to make.

12 years later, without a single dental visit in 12 years. Perfect teeth, proving my hypothesis correct that I was being taken for a ride. Pearly whites, aside from the highly invasive and toxic amalgam mercury filling restorations on a few molars that are inoperable (I'd love to get them removed, but the safety standard doesn't exist at this time, and there is no applicable protocol. Its considered a plastic procedure to remove mercury from your mouth according to the ADA, FDA, and AMA at this time).

I can't go into any more detail (I.E. how dentists create cavities) unless big j holds my hand, as it was already very tough to write this. I absolutely loathe the dental industry having seen how it operates, and what it can do to someone (poison and intentional creation of cavities).

It sends me to a dark place.

[maerilith]

At least dentists have a higher than average suicide rate.

[AzzarTheGod]

At least dentists have a higher than average suicide rate.

Indeed. Its from mercury vapor inhalation that they claim is harmless.

Its a cumulative toxin, which means you cannot detect its increases in urine or blood, its stored in the brain and throughout the body.

Love it. My dentist who fucked me hands were shaking so bad from exposure, he was going to retire. I thought that was poetic justice. All money $, but poisoned.

A biblical exchange.

[Karkona]

the part about dentists messing around with teeth, happened to my wife, but she from europe. Dentists are corrupt.

[AzzarTheGod]

the part about dentists messing around with teeth, happened to my wife, but she from europe. Dentists are corrupt.

Fortunately for me, I caught on very early and got off relatively easy.. despite the scam, the work done was considered "very good" by dental standards outside of 1 place on my lower left.

But in my teenage years I listened to my parents and thought I was doing the right thing.

Some day I will find the doctor and operating center who can safely remove 1 or 2 of these mercury bombs. I had been evaluated for a removal at a center but the removal doctor was pretty adamant about the fact that 1 tooth will require a root canal/extraction due to the damage already done.

I am over the allowable limit by just 1 or 2 fillings. If I had 3-4 I wouldn't care because studies prove it is within the acceptable mercury limit according to urine tests in most people (there are exceptions).

[maerilith]

Yeah if I do anything it's going to require major orthodontic surgery.

[maskedmelon]

I live in Canada (same town as Yumyums in fact). All people have the right to be put in a position to be successful. For those who are not able to be (whether for mental health or whatever reason) a civlized society bears that burden and tries to help them become productive, or their children. Assigning services to people based on their worth is discriminatory and opens the door to racism, profiling etc.

My country has a single payor health care system with universal access. Doctors are independant contractors who have a collective agreement with their province that sets rates at a sustainable level. Despite what you might hear from the Right, the Canadian system works - not flawlessly. Just like democracy, it's not the best system, it's just better than all the other options. There's all the usual fuckups that happen in any system, but my personal experience with it has been extremely positive. People get the care they need when they need it. Does someone line up for a diagnostic scan for something not life threatening? Yup. Does someone with cancer/CI/stroke etc. go to the front of the line? Hell yes. Thats how it /should/ work.

My Dad had a mild heart attack, was in the hospital Wednesday, and was out with a couple of stents in the following Friday and placed on a rigorous rehab program. All zero cost, very competent, and very fast.

Single payor systems just work, bitches.

Regards,
Mg
Glad to hear it works well for you ^^ It seems that in a nutshell you feel it is "the right thing to do," and it works "good enough" for you.

I find bolded assertion particularly interesting though. How do you make an association between someone's worth and their race?

[JurisDictum]

"Cheaper" is the operative word here, because it won't be cheaper here in the US. Our health care is ridiculously expensive and the costs are held hostage by the pharmaceutical industry and health care professionals making an incredibly high income charging astronomically enormous fees (the ones that aren't are your friendly neighborhood family practice doctors).

The cost of health care will not be reduced to reasonable levels by insuring everyone. I don't know why people think it will. All that insuring everyone does is ensure the insurance companies remain profitable and doctors, hospitals and big pharma continue to make big bucks.

(I'm aware there are doctors and hospitals that are exceptions and don't make big bucks so no need to mention them. Those hospitals also tend to suck and you wouldn't want to be treated there.)

Until health care isn't a major business it will continue to be prohibitively expensive. Until doctors aren't interested in becoming incredibly high paid specialists that extort insurance companies almost criminally with their fees, until medical malpractice lawsuits are reined in, until hospitals aren't primarily interested in turning hefty profits, until big pharma is more interested in the quality of human life over making huge profits, we will have overly expensive health care in this country.

I've had people from Canada tell me if you want to make good money in the health care industry in their country, you don't become a doctor you become a dentist. I don't know how true that is but I can imagine their doctors don't make anywhere near the money ours do. Again, not talking about the local friendly family doctor, I'm talking specialists in the big hospitals.

The first obvious reason why a government single payer would be cheaper is that they don't have to make a profit (on a publicly traded company that competes with all stocks).

Single-payer health insurance lowers costs by:

1) reducing administrative expenses

2) not authorizing ineffective, cosmetic or "all-natural" healthcare,

3) reducing the prices paid for medical labor, devices, and drugs.

Its easier to make hospitals/doctors charge less when they all have one insurance company that says they will pay x. They don't have insurance that is only for young healthy professionals that pays way more for the same thing. The government pays x, and there's only so much extra most are willing to pay on top of that.

It's not like the people in other countries are better an gentler than Americans. Our doctors make more because the system allows them to -- not because Americans are more greedy.

[maskedmelon]

Seeing as we've been unable to move this issue beyond a moral argument. Let's discuss that. It seems to me that 'care for all' is embraced unenthusiastically, because the ideal solution is unpalatable. I don't understand why a hands off solution is worse though when you consider the damaging effects that subsidizing failure has on humanity.

[maerilith]

Initially insurance allowed people to subsidize themselves privately. Then the world changed and the medical industry adapted to that subsidization.

Then because of insurance, insurance was getting build 1000 dollars for a 100 dollar procedure. Washing a cut, and putting in a few stitches. Or taking an Xray was costing 500 dolars instead of the 18 dollars it costs in the Caribbean for example in a small and economically isolated western economy.

This gets dramatically worse the more upwards you go in cost/procedure/stay. So you end up hospitals billing millions for 40,000s worth of work or 80,000 for 15,000 work.

Most of this is due to insurance. A lot of procedures can get done cheaply, out of pocket, without insurance. I use to grab a 5 pak of zythromax and move on with life for a 40$ doctors visit and a 20$ proscription. But the bigger the procedure... start looking at knee replacements or something else absolutely neccissary... and you start to get problems.

Also in our economy insurance companies were cutting costs by abusing legislative practices and discriminating against people for what procedures they would allow etc...

This just barely scratches the surface, doesn't go into liability, and what your fucking republican pals did about that to make it 100x worse (my mom works in this field in know this shit in depth).

Or talk about how fucked poor people are and how jaded they are that they may have to spend their welfare on antibiotics. It's pretty tough for some people in this country. Though America is fucking awesome for opportunity. But people are fucked up.

Anyway. That's why Obama care happened, and in theory it could have fucking worked, but then you have fucking retarded states being dumb about medicaid/medicare and dumb about the markets and, and dumb about opening up insurance to cover the same shit nationally because some asshole QQ's about what some other asshole can or can't do with their body (let me tell you this affects way more than just "trans people"). Like fuck a girl who needs a hystorectomy for cancer needed permision from their husband not so long ago by state law here... and insurance could deny it.

Crap like that.

Anyway.

The free market economy is out of wack medicine wise and partly because of insurance, not insurance alone though, like insurance + liability + legal law loopholes + pharma + the demographics of where money is... not in rural america, unless some parts, and etc.... But this could be fixed one of two ways. But it won't fix itself because the doctors won't take patients even if it would be economically viable, because they have plenty of big fish who don't have problems with healthcare.

Take it or leave it, it's so much more complex than my laypersons explanation. But we have to do something about the situation and complete deregulation is not a good short term answer unless we can change how the economy works.

Long term, we do need to deregulate enough to remove as much of the legal and financial middleman out of the equation. Doctors and nurses etc can have their wages slowly equalize as the economy adjusts. But it's way to far off for the free market to make any corrections because of the way things have been working.

Anyway, I hope that doesn't come off as sounding like I'm talking down... I just don't know how to explain it better than that. It's fine if you think I'm 100% wrong.

[maskedmelon]

This is straying off topic, but why would think universal coverage would help costs when you spent half your post acknowledging the inflation caused by health insurance? ^^

[maerilith]

This is straying off topic, but why would think universal coverage would help costs when you spent half your post acknowledging the inflation caused by health insurance? ^^

Very good points and I'm super tired and i'd like to clarify or correct my statement, or if you can figure it out and correct me by all means. There are different insurance models in the internet business in different countries.

Ours is kind of shit. But like, there are countries were internet is a bit more good for reasons, also newer infrastructure etc... but also different markets and regulations.

I think the simplest way of saying what I wanted to say is that if your going to have insurance it doesn't work well in a free market. But if the market is governed by a few rules it can work if properly implemented. And it'd be really great if I could grab in a few examples and citations to back this opinion and turn it into more of a solid debate point in favor of a insurance system/universal payer system.

I don't think universal payer may be the right answer specfically.

But the very core problem I think is that insurance companies are controlling the market, and providers are constantly struggling around them, and we have this feedback loop and insurance probably make rediculous amounts of money that gets mismanaged and magically dissapears into deep and mysteriously labyrinthine pockets...

I don't know I'm really way to tired to say anything coherent. This post is bad and shouldn't have been posted as well as my other post.

insurance is really important when it comes down to stuff like those procedures that are one offs and not economically viable, or stuff like antivenoms etc... because they can subsidize those services which are really needed, but wouldn't be affordible in a free market. but here's the thing their not... logistically expensive, just expensive because the paper and beurocracy of it is expensive, not because actual energy/cost/barter/trade expensive, but because the market makes it expensive and this is REALLY hard to explain as a lay person and i'm going to get a lot of people really mad at me for being dumb.

But it's ok :D

[maskedmelon]

The problem with insurance is that it distorts demand by lowering costs to the consumer. The insurance provider picks up and disperses among its subscribers, the cost increases that result from higher demand. The only way to combat this is either by restricting demand via legislated rationing or legislating price ceilings which will result in shortages. This is why I particularly dislike insurance in general and think it should be limited to catostrophic care, especially if subsidized. The reality is poverty and stupidity go hand 'n hand. Just as they are more inclined to birth children they cannot adequately care for, they are so inclined to take their child to the ER for the flu because they don't know any better.

Back to my question though, how is subsidizing/sustaining impoverished states moral when it necessarily dilutes the mean via wildly different rates of reproduction? This is the rational argument for and reason why organizations like Planned Parenthood exist. The concern to mankind would largely be eliminated with parent licensing ^^

[pickled_heretic]

The problem with insurance is that it distorts demand by lowering costs to the consumer. The insurance provider picks up and disperses among its subscribers, the cost increases that result from higher demand. The only way to combat this is either by restricting demand via legislated rationing or legislating price ceilings which will result in shortages. This is why I particularly dislike insurance in general and think it should be limited to catostrophic care, especially if subsidized. The reality is poverty and stupidity go hand 'n hand. Just as they are more inclined to birth children they cannot adequately care for, they are so inclined to take their child to the ER for the flu because they don't know any better.

Back to my question though, how is subsidizing/sustaining impoverished states moral when it necessarily dilutes the mean via wildly different rates of reproduction? This is the rational argument for and reason why organizations like Planned Parenthood exist. The concern to mankind would largely be eliminated with parent licensing ^^

asinine... the entire first world is in population decline (notable exceptions being due to immigration), assuming you think that poor = bad and bad = should not reproduce, any domestic measure to increase birth rates in first world countries should be encouraged because the poorest of the poor in the first world are exorbitantly wealthy compared to most of the world

[MrSparkle001]

The first obvious reason why a government single payer would be cheaper is that they don't have to make a profit (on a publicly traded company that competes with all stocks).

Single-payer health insurance lowers costs by:

1) reducing administrative expenses

2) not authorizing ineffective, cosmetic or "all-natural" healthcare,

3) reducing the prices paid for medical labor, devices, and drugs.

Its easier to make hospitals/doctors charge less when they all have one insurance company that says they will pay x. They don't have insurance that is only for young healthy professionals that pays way more for the same thing. The government pays x, and there's only so much extra most are willing to pay on top of that.

It's not like the people in other countries are better an gentler than Americans. Our doctors make more because the system allows them to -- not because Americans are more greedy.

Maerilith is banned again?

Anyway, the biggest problem with this (especially #3) is it encourage current doctors to leave their practices because they now make less money and would discourage others from becoming doctors.

I've heard that from quite a few doctors over the past few years. Some already refuse medicaid patients because medicaid does not pay them enough.

I'm not saying that's what should happen. I would love a world where people pursued medicine for the good of humanity. But that's not reality. If doctors feel they aren't being paid enough by the government they may stop practicing, and if students considering a career as a doctor feel they won't make enough, they won't pursue it. That's reality and it needs to be considered.

Health care costs in this country are entirely too high, but we can't just cut payments to doctors and hospitals and not expect consequences like that.

Just something to consider that often isn't.

[JurisDictum]

I've heard that from quite a few doctors over the past few years. Some already refuse medicaid patients because medicaid does not pay them enough.



but what if they didn't have that option?

IDK to tell you dude, people bitch when their current way of making money drys up. They also are probably right that the current system -- that pays way more for people with "good insurance" -- will allow them to make more money. So they are going to bitch and say "ill do x and y." hardly any of these people are going to get new careers at the end of the day.

People don't become doctors for money. I've seen people that want to be doctors for the social esteem and respect, but not for money. Most doctors that make a lot of money -- make their money from investments and clinics that they own. They have a high wage and all, but that's after what? 10 -16 years of school/training? And your not going to be getting any big bonuses...

If you have the kind of intelligence and support to become a doctor -- you could easily go into business, tech, or law and make more money. But most people that become doctors want to be doctors.

[AzzarTheGod]

Maerilith is banned again?


What got her iced this time?

[maskedmelon]

What got her iced this time?

Her initial response to my "Bad Thread," which has since been removed. Kinda annoyed that they didn't scrap the whole thread because with her post gone the damn thing reads like I posted something. Though I know in the past when they have deleted entire threads people (me) have complained, so I can't complain too much ^^

[AzzarTheGod]

Her initial response to my "Bad Thread," which has since been removed. Kinda annoyed that they didn't scrap the whole thread because with her post gone the damn thing reads like I posted something. Though I know in the past when they have deleted entire threads people (me) have complained, so I can't complain too much ^^

Oh that, I missed the post but caught the aftermath and only came away with a small hint of what was posted.

Yeah I'd rather them not delete threads. That was a bad policy. Anyway over or under on permanent?

[maskedmelon]

Oh that, I missed the post but caught the aftermath and only came away with a small hint of what was posted.

Yeah I'd rather them not delete threads. That was a bad policy. Anyway over or under on permanent?

How does over-under work? Which means more likely? And yeah, the thread is doing ok now fulfilling its purpose. Thought it could be like a waste bin so we don't have wast littering our forums, you know?

[big_ole_jpn]

What was posted?

[pickled_heretic]

How does over-under work? Which means more likely? And yeah, the thread is doing ok now fulfilling its purpose. Thought it could be like a waste bin so we don't have wast littering our forums, you know?

idk how over under works on this... it's usually assigned to a value with a number, like a sports statistic. so maybe a percentage of chance is what he means. but that's weird, because the number is meaningless (it's either banned permanently or not) and we'd need an impartial oddsmaker to create a value for us so we can either be right or wrong.

i'd say based on my history of being permabanned on another forum for posting links to gifs of males ejaculating i'd say the over/under has to be pretty close to 100%. so how about 99.97%

[maskedmelon]

idk how over under works on this... it's usually assigned to a value with a number, like a sports statistic. so maybe a percentage of chance is what he means. but that's weird, because the number is meaningless (it's either banned permanently or not) and we'd need an impartial oddsmaker to create a value for us so we can either be right or wrong.

Oh ok, well that is entirely to complicated. In this case it is more like at-under of we talking perma vs. not then maybe?

[MrSparkle001]

but what if they didn't have that option?

IDK to tell you dude, people bitch when their current way of making money drys up. They also are probably right that the current system -- that pays way more for people with "good insurance" -- will allow them to make more money. So they are going to bitch and say "ill do x and y." hardly any of these people are going to get new careers at the end of the day.

People don't become doctors for money. I've seen people that want to be doctors for the social esteem and respect, but not for money. Most doctors that make a lot of money -- make their money from investments and clinics that they own. They have a high wage and all, but that's after what? 10 -16 years of school/training? And your not going to be getting any big bonuses...

If you have the kind of intelligence and support to become a doctor -- you could easily go into business, tech, or law and make more money. But most people that become doctors want to be doctors.

I much prefer the kinds of doctors that are in it for the esteem and respect but I also know that - at least in the NY/NJ/CT area - a lot of doctors are in it for the money. You should see the mansions some of these "top rated specialists" live in.

There's no easy answer here.

[maskedmelon]

but what if they didn't have that option?

-snip-

If you have the kind of intelligence and support to become a doctor -- you could easily go into business, tech, or law and make more money. But most people that become doctors want to be doctors.

This question and observation are interesting when paired together. I know you indicated that doctors do not become doctors for money and while that may be true for some it is not true for all, or even most I would suspect. Money certainly plays a role in people's decisions to become doctors. It is the reason we have so many specialists and diminishing numbers of primary care physicians.

It worries me to think what might happen to the most talented physicians if the industry became less profitable, especially considering already superior opportunities elsewhere. I would expect price ceilings to result in a decline in quality of care, shortages, or both.