Socialized Medicine - Let's Discuss!

[pickled_heretic]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by MrSparkle001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maerilith is banned again?

What got her iced this time?

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by AzzarTheGod [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by pickled_heretic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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?