1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraHave you heard the term 'death panels' on the news a lot lately (at least here)?
Where is it not a doctor?
The idea is that a group of government employees will go through a stack of patient records and determine who lives and who dies. IMO, the concept of a death panel sensationalizes something that's going on every day presently, but the name is catchy and provocative.
The crux of the argument is whether your physician is actively engaged in keeping you as well as possible given the resources that are available to you and can some bureaucrat override a valid medical decision in the name of cost-cutting.
Government-run medical care is scary in the US because the structure of civil service frequently leads to mediocre performance. Essentially, once you're on the payroll, your annual increases come not due to excellent work, but by lasting to the end of the fiscal year. So if there's no reward for excellence and no punishment for mediocrity, what do you breed?
Originally posted by sbacatGovernment run health care is scary because everything the government touches goes bankrupt and is poorly run. In addition, they are the final authority with little to no accountability to anyone.
Government-run medical care is scary in the US because the structure of civil service frequently leads to mediocre performance. Essentially, once you're on the payroll, your annual increases come not due to excellent work, but by lasting to the end of the fiscal year. So if there's no reward for excellence and no punishment for mediocrity, what do you breed?[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyLet's see..the military...national parks...fireman...police...teachers..all bad, eh.
Government run health care is scary because everything the government touches goes bankrupt and is poorly run. In addition, they are the final authority with little to no accountability to anyone.
Originally posted by badmoonSpecifically I was referring to entitlement programs. However, the tactic now seems to be, if you want to keep your police and firemen etc then vote for local tax hikes. You do this or else!!
Let's see..the military...national parks...fireman...police...teachers..all bad, eh.
Its called extortion. If they don't get your money, then they take your "protection". Its kinda like when the mob goes around to local businesses asking them to pay for "protection". Of course, if they don't pay up, then they will then show them why it is a good idea to give them your money.
Originally posted by whodeyAs opposed to the long chequered history of American captains of industry who from the very first instance of corporations, used their hired help to go and crush (very violently in most cases) any group who would dare to use their constitutional right to organise themselves into a labour union. Obviously the worker should have no rights to anything and employers should be free to exploit labour however they see fit.
Its called extortion. If they don't get your money, then they take your "protection". Its kinda like when the mob goes around to local businesses asking them to pay for "protection". Of course, if they don't pay up, then they will then show them why it is a good idea to give them your money.
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyand this sort of thing will continue as long as the two options are (1) an establishment candidate who will maintain the status quo or (2) a candidate who considers all government to be inherently evil or corrupt or incompetent.
Specifically I was referring to entitlement programs. However, the tactic now seems to be, if you want to keep your police and firemen etc then vote for local tax hikes. You do this or else!!
Its called extortion. If they don't get your money, then they take your "protection". Its kinda like when the mob goes around to local businesses asking them to p don't pay up, then they will then show them why it is a good idea to give them your money.
because neither of these choices will give you (3) a candidate that will be committed to making government operate BETTER.
given that they're in "power" the Democrats will likely continue to be the status quo party offering option (1) -- but the GOP has the choice of continuing with option (2) or providing a legitimate option (3).
it seems like option (2) has a big audience when it comes to talkshows and "populist" TV programs -- is there any way that option (3) can generate enough of an audience to warrant it's own bevy of highly influential talkshow hosts and protest movements?
Originally posted by sbacatWhy would something that works fine in the rest of the world not work in the US?
Have you heard the term 'death panels' on the news a lot lately (at least here)?
The idea is that a group of government employees will go through a stack of patient records and determine who lives and who dies. IMO, the concept of a death panel sensationalizes something that's going on every day presently, but the name is catchy and provocative.
The cru ...[text shortened]... So if there's no reward for excellence and no punishment for mediocrity, what do you breed?
Originally posted by sbacatIf you want to call it that way. There are many options which provide full coverage: universal health care (e.g. UK), single payer (e.g. Canada), mixed private/universal health care (e.g. Germany) and mandatory private insurance (e.g. Netherlands).
Do you mean socialized medicine?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have to admit ignorance of how those things work in other countries. The common wisdom (which could be 100% lies) are that people are on waiting lists for procedures and the wealthy go to private doctors while the masses are at the mercy of whatever quality of service they can get through public resources.
If you want to call it that way. There are many options which provide full coverage: universal health care (e.g. UK), single payer (e.g. Canada), mixed private/universal health care (e.g. Germany) and mandatory private insurance (e.g. Netherlands).
None of that may be true, but it sounds likely. Otherwise, how do you control spending? And with medical advancements, don't you end up keeping people alive longer after they've retired? If so, does that not provide an upward spiral of costs?
I guess what I'm asking is what's the release valve? There must be some mechanism that begins to limit service based on available dollars in any healthcare system. Who says, this one can be saved, but that one cannot?
Originally posted by sbacatThere are waiting lists. Sometimes up to a couple of months for nonurgent procedures, if you need care urgently it's practically always available. I don't know about all countries but here private clinics are pretty rare, but everyone is privately insured anyway (the "private clinics" mostly offer treatments which are not covered by insurance, e.g. cosmetic surgery).
I have to admit ignorance of how those things work in other countries. The common wisdom (which could be 100% lies) are that people are on waiting lists for procedures and the wealthy go to private doctors while the masses are at the mercy of whatever quality of service they can get through public resources.
None of that may be true, but it sounds likely. ...[text shortened]... able dollars in any healthcare system. Who says, this one can be saved, but that one cannot?
Otherwise, how do you control spending?
Spending is controlled because governments have an interest in keeping health care costs down - unlike insurance companies, which have an interest in keeping them up. This is one of the main reasons why US health care is so expensive.
And with medical advancements, don't you end up keeping people alive longer after they've retired? If so, does that not provide an upward spiral of costs?
People live longer, but they also live healthy longer. As long as the retirement age is raised there is not really an issue here.
Who says, this one can be saved, but that one cannot?
It's not like people with heart attacks or cancer are left untreated. But if there is a waiting list for say knee surgery then doctors will generally decide which case is most urgent and/or who is on the waiting list longest and those people will receive treatment.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThose are all very interesting points and I wonder how this will all shake out over here when the bill eventually gets passed. It does really feel as though capitalism has the US by the throat. Essentially all of our politicians are in somebody's pocket or another. The insurance companies are spreading unrest because they see what's coming as the end of their way of life and truthfully, government-run agencies are frequently so poorly run it does feel like the makings of a disaster.
Otherwise, how do you control spending?
Spending is controlled because governments have an interest in keeping health care costs down - unlike insurance companies, which have an interest in keeping them up. This is one of the main reasons why US health care is so expensive.
If I were 'selling' this to the American public, instead of saying it's the right thing to do to cover the millions of uninsured, I'd be getting up front of them with my charts and graphs and showing them that five years (or however long) down the road, Mr. and Mrs. America your insurance premiums are going to be so high that you will be one of the uninsured.
I'd be taking camera crews into the hospitals and clinics in countries where this is working and doing man-in-the-streets interviews to see how satisfied and healthy people in those countries are.
Instead, we get bickering and hyperbole and politics as usual. Sad really.