Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

I will counter with the DoD's Healthcare System and the VA Healthcare System.

Neither of which are interested in making money, combined both are serving a population well over 20 million people.  If you want to see how the US Federal Government would run a nationalized healthcare system, look at the systems they are running.

That is not to say that I don't think the people of the United States can not pursue universal healthcare.  I just have little to no faith that the USG can execute a worthwhile centralized system ran from Washington DC.  Los Angeles county (~10M people)? Maybe Vermont (626k people)? Sure.

[Katrina Oniseki]

That is both amusing and sad at the same time, assuming I understood you correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, you just advocated we not try, because the United States of America is too inept to do it correctly? Not only that, but you backed it with evidence.

That is shameful. That is utterly shameful.

[orange]

That is both amusing and sad at the same time, assuming I understood you correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, you just advocated we not try, because the United States of America is too inept to do it correctly? Not only that, but you backed it with evidence.

That is shameful. That is utterly shameful.

I advocated that the we should not attempt to establish a health care system for 330+ million people ran by the Federal Government of the United States, based upon how said Federal Government executes the health care system it operates for veterans who have served it.

I did however say that I think we can and should pursue universal health care, but that we should work to enact it on smaller scales than 330+ million people.  I think a health care system designed for North Caroline needs to be inherently different from one designed for Oregon or Iowa.  The system for New York City is different than Los Angeles and incredibly different for the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana.

[Katrina Oniseki]

That is both amusing and sad at the same time, assuming I understood you correctly.

Unless I'm mistaken, you just advocated we not try, because the United States of America is too inept to do it correctly? Not only that, but you backed it with evidence.

That is shameful. That is utterly shameful.

I advocated that the we should not attempt to establish a health care system for 330+ million people ran by the Federal Government of the United States, based upon how said Federal Government executes the health care system it operates for veterans who have served it.

I did however say that I think we can and should pursue universal health care, but that we should work to enact it on smaller scales than 330+ million people.  I think a health care system designed for North Caroline needs to be inherently different from one designed for Oregon or Iowa.  The system for New York City is different than Los Angeles and incredibly different for the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana.

Hmm. Alright, that is much more palatable.

[Seriphyn]

It's not like this is completely intellectual as an exercise. Look at almost completely privatised healthcare (America) and various degrees of nationalised healthcare (the rest of the civilised world) and ask yourself which one is achieving the objective of providing the best averaged standard of health for the most efficient cost.

The problem with a privatised healthcare system is that it's objective is making money, not providing healthcare. That's why the US healthcare system is SO inefficient.

It really is that simple. I find it very difficult to question the idea that they are NOT in it for anything BUT profit. From that alone, healthcare should be a public utility (you know...like fire and police?) and not a private money-maker.

I wager that Vikarion's belief system and those who follow it will die out as this generation continues, anyway.

[Morwen Lagann]

I wager that Vikarion's belief system and those who follow it will die out as this generation continues, anyway.

One can only hope. His attitude - and the number of people who share it, in all its infuriatingly unhealthy (hurr) levels of backwardness and blind stupidity - is sickening, and one of the reasons I fucking hate the situation in this country, and the people who put it that way.

I had a longer rant about how stupid and ignorant that attitude is, but frankly, not worth it.

[Vikarion]

That said: I'm sorry, Vik. I just can't agree with you that healthcare financing should be remain almost completely privatized in the U.S. It's my political opinion, and I have and will continue to vote on it.

I'm not actually for a specifically privatized health care system. I'm generally of the opinion that most of the options we have right now are all bad. What I want to see is a system that provides care for reasonable causes (accident, injury, sickness) without providing care that essentially subsidizes the useless or stupid at a cost to everyone else.

For example, I'd like you to be treated, and I'd also like it if an obese smoker who refused to quit was required to pay much of his own way, or die if he can't. Those who eat and act in healthy ways should be rewarded for their efforts, not required to support those who do not.

Even if there is no choice in the matter, we don't need genetics for obesity, smoking addiction, and chronic illnesses in the gene pool.

[Niraia]

Even if there is no choice in the matter, we don't need genetics for obesity, smoking addiction, and chronic illnesses in the gene pool.

I don't think we need you in it either.

[Katrina Oniseki]

You were doing just fine until you ended your post by advocating eugenics.

In which case, you probably don't need Inflammatory Bowel Disease either (which is hereditary), so I shall go find myself a quiet little inexpensive grave. 

[Vikarion]

I wager that Vikarion's belief system and those who follow it will die out as this generation continues, anyway.

One can only hope. His attitude - and the number of people who share it, in all its infuriatingly unhealthy (hurr) levels of backwardness and blind stupidity - is sickening, and one of the reasons I fucking hate the situation in this country, and the people who put it that way.

I had a longer rant about how stupid and ignorant that attitude is, but frankly, not worth it.

Those who are capable of operating on a cold analysis of cost/benefit will always have an advantage over those who do not.

That said, as I've mentioned before, I don't think that a completely private system is the most efficient administration of health care in this country. I also don't think that the United States will be best served by a completely public system.

My biggest concern is that it be an efficient and innovative system. The system in the United States is fairly innovative, possibly the most innovative, but it sure as hell is not efficient. That is to say, it is not providing good care for the majority of the citizenry.

But to simply assert that the United States would magically become awesome at health by adopting a NHS is to fail to realize that some of the worst problems are a result of diet and activity. Americans eat way too much bad food, quite honestly. It's not just what sort, but how much. And they engage in quite a lot of other bad activities. A health care system that does not dis-incentivize and punish bad behavior is going to result in major problems, as undue resources are devoted to those who pursue risky and dangerous behaviors.

Nor is it wise, financially, to devote extensive amounts of resources to those who will never have the potential to repay them. This may be unpalatable, but efficiency really does rule over all. If resources are not directed efficiently, there will be no system to treat anyone with.

To wit, and the question I was trying to pose, what do you do with the curable, but otherwise terminal, patient who will cost a million to fix? What about ten million, etc? This isn't a concrete question, it's a hypothetical, and it's essentially asking how much you think preserving a life is worth, in resources. If you say, all of them, then you rob all the other people who need help. Otherwise, you are going to have to decide where you cut people off, or refuse to treat even otherwise save-able people. Right now, that occurs in the U.S. privately - you don't have enough money, you die. This seems horrible, apparently, to people who aren't me. Fine. But no matter what, there are going to be people who you could save, but can't afford to. How are you going to select those people?

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Bah. Not everything is genetics - and half of the genetics you're decrying were PRO-survival genes when refined food was less available. And we have bigger problems. Our current interpretation of ethics doesn't have us exposing the handicapped at birth.

Moreover you are WRONG about a costs/benefits analysis. Civilisations are founded by those whose passion and faith allow them to dig a little deeper.

[Vikarion]

You were doing just fine until you ended your post by advocating eugenics.

In which case, you probably don't need Inflammatory Bowel Disease either (which is hereditary), so I shall go find myself a quiet little inexpensive grave. 

I rather doubt that IBD costs more to treat than you put into the economy. So nice try, but you have to live.

I'm somewhat optimistic: I think that genetic treatments will soon exist which may give us a way out. But what about those people who don't want to stop being addicted to nicotine, or those people who don't mind being obese? Trust me, I've met them, they're out there.

[Vikarion]

Moreover you are WRONG about a costs/benefits analysis. Civilisations are founded by those whose passion and faith allow them to dig a little deeper.

Civilizations, almost to a one, have typically been founded by those who had no problems killing their fellow men and taking their stuff. What happened to Native Americans? How about the Neanderthals? Where are the peoples that opposed the Assyrians? Where is Carthage? This sort of action is less passion, and more selfishness. I understand that.

[Vikarion]

Even if there is no choice in the matter, we don't need genetics for obesity, smoking addiction, and chronic illnesses in the gene pool.

I don't think we need you in it either.

From a standpoint of efficiency and reason, I eat well, I don't smoke, I contribute a lot to the economy, I pay my taxes, and I rarely impose costs on others. Kill me, and you'll be poorer, on the net. 

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Moreover you are WRONG about a costs/benefits analysis. Civilisations are founded by those whose passion and faith allow them to dig a little deeper.

Civilizations, almost to a one, have typically been founded by those who had no problems killing their fellow men and taking their stuff. What happened to Native Americans? How about the Neanderthals? Where are the peoples that opposed the Assyrians? Where is Carthage? This sort of action is less passion, and more selfishness. I understand that.

Where are the Assyrians? And the Romans? Alexander consumed Darius, but he choked on the meal. Napoleon conquered 85% of Europe, but his Empire lasted less than a lifetime.
Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to the 'I came. I saw. I felt really bad about it afterwards." school of thought, either.

But here's the thing. Successful civilisations are ones who divide the world into inliers and outliers and then are ruthless towards the outliers while NOT being a bag of dicks to each other. If one Anglo-saxon in a village was starving, odds are that nobody had very much food...