|
And from a brutally heartless "I don't care about other people" economic point of view: our healthcare system is extremely detrimental to our economy and competitive edge versus other modern countries and their workforces simply because the amount of preventable injury/disease/etc that exists here is a huge drag on worker productivity. Which also then negatively affects aggregate demand which is bad as well. It's bad for jobs and bad for economic growth on top of the fact that we have millions of people who need help and aren't getting it. The little cherry on top is that it continues to make us look like a laughingstock to the rest of the modern world which figured this poo poo out ages ago. e: wait this is the NK thread lol what Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 26, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
I love how that conservative americans, when faced by the overwhelming evidence that universal healthcare and smarter regulations on drug companies would not only help a vast amount of people but be more affordable, they still come up with an endless diarrhea stream of talking points to try to draw attention away from their indefensible ideas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:And from a brutally heartless "I don't care about other people" economic point of view: our healthcare system is extremely detrimental to our economy and competitive edge versus other modern countries and their workforces simply because the amount of preventable injury/disease/etc that exists here is a huge drag on worker productivity. Which also then negatively affects aggregate demand which is bad as well. you better have a lot of tankie tweets saved up to post itt after this derail my good man
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Stop trying to have a private healthcare system. You can't choose to not have health care when the other option is disease, disfigurement, or death. The consumer has no leverage to pay less in that system. You can't choose to not be treated if the price is too high. This is not a problem to be solved by the free market.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:you better have a lot of tankie tweets saved up to post itt after this derail my good man don't worry i got u 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:I love how that conservative americans, when faced by the overwhelming evidence that universal healthcare and smarter regulations on drug companies would not only help a vast amount of people but be more affordable, they still come up with an endless diarrhea stream of talking points to try to draw attention away from their indefensible ideas. it is however a fact that the USA is the absolute leader in pharmaceuticals globally and personalised medicine to such an extent that many NHS patients (which is an amazing system) choose to go to the states for cancer treatment
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:don't worry i got u a putin, a jong and a trump walk into a bar
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Little known fact: North Koreans love piggybacks
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:A federal system would help the greatest amount of people the quickest. Once again, no amount of wringing your hands will make it any less immoral to deny even a single person the access to basic rights that would certainly come with such a patchwork system. The fact that you're framing this as a moral issue strikes me as a touch manipulative. There are a lot of failings that come out of national healthcare systems, enough so to warrant a careful approach should we wish to establish our own. Be realistic as well: you'd have a much easier time selling this concept to red states than you would selling the notion that some guy in Maryland is going to determine how best to address the problems of a woman in Utah. Moridin920 posted:Why would a healthcare system need to worry about water access or gas? That's something totally separate isn't it? Just pay for ambulances surely that's not some onerous burden. You really underestimate how much transportation costs in general contribute to just about any department that would utilize them. The state of Wyoming pays around $300 million in transportation costs alone for schools, a fifth of its entire education budget. Only relatively recently has it been cost efficient for more than one hospital to get an air ambulance or helicopter to help deal with the hundreds of miles of distance. In places like Massachusetts or New York, which are small, transportation and gas costs wouldn't be major factors, but larger states, especially rural states, absolutely would. In places where water access is difficult, it may costs way more for water access than in places where freshwater is plentiful. Some people may not even consider these unique factors when designing this system, which sort of makes my point for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Kim J is real, and strong and he's my friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
"elected"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:You really underestimate how much transportation costs in general contribute to just about any department that would utilize them. The state of Wyoming pays around $300 million in transportation costs alone for schools, a fifth of its entire education budget. Only relatively recently has it been cost efficient for more than one hospital to get an air ambulance or helicopter to help deal with the hundreds of miles of distance. In places like Massachusetts or New York, which are small, transportation and gas costs wouldn't be major factors, but larger states, especially rural states, absolutely would. We're talking about healthcare specifically, what does water access have to do with it? If the local people need better water for the hospital then the hospital can get better water and the bill goes up the chain and it is handled. Similarly when the transport costs are more in rural areas, well that's okay because the denser urban areas subsidize the costs via the single big risk pool everyone pays into. Which is way better than now where if you are in a rural area and call 9-1-1 welp here's a $2000 ambulance bill have fun. There's no reason it can't be a federal program that addresses local concerns brought up by locals. There doesn't need to be a top down committee deciding for literally every hospital their needs and allocations. It would work just like medicare works dude. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The fact that you're framing this as a moral issue strikes me as a touch manipulative. There are a lot of failings that come out of national healthcare systems, enough so to warrant a careful approach should we wish to establish our own. Be realistic as well: you'd have a much easier time selling this concept to red states than you would selling the notion that some guy in Maryland is going to determine how best to address the problems of a woman in Utah. If you don't consider the thousands of preventable deaths in the US each year from the lack of access to healthcare as a pressing moral issue, I don't know what to tell you dude
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:Kim J is real, and strong and he's my friend 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:We're talking about healthcare specifically, what does water access have to do with it? If the local people need better water for the hospital then the hospital can get better water and the bill goes up the chain and it is handled. I mean, you're talking about these things like hospital overhead is not a big part of healthcare costs, because it absolutely is. It's not the biggest, there's a lot of things that dip into every dollar spent in a hospital, but transportation gets really expensive when you're fueling helicopters and flying out hundreds of miles to transport a patient. Healthcare costs aren't just limited to purchasing scalpels and medicines or paying doctor salaries or doctor lawyers. also gently caress North Korea
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I mean, you're talking about these things like hospital overhead is not a big part of healthcare costs, because it absolutely is. It's not the biggest, there's a lot of things that dip into every dollar spent in a hospital, but transportation gets really expensive when you're fueling helicopters and flying out hundreds of miles to transport a patient. Healthcare costs aren't just limited to purchasing scalpels and medicines or paying doctor salaries or doctor lawyers. I'm not saying hospital overhead isn't expensive. I'm saying, what is your point? The entire point of the one big risk pool is to subsidize the costs of these things. Call a rural ambulance right now: bill for thousands of dollars bc you're in a very low populated state with no real healthcare program beyond what private insurers will offer you and hey they've gotta turn a profit too Call a rural ambulance with universal healthcare: pay $5 because the rest of the actual cost of the ambulance is subsidized The risk pool is the entire point behind why insurance even functions in the first place. The argument of "well some need more and some need less therefore they can't mesh" (which is what Paul Ryan said a few days ago iirc) is completely missing the point. The costs for those that need more are subsidized by the people that need less. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I mean, you're talking about these things like hospital overhead is not a big part of healthcare costs, because it absolutely is. It's not the biggest, there's a lot of things that dip into every dollar spent in a hospital, but transportation gets really expensive when you're fueling helicopters and flying out hundreds of miles to transport a patient. Healthcare costs aren't just limited to purchasing scalpels and medicines or paying doctor salaries or doctor lawyers.  This isn't loving complicated
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The cute lady's reaction to her first bite of brisket is pretty much perfect. Me. I did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Call a rural ambulance right now: bill for thousands of dollars Yyyess, but this isn't as easy a solution as you put it out to be. Some folks may object to being subsidized, some may not be able to afford it on top of other costs, or the subsidies may hit one state harder than others due to all sorts of possibilities, tax codes or poo poo like that. You can have subsidized single-payer healthcare, I'm saying that it should be done on a state level so as to be the most effective. The country is simply too loving big for any other approach to work without major problems. EDIT: I mean gently caress, look at the European examples. Britain is so much smaller than the U.S. that it's sort of absurd to try to assume the same approach would work here. 8-Bit Scholar fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yyyess, but this isn't as easy a solution as you put it out to be. Some folks may object to being subsidized, some may not be able to afford it on top of other costs, or the subsidies may hit one state harder than others due to all sorts of possibilities, tax codes or poo poo like that. lol as in "states can help poor people but they won't" kind of individual state decision?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
is that a real occupy democrats banner or a spoof i can't tell anymore lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Dang It Bhabhi! posted:lol as in "states can help poor people but they won't" kind of individual state decision? So have a guideline. The state must ensure that everyone is insured or whatever you'd like. But let the state decide how it'll meet that guideline. This way, if it's crappy, it's also easier to change, and it is local legislators, not distant federal ones, who have to answer to their voters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yyyess, but this isn't as easy a solution as you put it out to be. Some folks may object to being subsidized, some may not be able to afford it on top of other costs, or the subsidies may hit one state harder than others due to all sorts of possibilities, tax codes or poo poo like that. I mean dude here it's v simple really. At the moment we have tons of various risk pools (by virtue of the fact that there are numerous competing insurance companies). At the moment, people with health coverage pay expensive premiums and those who cannot afford them do not get coverage. Under a single payer system, instead of premiums people just have a much smaller payment (such as your medicare payroll tax) to make via taxes. Since all this money goes to one central fund (like medicare) you get one risk pool. Which mathematically is more efficient than all the numerous risk pools we have now, even if we ignore the bit about how insurance companies need to make a profit on top of that and a single payer system doesn't. There is no federal committee deciding which state gets what. There is no state forced to make payments from its state budget. Hospitals are still run locally. Doctors still get to diagnose and prescribe treatment freely. If you don't make enough money to be able to afford the payroll tax, it doesn't get withheld. It's just a central fund all our tax payments earmarked for medical care go into which then pays for the medical costs of our citizens across the board regardless of whether you're 60 in rural Alabama in need of extra care or a 20 year old in CA not worried about healthcare at all. Like... again dude we already do this it is called medicare except we only give it to old or disabled people and the GOP wants to gut that as well because "socialism" (they really just want a larger market for the private insurance companies) instead of expanding it. Just imagine one big giant insurance company if you like, except it is a non-profit and the shareholders are all the citizens. Somehow companies like Aetna manage to have millions of customers across all kinds of different social stratas and still turn a profit on top of that. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Under a single payer system, instead of premiums people just have a much smaller payment (such as your medicare payroll tax) to make via taxes. Since all this money goes to one central fund (like medicare) you get one risk pool. Which mathematically is more efficient than all the numerous risk pools we have now, even if we ignore the bit about how insurance companies need to make a profit on top of that and a single payer system doesn't. Again, I don't think it's prudent to entrust that single risk pool to safeguard everyone's medical care. It sounds like putting all of your eggs in one basket. If anything, that sort of fund would be better used to serve as a safety net in case any of the state-run plans fucks up super bad and needs emergency money, which would also help serve as a means of providing emergency reform to a poorly designed system. I especially do not have enough faith in the federal government as it is run now, by whom it is run now, to safeguard these monies responsibly. Until such a time as the power structure of the Washington elite has shifted, I'm not particularly willing to trust their intentions. My local legislators are much more accessible; I can call up my local senator and talk to him directly. What happens to his community affects him far more directly than it does his federal counterpart. It is in this way you may also create a system better than any currently existing, because you'd have an opening for experimentation. Not every system would be equal, but every system would be far more democratically designed, which seems like the most appropriate way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Again, I don't think it's prudent to entrust that single risk pool to safeguard everyone's medical care. It sounds like putting all of your eggs in one basket. If anything, that sort of fund would be better used to serve as a safety net in case any of the state-run plans fucks up super bad and needs emergency money, which would also help serve as a means of providing emergency reform to a poorly designed system. I especially do not have enough faith in the federal government as it is run now, by whom it is run now, to safeguard these monies responsibly. Until such a time as the power structure of the Washington elite has shifted, I'm not particularly willing to trust their intentions. My local legislators are much more accessible; I can call up my local senator and talk to him directly. What happens to his community affects him far more directly than it does his federal counterpart. We already do what you're talking about and the result is rich states like CA and NYC have state level programs that ensure the people in them aren't dying and sick just bc they are poor and the numerous other states that can't afford it or are led by assholes are hosed and are dragging the nation down economically. We already do what you're suggesting would be a disaster, it's called Medicare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The cute lady's reaction to her first bite of brisket is pretty much perfect. Eat beef in PRNK and they will flat out execute you. Nice. Brisket to die for. Near the end I half expected soldiers to walk in and shoot them all in the head. Fog Tripper fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Again, I don't think it's prudent to entrust that single risk pool to safeguard everyone's medical care. It sounds like putting all of your eggs in one basket. If anything, that sort of fund would be better used to serve as a safety net in case any of the state-run plans fucks up super bad and needs emergency money, which would also help serve as a means of providing emergency reform to a poorly designed system. I especially do not have enough faith in the federal government as it is run now, by whom it is run now, to safeguard these monies responsibly. Until such a time as the power structure of the Washington elite has shifted, I'm not particularly willing to trust their intentions. My local legislators are much more accessible; I can call up my local senator and talk to him directly. What happens to his community affects him far more directly than it does his federal counterpart. the US state apparatus is the basket everybody puts their eggs into worldwide courtesy of the US dollar being the global reserve currency anyway like if there is any argument to make against federal mandated healthcare in the US it's deffo not "the sovereign backing this system might go bad" lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Honky Dong Country posted:That image will never not be funny. hahah
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
There's a picture of me drunk and pissing on the North Korean embassy in Berlin. I haven't been killed yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:So have a guideline. The state must ensure that everyone is insured or whatever you'd like. But let the state decide how it'll meet that guideline. This way, if it's crappy, it's also easier to change, and it is local legislators, not distant federal ones, who have to answer to their voters. Fine
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Wikkheiser posted:Like give everyone a basic minimum income but also everyone will always be jihading everywhere at all times. As much as I love Warhammer also I'm not so sure exactly how fun it would be to live out in real life
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
lol that half the thread was talking about loving Medicare what the gently caress does that have to do with North Korea And a lot of those Tankie memes are right tho North Korea isn't a threat to us at all ?? And we are literally the only nation ever to use nukes on another country
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Piss de Bundy posted:lol that half the thread was talking about loving Medicare what the gently caress does that have to do with North Korea A) posting battle stations B) I didn't like their tone
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Psycho Society posted:A) posting battle stations I mean tankies are like such a minority opinion that they aren't taken seriously but saber rattling against North Korea is supremely dumb
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
I think the fear is largely that when North Korea finally implodes, it'll go out with a bang.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 21:10
|
|