Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on January 29, 2007, 06:24:46 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6302043.stm
By head of population America spends twice the amount Britain does on health.
But life expectancy here is lower and infant mortality is higher, way higher in some ethnic groups
It seems to me that the private system is actually more inefficient than the western state run health care systems.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6302043.stm
By head of population America spends twice the amount Britain does on health.
But life expectancy here is lower and infant mortality is higher, way higher in some ethnic groups
It seems to me that the private system is actually more inefficient than the western state run health care systems.
If you want to pay the taxes for Social Security, local, state, Federal, income, and a national health care system for 300 million people, you can be my guest.
Otherwise, I'd like to keep my money.
-
God forbid we americans ever actually do something for each other as a community.
-
God forbid we americans ever do something for each other as a community.
Yes, because those hundreds or even thousands of volunteer charity and relief programs, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and United Way aren't enough. We need to suck more money out of the already heavily-laden American taxpayer to pay for something that is shown to actually has numerous noticeable flaws in countries with even smaller populations!
-
already heavily-laden American taxpayer
:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Economic_policy
In case you haven't noticed, taxes have been steadily dropping over the past 50 frelling years.
-
already heavily-laden American taxpayer
:lol:
Yes, it's funny how much money I keep after the government sucks out local taxes, Federal taxes, Social Security, and Medicare. Plus, it's not as if Bush's cuts exactly helped my middle-class family out at all. We're still taxed nicely.
Point is, taxes would go right back up if we instituted national health care. Somebody is going to have to pay for it, after all.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16874285/site/newsweek/
Go tell that little boy that not paying a few taxes are more important than his life. I'm sure he'll understand.
-
I suppose we'll know why if the company suddenly decides to let the father go.
-
Yeah, take a look at all those poor countries with universal health care, like Norway. Oh, wait...
-
i wouldnt say ineficient its just the nhs is a non profit organisation
were-as the american hospitals are commercial hence the higher prices
-
Yeah, take a look at all those poor countries with universal health care, like Norway. Oh, wait...
*sarcasm on*
Yeah, take a look at all those poor countries with universal health care, like Brazil. It actually works! Oh, wait...
*sarcasm off*
:p
On the actual poor countries, those universal health care systems dont work. I've took a look at the system here (the organization itself, the way its setup) and it doesnt work for very ridiculous (and sometimes hilarious) reasons. Of course the private system here is nothing short of a death trap as well.
-
I could understand charity run hospitals, like many of the "children hospitals" getting government subsidies. Fully state run health care? No.
-
European governments don't have nearly the military spending the US does... as a matter of fact, they don't have the population either... it's a fact that most of the taxes Joe in the US pays never gets back to him in any meaningful way.
-
And the UK government has so much administrative overhead and maldistribution of funds, some NHS depts are horribly underfunded while others don't know what to spend their money on. Of course, actually sorting out such a problem would result in even more administrative overhead, and the excess funds would disappear rather than being put in the right places.
Governments have no idea how to run large enterprises. Governing != Managing, evidently. Plus, while I have no problem with paying taxes to save lives, I do object when that money is being used to pay for unnecessary things (like viagra; isn't the population large enough already?) or countering the effects of people's own stupidity (eg. anything related to smoking).
-
And the UK government has so much administrative overhead and maldistribution of funds, some NHS depts are horribly underfunded while others don't know what to spend their money on. Of course, actually sorting out such a problem would result in even more administrative overhead, and the excess funds would disappear rather than being put in the right places.
That is what happens when it is run by people who want to get rid of it.
-
God forbid we americans ever do something for each other as a community.
Yes, because those hundreds or even thousands of volunteer charity and relief programs, such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and United Way aren't enough. We need to suck more money out of the already heavily-laden American taxpayer to pay for something that is shown to actually has numerous noticeable flaws in countries with even smaller populations!
Actually, they aren't enough to cover minimum wage job-working peoples' expenses. Presumably you missed the bit saying "most personal bankruptcies in the US are the result of illness"?
Moreso, do you think health insurance is free? Because that's what the taxes would be replacing; and I think it's pretty obvious that the private method of cost-management is to slash quality and staff whilst raising prices every time they hit the buffers.... not to mention that (specifically, but not only, for the example of PFI in the UK) when it comes to borrowing money private companies face higher interest rates than state run ones.
It's worth noting that, even in spite of mismanagement and inefficiency, the NHS is very succesfull; even the French (people) admire it for being provided without high taxation (the cost of the otherwise excellent French equivalent). Even with the well-recognised flaws, there's no way in hell I'd trade the NHS for such a blood-sucking system as the US one; I kind of consider the right to live a healthy life as a right, rather than a privilege.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16874285/site/newsweek/
Go tell that little boy that not paying a few taxes are more important than his life. I'm sure he'll understand.
Read the article rather than just quote a sob story to paint me as a heartless neoconservative, please.
But when his son Thomas, born with severe hemophilia, developed a resistance to treatment at age 1, Wilkes’s claims soared; his company’s insurance provider, Wilkes says, soon began hiking premiums 40 to 55 percent each year, and introduced a lifetime cap of $1 million for all employees and their families—including Thomas. Soon, Wilkes says, no other insurance companies would offer to cover the company.
The problem is with the insurance companies jacking up the prices, not with people not being able to afford health care in the first place. The man making $100,000 a year could apparently afford the health care plan before, but not after the insurance companies start raising prices.
European governments don't have nearly the military spending the US does... as a matter of fact, they don't have the population either... it's a fact that most of the taxes Joe in the US pays never gets back to him in any meaningful way.
Somebody finally hit the nail on the head. QFT.
-
"or countering the effects of people's own stupidity (eg. anything related to smoking"
Actually the nhs would suffer terribly if people didnt smoke
the taxes raise a huge amount of money
-
"or countering the effects of people's own stupidity (eg. anything related to smoking"
Actually the nhs would suffer terribly if people didnt smoke
the taxes raise a huge amount of money
But that money doesn't go into the NHS, anyways......if you want to get onto the smoking debate, you have to factor in the other costs; loss of work hours during smoking brakes (estimated as costing £1,000 per smoker per year in a Canadian study), or the cost of accidents involving smoking (house fires in particular, also public area fires; smoking caused an est. 5,400 fires in 1996 with over 1000 deaths), or the impacts of passive smoking on family or workers. In any case, ciggy tax is not to fund NHS treatment but to provide a) a deterrent and b) a 'guilt free' income to the government.
You could say 'ah, but if that tax didn't get into the Treasury then the money would need to come from somwhere' - which is fair, but then again we piss away vast sums of money on things like pointless wars or botched government IT schemes anyways.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16874285/site/newsweek/
Go tell that little boy that not paying a few taxes are more important than his life. I'm sure he'll understand.
Read the article rather than just quote a sob story to paint me as a heartless neoconservative, please.
But when his son Thomas, born with severe hemophilia, developed a resistance to treatment at age 1, Wilkes’s claims soared; his company’s insurance provider, Wilkes says, soon began hiking premiums 40 to 55 percent each year, and introduced a lifetime cap of $1 million for all employees and their families—including Thomas. Soon, Wilkes says, no other insurance companies would offer to cover the company.
The problem is with the insurance companies jacking up the prices, not with people not being able to afford health care in the first place. The man making $100,000 a year could apparently afford the health care plan before, but not after the insurance companies start raising prices.
I think you're highlighting the symptom, not the disease (wahey! Appropriate metaphor :D *cough*) here; isn't this just evidence that privatised healthcare is so overpriced that people are forced to rely on, in effect, others (namely, those who pay health insurance but never claim)? What's different between that and taxing, beyond the exclusion of low wage earners from access to healthcare?
I mean, the way I see it is that the UK system charges everyone a little (more or less proportionately) for universal access to an imperfect but crucially freely and fairly available service (with the option to go private should they wish to pay a premium, of course). Whereas the US system forces everyone into a situation where your ability to be treated is determined by how much money you have, and how generous other people are feeling - and whilst that system may allow provision through greater funding (profit), it's one where the cost in human suffering is far too high for my stomach.
EDIT; as an aside, here's a story from 2004 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0505/p02s01-uspo.html) which determined that - despite the average American paying twice as much as for public healthcare - the Us wasn't universally better than any of 4 countries (including Canada and Australia; the other 2 countries aren't named)
Additionally, the Us apparently has lower life expectancy than the UK (or indeed Cuba and 27 other countries) based on a UNDP Human Development Report (2004).
-
well if you look at that way, yes there is no difference between paying taxes or paying for health insurance. The difference is that if you don't have health insurance, your screwed, but if you are low income with public health care, you won't die from being turned away. So as a Canadian who is soon to be entering the full world of tax paying, I feel good in that my money is A) going to let me stay healthy should i get in an accident or what have you. B) that it also allows others who need health care have it available to them. So while I may not be able to afford that new LCD Monitor I'd like, I'll be around to enjoy it when i can save for it.
and while evil harper would like to reduce social programs, they're something that should be supported.
And don't talk to Canadians about high taxes...I always get horrified american customers who can't believe they're paying 14% sales tax (down a percent from 2 years ago!). this goes for albertans as well...one day we won't need your oil! enjoy your low taxes while they last and enjoy the lack of services you have when we make the switch to alternative energy.
-
if you consiter the right to live healthy a basic human right live in Europe, if you consiter the right to live whatever lifestyle you chose even if it has negitive consequeses on your health live in America.
America, feel free to light one up.
-
if you consiter the right to live healthy a basic human right live in Europe, if you consiter the right to live whatever lifestyle you chose even if it has negitive consequeses on your health live in America.
That's a very odd - if not downright bizarre - statement to make. Care to back it up?
-
if you consiter the right to live healthy a basic human right live in Europe, if you consiter the right to live whatever lifestyle you chose even if it has negitive consequeses on your health live in America.
That's a very odd - if not downright bizarre - statement to make. Care to back it up?
Methinks he was being sardonic. :rolleyes:
-
Thing is ciggarette tax makes the Government something like 9 Billion pound a year, and, yes, it was orginally designated to go to the NHS, but when the Government discovered what a Gold Mine they were sitting on, it got rediverted, much in the same way as they are now dipping into the National Pension, which explains why they go so lightly on companies caught dipping their fingers into the staff pension funds, or if Road Tax was really used to maintain the Roads, we'd have the best roads in Europe.
On subject though, I'm far more inclined to think it is through bad management and poor allocation of funds that the NHS fails in particular.
-
if the government is paying for your health care then the choices in lifestyle wich effect your health become the governments problem not just your own, and they get the right to make choices on what is healthy for you and what is not. you give up power in your personal life becuase your personal life is now not just your personal life but an aspect of you life that directly effects the government and everyone in a very solid($) sort of way. the consequences of your personal choices are now the responsibility of the state to take care of, and that means you now have given the state a valid reason to impose whatever it deems healthy upon you. cigarettes (and the bans there of) are just the easiest, most visable example of what I'm talking about.
now if you think this is fine, if you don't think anything you ever want to do will be terrably unhealthy then fine, but if someone doesn't want to take that risk, then I don't see why allowing them to live in a country that doesn't have such a system and trying to keep it that way, would be any problem.
my health is my problem I want to keep it that way.
-
I don't think we see it that way, just because it's our money we are giving to the government, doesn't automatically make it the Government's money, though they may like to see it that way.
Problem is, it's really hard to get a synopsis of what the government is spending its money on, you get individual departments making quotes at points in the year, but you really have to keep your ear to the ground to actually get the details.
For my part, I'm not against the idea of, say, banning smoking in eating establishments, if for social reasons if not health ones, oddly enough, the biggest cause of heart attacks in the UK isn't smoking related, but stress-related from over-work and a more and more demanding market. Yes, smoking conditions or unhealthy food may exaggerate the condition, but the biggest killer in the UK is Stress.
But as a great man once said, there's lies, damn lies and statistics.
-
if the government is paying for your health care then the choices in lifestyle wich effect your health become the governments problem not just your own, and they get the right to make choices on what is healthy for you and what is not. you give up power in your personal life becuase your personal life is now not just your personal life but an aspect of you life that directly effects the government and everyone in a very solid($) sort of way. the consequences of your personal choices are now the responsibility of the state to take care of, and that means you now have given the state a valid reason to impose whatever it deems healthy upon you. cigarettes (and the bans there of) are just the easiest, most visable example of what I'm talking about.
now if you think this is fine, if you don't think anything you ever want to do will be terrably unhealthy then fine, but if someone doesn't want to take that risk, then I don't see why allowing them to live in a country that doesn't have such a system and trying to keep it that way, would be any problem.
my health is my problem I want to keep it that way.
Thank you.
For the rest of you: what will you do when the government can't give you the quality of service in health care that you paid taxes for, because there's a whole bunch of people who don't pay the health care taxes but take up your hospitals?
Income tax is progressive. The more you make, the higher the percent you have to pay.
If there is a large group of people paying a pittance for health care, but claiming $3,600 EVERY FEW HOURS on medicine (from the article above), the system doesn't work.
Government and private health care face the same decision when the numbers don't add up: Raise costs or cut services.
-
The problem isn't really the people who claim $3600 every few hours though, put the few people who have those kinds of needs next to people who head off the to Doctor the moment they get a headache or a cold, or who are talking to a specialist because they have 'reflex commitment rejection syndrome' (can't hold down a girlfriend and goes Emo) or some other such crap, and you'll soon see where the money goes.
Really, the problem isn't the people who need the medical system, it's teaching people to know when they need the Medical system. Personally, I'm thinking of starting a phsychology centre that involves one room and a baseball bat with the legend 'Reality' embossed onto it ;)
-
I think my point if it hasn't been made yet can be illistrated thusly
A man who has chewed tobaco every day of his life sece he was 19 gets cancer, he knew that it was probly going to happen the whole time, but he did it anyway, there is an opperation that will probably save his life but it costs $400,000. is it fair that he should die because he can't afford that? is it fair that everyone else should have to pay for his irrisposibility?
there are two schools of thought on this issue, and I happen to be in the yes,no one (as opposed to no,yes)
-
Thing is, the medical risks and addictiveness of tobacco has been known for a long long time, if the government were so determined to reduce the costs to the Healthcare system, why is it still legal when stuff which is less physically addictive is not?
If the government wants to take responsibility for things like Tobacco related diseases then it has to take into account its responsibility to itself, and yet the UK will never ban Tobacco outright.
-
Not to mention half of the addictiveness of cigarettes comes from drugs other than nicotine... they put all sorts of **** in those things.
-
which is just one reason why anyone who smokes is a dumb****, but you have an inlienable right to be a dumb**** if you so desire
-
if the government is paying for your health care then the choices in lifestyle wich effect your health become the governments problem not just your own, and they get the right to make choices on what is healthy for you and what is not. you give up power in your personal life becuase your personal life is now not just your personal life but an aspect of you life that directly effects the government and everyone in a very solid($) sort of way. the consequences of your personal choices are now the responsibility of the state to take care of, and that means you now have given the state a valid reason to impose whatever it deems healthy upon you. cigarettes (and the bans there of) are just the easiest, most visable example of what I'm talking about.
now if you think this is fine, if you don't think anything you ever want to do will be terrably unhealthy then fine, but if someone doesn't want to take that risk, then I don't see why allowing them to live in a country that doesn't have such a system and trying to keep it that way, would be any problem.
my health is my problem I want to keep it that way.
I'm not sure what your point is; there's no more abdication of freedom in state funded healthcare than there is for state funded policing or fire services. Certainly the NHS has never imposed 'health lifestyles' upon people (encouraged, yes, but not imposed nor claimed the right to), and I'm pretty sure the insurance companies place more imposition than the nation ever could get away with because they have the discretion to discriminate. So really, it's a private system that hurts people for smoking, et al - a public system simply cannot bias itself against people in the way that a 'chosen' private system can.
-
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion. I like access to sex, drugs, guns, and rock and roll, even if I don't partake of all of them, I like to know the option is available (which it isn't totally to my chagrin) even at a cost to my safety.
-
so in the u.s if you dont have health insurance and you get sick what happens ?
-
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion. I like access to sex, drugs, guns, and rock and roll, even if I don't partake of all of them, I like to know the option is available (which it isn't totally to my chagrin) even at a cost to my safety.
Um, we're (the United Kingdom, which is not England and I'd really expect better of you than commenting on a country you don't even know the name of...) more liberal when it comes to sex, produce some of the best rock & roll (sort of) music in the world, and drugs are just as illegal and even more harshly sentenced in the US IIRC; the only thing we have 'tighter' than the US is gun control, because some evil bastard shot up a primary school (and we've had none of those since then....)
so in the u.s if you dont have health insurance and you get sick what happens ?
I believe you hope for charity, or pay it out your own pocket (potentially tens of thousands of dollars).
-
Although it's not really what's being discussed, who pays for caught criminals' medical bills? Always wondered about that myself.
-
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion. I like access to sex, drugs, guns, and rock and roll, even if I don't partake of all of them, I like to know the option is available (which it isn't totally to my chagrin) even at a cost to my safety.
Um, we're (the United Kingdom, which is not England and I'd really expect better of you than commenting on a country you don't even know the name of...) more liberal when it comes to sex, produce some of the best rock & roll (sort of) music in the world, and drugs are just as illegal and even more harshly sentenced in the US IIRC; the only thing we have 'tighter' than the US is gun control, because some evil bastard shot up a primary school (and we've had none of those since then....)
Honestly I've seen the same thing... although the US is quietly just about as repressive, UK it seems quite in your face... what with those... what was it? "friendly eyes" watching over y'all. :ick:
so in the u.s if you dont have health insurance and you get sick what happens ?
I believe you hope for charity, or pay it out your own pocket (potentially tens of thousands of dollars).
Actually you die... here in the US we support freedom of evolution ::)
-
There are many charity supported hospitals in the U.S., some providing better healthcare then do normal hospitals.
-
is it true (seen it on a tv show so probably not)
but if your rushed into hosptial after a car accident
and you have no insurance + no means to pay
they dont treat you ?????
-
Umm. no. It is illegal for an emergency room to deny treatment.
-
Umm. no. It is illegal for an emergency room to deny treatment.
It comes out of the state's pockets. Although it would cost less if these people were covered by the government in the first place.
-
Although it would cost less if these people were covered by the government in the first place.
How?
Treatments cost the same either way.
-
so in the u.s if you dont have health insurance and you get sick what happens ?
You die. Emergency rooms can't refuse treatment, but they can sue you into oblivion.
The US system would work beautifully if it could get its priorities straight. We currently give more health insurance benefits to illegal immigrants and prisoners than we do elderly people on Medicare. The answer here seems to be shifting the mass quantities of money from welfare for illegals and prison healthcare into the Medicare and Social Security general funds, making old people pay reasonable prices instead of $93.50 per month for Medicare and possibly even restoring the Social Security fund to its formerly expanding state. Bush, of course, would never sign off on something like this, opting instead for a plan to tax health insurance benefits as income (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40F13FE34540C728EDDA80894DF404482).
I've learned exactly one thing from six months of working on the Medicare customer service line: I'm moving to Canada before I get old.
-
Although it would cost less if these people were covered by the government in the first place.
How?
Treatments cost the same either way.
Treatments are partially subsidized by money from the people who pay premiums and taxes and then don't need treatment.
-
which is just one reason why anyone who smokes is a dumb****, but you have an inlienable right to be a dumb**** if you so desire
And the responsibility to accept the damn consequences.
People are always quick to assert their rights, but rarely accept the responsibilities that go with them. My problem with the UK government is the way it seems determined to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity.
-
I will admit to having a major brain fart with the "England" comment, at first I was going to write Britain but I knew that wasn't right, and without thinking I just wrote the other option that was in my head at the moment, ironically I would have been closer to right if I had stuck to my original reflex.
-
america has a healthcare system? where i dont see it. ts must be hiding.
-
Although it would cost less if these people were covered by the government in the first place.
How?
Treatments cost the same either way.
No they don't; this is privatised. That is, everything is inflated due to competition and business conditions. For example, (in the UK) any loans taken out by a private business come at a higher rate than the preferential ones given to public industries; also, there's no external source of funding or subsidisation as with public funded - not to mention the desire for profit. In essence, public funded health needs to provide adequate treatment (not always the best, albeit that's why people can go Bupa if they have the spare cash etc) for as cheap as possible, whereas the business interest of private health means they need to provide the most profitable treatment.
Also, consider the normal response of business to money loss - to slash the budget through raising prices and sacking people. That means that (unlike where treatment is funded and paid for you by the state, with the price regulated accordingly by a rather bigger fish than the patient) any sort of loss by a private hospital is likely to lead to less quality (staff) and less availability (price). I mean, the statistics stand alone anyways - americans pay twice as much yet don't get a proportional return.
which is just one reason why anyone who smokes is a dumb****, but you have an inlienable right to be a dumb**** if you so desire
And the responsibility to accept the damn consequences.
People are always quick to assert their rights, but rarely accept the responsibilities that go with them. My problem with the UK government is the way it seems determined to protect people from the consequences of their stupidity.
People have a right to live; we can't exactly take a cancer patient and say "ooh, we think this might be caused by you smoking, so you should go and die now". It's in the national interest to keep people healthy, anyways - when people get sick, it's not in isolation; family, friends, co-workers, etc all get affected. If you can't work, then you can't pay income tax.
The truth is that the British government isn't, IMO, any more of a nanny state than the US, it just does it in a different way. I've lost count of the number of times that I've seen criticism of the more reprehensible acts (desired to be) taken by our government, only to see the same thing being criticised has been silently inacted in the US. But at least I can console myself with the fact that not only is it very unlikely I'll be shot going down to by my morning paper, if I do I won't need to drag out my credit card to get the holes plugged up. :)
-
I think my point if it hasn't been made yet can be illistrated thusly
A man who has chewed tobaco every day of his life sece he was 19 gets cancer, he knew that it was probly going to happen the whole time, but he did it anyway, there is an opperation that will probably save his life but it costs $400,000. is it fair that he should die because he can't afford that? is it fair that everyone else should have to pay for his irrisposibility?
there are two schools of thought on this issue, and I happen to be in the yes,no one (as opposed to no,yes)
Okay but how does this work any better in America? Everyone who is with the same insurance company still has to pay for his irresponsibility.
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion.
Put Janet's other nipple on TV and then try telling me that again with a straight face :p
-
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion.
Put Janet's other nipple on TV and then try telling me that again with a straight face :p
to be honest when I look at England I see a rather repressive nanny state, but that's just my opinion.
-
*Trawls the web for pics of Janet latest nipslip*