Let's talk capitalism in health industry

ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Let's talk capitalism in health industry

An interview with Wandell Potter, former high ranking employee for CIGNA through 15 years.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

I would love to hear a few comments.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I give up.Let's make

I give up.

Let's make everything free. Everyone is allowed to have everything they want or need. Just make it the law of the land.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I give up.Let's

EXC wrote:

I give up.

Let's make everything free. Everyone is allowed to have everything they want or need. Just make it the law of the land.

Hi, love.

This is not the time to give up, just realise that there is no ideology that will fix things for us so that everyone will live hapily ever after, including communism, capitalism and democracy. We're gonna have to do the work on case by case basis and never trust a system to run things on it's own, regardless if it's planned by a state or corporate dictator.

Can we agree that some things like health care, access to high quality education, fire and police department services, child care and the like should be accessible equally to all members of the society? This should not be hard for you to agree with, it's the basic liberal idea.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I give up.Let's

EXC wrote:

I give up.

Let's make everything free. Everyone is allowed to have everything they want or need. Just make it the law of the land.

We can finance the well-being of humanity easily by cutting down the expenses on:
1) military (warfare should be internationally banned and initiators punished)
2) financial speculation (Wall Street should be locked up, and it's owners arrested)
3) over-production, over-consumption and commercials
4) the disease industry (a.k.a. pharmacologic)
5) the entertainment industry (dumb and violent shit)

Of course, it also requires an international sharing of resources.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:   We

Luminon wrote:

 

We can finance the well-being of humanity easily by cutting down the expenses on:

1) military (warfare should be internationally banned and initiators punished)

2) financial speculation (Wall Street should be locked up, and it's owners arrested)

3) over-production, over-consumption and commercials

4) the disease industry (a.k.a. pharmacologic)

5) the entertainment industry (dumb and violent shit)

 

Of course, it also requires an international sharing of resources.

 

OK Luminon, I really cannot comment on how health care happens in your recently communist economy. However, I can tell you that you items 2, 3 and 4 at least partially map to what is going on here. Your items 1 and 5 are really off topic, so I am going to ignore them.

 

The fact is that we do have a disease industry over here and it is largely based on maximizing dollars coming into the system. It is really efficient at that goal, to the expense of pretty much all else. In fact, it is so good at that singular goal, that it has basically become a license for the industry to create new money.

 

Allow me to focus on just two things that could be rather easily fixed to the benefit of other goals apart from maximizing the wealth of a few.

 

First up is the concept of group insurance. Here is how that works:

 

OK, everyone knows that it is cheaper to buy products in larger quantities. Whether we are talking about laundry detergent in huge boxes or computer parts in shipments of a hundred units at a time, that is basically in line with reality. However, health care in the USA has fully perverted that basic idea to the detriment of everyone.

 

What they have done is to set up a situation where large corporations have improved buying power. This is a problem because most people in the USA don't work for huge corporations. Where I work, for example, there are about 20 people on the company health plan.

 

Of course, any student who has made it past the first couple of weeks of statistics 101 can tell you the problem that that creates. For those who don't know, allow me to spell it out.

 

My insurance company covers millions of people. And every year, some percentage of them get some form of really expensive medical issue. Whether they get hit by a car and need expensive surgery or they get cancer and need expensive medication doesn't really matter. What does matter is that the insurance company can pretty much count on those types of things averaging out across the millions of people they provide coverage for.

 

However, when they break the subscriber base up into groups of about 20 or so individuals, then they assess the smaller groups a price based not on the costs averaged across millions of people but rather on an estimation of how badly that small group would be affected by one or two people needing special expensive care. Just for grins, let's say that averaged across the millions of people, a reasonable cost for insurance works out to USD $1,000/person/year.

 

OK, a huge company that has 10,000 employees should pay USD $10,000,000/year. And the cost of the few people who need expensive care average in well, so that is all that they have to pay. However, my company with 20 employees ends up having 2 people who need USD $50,000 each worth of service. Hence the cost to insure the group will be USD $118,000 for the year. Since big companies automatically pay less for insurance, that means that small companies pay more per person. In the case of my company, that may well be USD $3,000/person/year.

 

However, remember that my insurance company is insuring millions of people across a large number of companies. So they are charging 500 companies with 20 employees three times the cost to insure the same number of people as the company that has 10,000 employees. Remember of course that the cost averages out when we get to the really large numbers, so the insurance company could just charge everyone the same price or at the very least, a much fairer price.

 

Now I promised to discuss two thing and the other is the pre-existing condition. Here is how that works:

 

Insurance companies make a case that they should pay for any condition that is new since the insurance contract began (basically the date that you start working for your employer). However, they will not pay for a condition that began before you were covered by them.

 

What this does is twofold.

 

First, if you change employers, the new insurance provider will stop paying for your older ongoing medical expenses. Let's say that you have high blood pressure, which is fairly common. Your medication costs USD $50/month but you only pay USD $10/month if you stay with your current employer. However, if you move to a new company, the new insurance company can drop you as far as the blood pressure medication goes and now you have a $50/month out of pocket expense. Gawd help you if your preexisting condition costs $500/month.

 

Basically, insurance companies have setup a system where as people move from company to company, costs for ongoing treatment may be freely removed from the books and transferred to the individuals concerned. The flip side to this is that if you have a really expensive condition, you will be afraid to ever change employers.

 

So insurance companies use this to:

 

A. drop old cases and

 

B. not pick up new expenses.

 

Any sane proposal for health care reform should (at least in my mind) block insurance companies from this practice. After all, when someone changes employers, the one company will have to pick up a new expense but the old company will be dropping the same expense. If people do not have to worry about this when changing jobs, the new expenses should be more or less balanced by the dropping of the old expenses.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:EXC wrote:I give

ZuS wrote:

We're gonna have to do the work on case by case basis and never trust a system to run things on it's own, regardless if it's planned by a state or corporate dictator.

So you don't like the way Cynga does business. Fine don't buy their products or stock. Why do you care if others want to be stupid and do business with them? Start a non-profit health insurance to compete with them then.

ZuS wrote:

Can we agree that some things like health care, access to high quality education, fire and police department services, child care and the like should be accessible equally to all members of the society? This should not be hard for you to agree with, it's the basic liberal idea.

On a permanent basis no. Because it would bankrupt the economy and drive business away. Because people make choices, some people want to be a musician or artist. Fine but these don't pay the bills. Some people want to travel and don't want to work 52 weeks a year to pay for all this. Some people like the Octomom just want to pump out babies with anonymous sperm donors and expect everyone to pay for them. Some businesses require a lot of fire and police protection, others don't.

You can't have a social contract with people that just want to take and are never required to give an equal portion in return.

What we need is for everyone to take a course on economics and how to buy their own medical insurance.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:We can finance

Luminon wrote:

We can finance the well-being of humanity easily by cutting down the expenses on:
1) military (warfare should be internationally banned and initiators punished)

Then the most violent ideologies will take over the world. We will all be living under the Taliban.

I think there already is an internation law against unjust war, doesn't seem to stop it.


Luminon wrote:

2) financial speculation (Wall Street should be locked up, and it's owners arrested)

Only when there is fraud. This must be stopped, but making investment a government run enterprise does not eliminate corruption and in many ways could make it worse because then the politicians have more money to play with.


Luminon wrote:

3) over-production, over-consumption and commercials
 

Over production of what? High productivity reduces prices and has enabled a middle class. Who is to say I my consumption is too much? Then don't watch commercials if they bother you.


Luminon wrote:

4) the disease industry (a.k.a. pharmacologic)
5) the entertainment industry (dumb and violent shit)

Then don't buy their products. Who are you to say what I can consume?


Luminon wrote:

Of course, it also requires an international sharing of resources.

Even if this could be done, there will still be an overpopulation problem consuming all available resources.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Individualism, consumerism and healthcare

Setting aside the warring ideologies over healthcare, the largest and least talked about elephant in the room is the patient. American culture at its crux is individualism regardless of political affiliation (democrat, republican, etc..). It is the "going it on your own" philosophy that drives consumerism and capitalism. Collectivism by choice never has and never will take root in the USA. One has to understand that basic mindset before approaching the idea of universal health coverage. Individualism has wrought considerable success over the decades eg. the microchip, personal computer, computer software, the iPOD, etc..And also the failures of capitalism ie. poverty, inequality, the current recession, etc..

The basic problem is that in regards to health, the American patient wants it both ways. He/she want individualism and consumerism to continue and also have free healthcare. Unless Americans concede that a cultural shift towards healthcare being a collective burden met with taxation, only then will the concept of universal healthcare materialize. That is how the Veterans Administration works and that is the only extent to which Americans will steer towards collectivism in healthcare. Soldiers who have shed blood overseas for meaningless wars are to whom the public will reach into their pocket books and pay taxes. Otherwise universal healthcare is and forever will be a political fantasy particularly among liberal democrats.

What should Obama do? He should hold a public referendum on this issue. Are Americans willing to collectively be responsible for an affordable healthcare system with taxation, yes or no? If the majority say yes then move forward. If the majority say no, then he should shout very loudly during one of his public addresses to Joe Sixpack preferably through a loudspeaker with the volume turned up to the maximum the following:

THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then lay the issue to rest and let it be dead and buried forever.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Setting aside

ragdish wrote:

Setting aside the warring ideologies over healthcare, the largest and least talked about elephant in the room is the patient. American culture at its crux is individualism regardless of political affiliation (democrat, republican, etc..). It is the "going it on your own" philosophy that drives consumerism and capitalism. Collectivism by choice never has and never will take root in the USA. One has to understand that basic mindset before approaching the idea of universal health coverage. Individualism has wrought considerable success over the decades eg. the microchip, personal computer, computer software, the iPOD, etc..And also the failures of capitalism ie. poverty, inequality, the current recession, etc..

A mindset? Like the one where there would never be a black president in the US? Sorry man, you are way off on this one. Check out the video I posted at the top, there is a huge community behind the push for a public option at least and referably single payer in the upcoming reform. The preassure is so high that Obama has had to mention single payer several times in an attempt to diffuse the public opinion. The community is growing and sooner rather than later single payer will be a reality in US.

ragdish wrote:

The basic problem is that in regards to health, the American patient wants it both ways. He/she want individualism and consumerism to continue and also have free healthcare. Unless Americans concede that a cultural shift towards healthcare being a collective burden met with taxation, only then will the concept of universal healthcare materialize. That is how the Veterans Administration works and that is the only extent to which Americans will steer towards collectivism in healthcare. Soldiers who have shed blood overseas for meaningless wars are to whom the public will reach into their pocket books and pay taxes. Otherwise universal healthcare is and forever will be a political fantasy particularly among liberal democrats.

That is bullshit from A to Z. The American patient wants one thing: health care that is not worse or more expensive than the one in sweeden, denmark, finland, gb, canada and cuba. Yes, cuba has cheeper and better health care than US. The ONLY position that you may argue some Americans hold is that they get a sense of acomplishment from having health care and that somehow makes them well off and that they don't want a level field in health care. I pitty the micro brains that think this way and demonstratively they are very few and far apart. Here's some diverse opinion for you:

Here's some republicans for single payer: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1109-Republicans-for-Single-Payer

Here's the man they supported talking about the proposal: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/21/as_obama_continues_push_for_healthcare

Obama's own long time physician, listen to the man's arguments: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/22/president_obamas_longtime_physician_opposes_white

Here's an organisation that was supposed to help the third world working in the US (!!!!!!!): http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/22/uninsured_travel_from_across_us_for

Here's a republican talking about health care, this man was in President Johnson's administration: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07172009/watch3.html

If you watch these, please watch all the way to hear the numbers and arguments. Americans are listening and they are not sitting around. There are demonstrations, actions and protests all over US and they are gaining momentum.

ragdish wrote:

What should Obama do? He should hold a public referendum on this issue. Are Americans willing to collectively be responsible for an affordable healthcare system with taxation, yes or no? If the majority say yes then move forward.

Obama's ear belongs to moneyed interest, Obama will do NOTHING. Just like Lincoln did nothing and was forced by huge popular movement in the end, so shall Obama twist and turn untill the popular preassure is so overwhelming that no amount of spin will grant excuses to congress and senate and their reelections will come into jeopardy.

ragdish wrote:

If the majority say no, then he should shout very loudly during one of his public addresses to Joe Sixpack preferably through a loudspeaker with the volume turned up to the maximum the following:

THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And then lay the issue to rest and let it be dead and buried forever.

Of course there are free lunches, if you have seen any of the videos above, you know by now that the investors and CEOs of ALL of the insurance companies are doing NOTHING else but take free lunches, curtesy of the tax payer.

I live in a country where I can go into a hospital and get treatment, only professional medical questions asked. Combined with a very small and specialised private market, the system is per capita half the price of the system in the US and it can not even be compared in quality - it is way better and everyone has access. And I mean EVERYONE. The only person deciding treatment for the patient is the medical professional - no insurance companies involved.

Lastly, if this no-free-lunches is directed to the poor people who can not afford health care and that makes you feel good about yourself for differentiating on that level, you are a sad sad man.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ZuS wrote:We're

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

We're gonna have to do the work on case by case basis and never trust a system to run things on it's own, regardless if it's planned by a state or corporate dictator.

So you don't like the way Cynga does business. Fine don't buy their products or stock. Why do you care if others want to be stupid and do business with them? Start a non-profit health insurance to compete with them then.

ZuS wrote:

Can we agree that some things like health care, access to high quality education, fire and police department services, child care and the like should be accessible equally to all members of the society? This should not be hard for you to agree with, it's the basic liberal idea.

On a permanent basis no. Because it would bankrupt the economy and drive business away. Because people make choices, some people want to be a musician or artist. Fine but these don't pay the bills. Some people want to travel and don't want to work 52 weeks a year to pay for all this. Some people like the Octomom just want to pump out babies with anonymous sperm donors and expect everyone to pay for them. Some businesses require a lot of fire and police protection, others don't.

Seriously, EXC, did you even watch that video I posted?

Where do you disagree with a high ranking professional of 15 years working in CIGNA? In several places he is saying that universal coverage is cheaper and much more effective than private market. Regarding  the alternative choice you propose, he is saying that the whole private insurance market is just like CIGNA and they spread disinformation, yet you argue that the well informed (??) customer should leave and go to another company, which by the way is no different than CIGNA?

Start a non-profit to compete? Again, have you heard the man talking? The industry will drown you the second you do anything that is not exactly according to investor dictate. He gives an example of a company that spent 0.77% of each dollar on health one year and then went to 0.78 the next, it's stock dropped by 20% in a matter of days - investors, and I quote, "thought this was ridiculous" and that "this company did not do a good job of denying medical coverage". Have you watched the footage?

EXC wrote:

You can't have a social contract with people that just want to take and are never required to give an equal portion in return.

YES you can - in all other western countries it's the MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL that decides treatment, and this means that the patient actually has to be sick to get treatment. That's all - no delays that incur further cost, no people dying because of denied treatment, no bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient. And all this WITH ZERO CORPORATE OVERHEAD GOING TO CAYMAN ISLANDS!!!

EXC wrote:

What we need is for everyone to take a course on economics and how to buy their own medical insurance.

I will assume that this mindless comment is a joke. Somewhere above you spill some bullshit about how "some people want to be musicians and artists" and how "this doesn't pay bills" and something about "pumping out babies and expecting others to pay for them". If all these were meant to be serious comments, you need to build your identity on something other than smartass hillbilly one-liners. Try the generative approach, where you assume that all children of the society are your children as well and that you have some responsibility for everyone around you. It really helps not being a sad excuse for a human being. This also helps not being anyone's bitch, cause once you assume responsibility, you don't turn around when people are beaten up on the street, you don't "mind your own business" when others get shafted, little things like that. This builds character, I can recommend it.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Any sane proposal for health care reform should (at least in my mind) block insurance companies from this practice. After all, when someone changes employers, the one company will have to pick up a new expense but the old company will be dropping the same expense. If people do not have to worry about this when changing jobs, the new expenses should be more or less balanced by the dropping of the old expenses.

 

You're right, that's quite a terrifying practice and it should be stopped. However, there is one more problem. I have a suspicion, that most of the pharmacologic industry is focused on curing the symptoms. It's not only the headache pills, but also some light psychopharmacology products. Next, there are vitamine supplements, which don't do much, because they're anorganic and thus not usable for the body. And finally, there are products of heavy medication, with inevitable and severe side effects. For example, heart pills may fix your heart, but they destroy your liver. A cure for cancer is often worse than the cancer itself. And I could go on with scary stories...
Shortly said, it is a disease industry, not health industry. All this is either useless, or too invasive. These medicines usually suppress symptoms, and when the symptoms show up again later, they're considered as a brand new sickness. Whole population is held on the verge of sickness, so they buy a lot of pills and visit the doctors often. This is not a conspiracy or whatever, it's the unfortunate, blind mechanism of market forces. In ancient China people paid their doctors when they were healthy. Nowadays we pay only when we get sick. And so we are a part of the business, but low in the food chain.



EXC wrote:

Then the most violent ideologies will take over the world. We will all be living under the Taliban.

I think there already is an internation law against unjust war, doesn't seem to stop it.

That's because United Nations still have a laughable firepower and no respect in the world. But in my opinion, it's the only candidate suitable for a global policeman, unlike a certain Western nation.

 


EXC wrote:
Only when there is fraud. This must be stopped, but making investment a government run enterprise does not eliminate corruption and in many ways could make it worse because then the politicians have more money to play with.
LOL! Of course there is a fraud! The whole idea of financial speculation is a fraud, and a big one. It was once rightfully illegal, and now it must be again. Watch that film. But politicians need money. Currently, they have little money on their own, because money are owned by banks. We are ruled by banks, not by those who we have elected. The state must make it's own money, not borrow it on interest from the banks.

EXC wrote:
  Over production of what? High productivity reduces prices and has enabled a middle class. Who is to say I my consumption is too much? 
Annie Leonard. S.O.S.

EXC wrote:
  Then don't buy their products. Who are you to say what I can consume?
I don't, but television is a strategic technology. It affects public opinion and sale rates, no matter how much there is critical and rational people in the society. They just doze off while the TV is on, and they listen to the commercials during sleep, and so then they sub-consciously buy stuff. Maybe this is how it is.

EXC wrote:
  Even if this could be done, there will still be an overpopulation problem consuming all available resources.
Yes, but only sharing of resources can guarantee peace and stability necessary to start with methods of lowering the population. I mean things like 1 child per parents, support of adoption, free condoms, and so on.
Anyway, there may be a great surprise, that states like USA consume so much of resources, that lowering this consumption to normal should allow all states suddenly to have a decent life.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Answers in 

Luminon wrote:

Answers in  That's because United Nations still have a laughable firepower and no respect in the world. But in my opinion, it's the only candidate suitable for a global policeman, unlike a certain Western nation.

[/quote wrote:

Maybe but right now the UN is very corrupt institution. This would need to change first. 

Luminon wrote:

 LOL! Of course there is a fraud! The whole idea of financial speculation is a fraud, and a big one. It was once rightfully illegal, and now it must be again.

You make accustation againts Cigna and others, but what exactly are the crimes they committed? Seems like they just wrote insurance policies and morons were stupid enough to give them their money. Where is the crime? Cigna did what the contract required them to do. The customers were free to refuse to do business with them.

Any business or government activity is prone to fraud. How is a government run program immune from waste and fraud? At least with a private program, I'm free to stay away from bad companies. With government programs I'm forced to go along with it.


Luminon wrote:
 

Annie Leonard. S.O.S.

I'm in favor of paying for what one uses and taxing consumpution of natural resourse. But the socialist don't want a consuption tax but instead want high business and income taxes. And even if one reduces their consumption, population increase will take away all the gains from lower consumption:

Thomas Malthus: Essay on Population


Luminon wrote:
 


I don't, but television is a strategic technology. It affects public opinion and sale rates, no matter how much there is critical and rational people in the society. They just doze off while the TV is on, and they listen to the commercials during sleep, and so then they sub-consciously buy stuff. Maybe this is how it is.

So we need big brother approved programming to protect you from yourself? Why can't you just block the channels that do this?


Luminon wrote:
 

Yes, but only sharing of resources can guarantee peace and stability necessary to start with methods of lowering the population. I mean things like 1 child per parents, support of adoption, free condoms, and so on.
Anyway, there may be a great surprise, that states like USA consume so much of resources, that lowering this consumption to normal should allow all states suddenly to have a decent life.

I agree but it's going to take a huge disaster for people to be willing to give up this freedom. And the religious nuts think it's Gawd's will to overpopulate.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Seriously, EXC,

ZuS wrote:

Seriously, EXC, did you even watch that video I posted?

Where do you disagree with a high ranking professional of 15 years working in CIGNA? In several places he is saying that universal coverage is cheaper and much more effective than private market. Regarding  the alternative choice you propose, he is saying that the whole private insurance market is just like CIGNA and they spread disinformation, yet you argue that the well informed (??) customer should leave and go to another company, which by the way is no different than CIGNA?

Start a non-profit to compete? Again, have you heard the man talking? The industry will drown you the second you do anything that is not exactly according to investor dictate. He gives an example of a company that spent 0.77% of each dollar on health one year and then went to 0.78 the next, it's stock dropped by 20% in a matter of days - investors, and I quote, "thought this was ridiculous" and that "this company did not do a good job of denying medical coverage". Have you watched the footage?

I did watch it. So Cigna sucks and has a lot of waste, then it should be so easy to start and Non-profit coop that would be single payer. Everyone that feels like you could pay for it and vote for it management and policies. You can tell CIGNA and the for profit carriers to go fuck themselves. That's freedom and capitalism.

Why do you insist that health care must be goverment run instead of a voluntary non-profit? Because your real agenda is wealth redistribution. If everyone had a good income and was educated to be a savvy consumer, everyone could just buy their own insurance policy, right? You really want the rich to pay for the poor. Fine but why hide this agenda of yours?

If you want to have a debate about what to do about unequal wealth distribution, fine. But don't go attacking freedom and saying that government run health care would be better and less expensive.

ZuS wrote:

YES you can - in all other western countries it's the MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL that decides treatment, and this means that the patient actually has to be sick to get treatment. That's all - no delays that incur further cost, no people dying because of denied treatment, no bureaucrat between the doctor and the patient. And all this WITH ZERO CORPORATE OVERHEAD GOING TO CAYMAN ISLANDS!!!

Fine start a non-profit that operates this way. But why must it be mandatory participation? If I want to be a moron and deal with CYGNA, why should you care?

ZuS wrote:

I will assume that this mindless comment is a joke.

 

No most people are pretty clueless about how to buy medical services and insurance.

ZuS wrote:

Somewhere above you spill some bullshit about how "some people want to be musicians and artists" and how "this doesn't pay bills" and something about "pumping out babies and expecting others to pay for them". If all these were meant to be serious comments, you need to build your identity on something other than smartass hillbilly one-liners. Try the generative approach, where you assume that all children of the society are your children as well and that you have some responsibility for everyone around you. It really helps not being a sad excuse for a human being. This also helps not being anyone's bitch, cause once you assume responsibility, you don't turn around when people are beaten up on the street, you don't "mind your own business" when others get shafted, little things like that. This builds character, I can recommend it.

That's great ZuS, make personal attacks but don't explain how things would work in your fantasy world. It's not a question of having compassion, it's a question of what works. So your attacks are meant to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't answer, "How do we pay for it?" and "Doesn't this just reward failure and punish sucess?".

If a musician is guaranteed the same benefits and pay as a nurse. How exactly do we solve the nursing shortage? Why not just take up a profession you enjoy or take 6 months vaction every year in your fantasy world of equal benefits for all?

And where exactly was the Octomom's "responsibility for everyone around her"? Do just half the people have responsiblity and it OK for the other half to have none?

If your're so fucking concerned about the poor, take up second job to give them your money. Take up a difficult profession like nursing to take care of them. No, you don't because you're real compasionate with other people's money. That's where you compassion ends, when it would require YOU to actually make a sacrifice and not someone else.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 462
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Lastly, if this

ZuS wrote:

Lastly, if this no-free-lunches is directed to the poor people who can not afford health care and that makes you feel good about yourself for differentiating on that level, you are a sad sad man.

Whoa!!! You're preaching to the choir!! I personally support a single payor system for all not unlike what is offered through the Veterans Administration. I mentioned nowhere in my post class distinction or superiority. If that is you're interpretation of what I said, then you are a sad sad man who cannot understand prose. You should seriously be mindful of who you're speaking to before hurling epithets. I see this a lot nowadays on RRS particularly among those on the left whose minds are so constipated by emotions that they trash those who support them.

All I said was a historical truth that Americans are resistant to taxation to support a universal health plan. My Joe Sixpack refers to every single American and not just the man living on skid row. You can accordingly destroy my argument and I would humbly say "I'm wrong". But don't assume what's in my conscience on this matter.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:That's great ZuS,

EXC wrote:

That's great ZuS, make personal attacks but don't explain how things would work in your fantasy world. It's not a question of having compassion, it's a question of what works. So your attacks are meant to deflect attention away from the fact that you can't answer, "How do we pay for it?" and "Doesn't this just reward failure and punish sucess?".

It's a suggestion, not a personal attack.

How do we pay for it? The answer is simple - public option, public health care, single payer, whatever you want to call it - is MUCH CHEAPER than corporate insurance. Why? No insane money drain to investors, CEOs, mass disinformation industry they call marketing, no conflict of interest between profits and quality health care. This is as clear as day and Wandel Potter goes through this item by item, you must have heard his arguments. He gives examples of countries doing just fine with public health care and I know he's right - I live in one of them. It's not all roses, but we can afford it just fine. Ok? It's affordable. It works in many countries and saves us a crapload in delayed treatment costs, overhead and tax havens. It's affordable. Is that begining to sink in? It works. Right here where I am. Last 50 years.

Now, on the subject of rewarding failure, no - it does not reward failure. People just take health care for granted and success is guaged on a totally different level. People don't have time to be sick if they want success. What it does is prevent a failed health industry based on corporate greed, which is what we see in the US today.

EXC wrote:

If a musician is guaranteed the same benefits and pay as a nurse. How exactly do we solve the nursing shortage? Why not just take up a profession you enjoy or take 6 months vaction every year in your fantasy world of equal benefits for all?

I work and study every waking hour and have had one vacation in the last 8 years. I am active in the local community and spend a significant part of my time and financial resources on people around me. Many people I know work their asses off, even though they have all the opportunities you talk about. Why? Because they are respected, looked up to, loved and seen as champions in their communities. So why don't they go off and enjoy themselves for a while? They do for a week or two, but quickly get bored, come back and go right back at it.

It's the same for the vast majority of the middle class, as long as success is not defined as self-worship. We are in danger of the public discourse moving that way and we have our skeletons in the closet, which is why we need the big and powerful USA to set the standard of not going that way. Unfortunately, that is not the wibe we get from you guys and this is why I am interested in how things are in US.

EXC wrote:

And where exactly was the Octomom's "responsibility for everyone around her"? Do just half the people have responsiblity and it OK for the other half to have none?

I don't know this Octomom, but I presume it is a mother of 8 siblings. Her responsibility is caring for the kids and bringing them up which is an exhaustingly tough job and very valuable to the society. She has tremendous responsibility. She has kids so I don't have to and I will gladly take responsibility for a part of upbringing of those kids. I don't feel like having kids at the moment, so helping her pays some of my debt to the community.

Now, moving on to people without responsibilities - no one has "no responsibility". Yes, it is ok for the "other half" to have LESS responsibility. I can tell you that all the people I help daily would much rather be doing what I am doing and this motivates them greatly to try harder. I see and hear it every time we talk, all I have to do is encourage their efforts in a concrete way.

EXC wrote:

If your're so fucking concerned about the poor, take up second job to give them your money. Take up a difficult profession like nursing to take care of them. No, you don't because you're real compasionate with other people's money. That's where you compassion ends, when it would require YOU to actually make a sacrifice and not someone else.

You have to understand I am not what the media like to call "bleeding heart" this or that. I was raised in a violent country to be a soldier and see the society from the trigger side of a gun barrel. Luckily that didn't go as planned, so now I fight a different kind of war. I spend quite a bit on strategic enforcement of democratic community, mostly independant media. Maybe 10% of my company revenue goes to this automatically, 5% tax deductable 5% my own pocket. Of course it could always be more and if I find something I think really packs a punch, I throw some attention that way. I have friends in the Danish Red Cross and a few smaller religious comunity institutions who regularily toss me local problems, like talking to a socially unadapted kid for a period of time or being in on financing some small effort that produces big results. Other than that I talk to you. I also pay 60% taxes, so it's not just other people's money.

On the note that I want redistribution of wealth - not really. I have less interest in everyone doing well and am mostly just curious. I see it as evident that majority of powerful people are less curious and more powerhungry. This makes them my enemy by default, simply because they invest in unreasonable persuit of power, as seen from the perspective of someone who wants all this societal bullshit to be managed in some non-dramatical fashion, so that we can talk about flying to Mars. Instead even the space missions are made into profit and power chasing retardedness. People who want power have no business having power, which is why it may appear that I want redestribution of wealth. I really just want them to step the fuck down and the way to go about it seams to lead through watering down their financial and political influence. My narcissistic nature shapes my way about it, so instead of joining the Sandinistas with a gun in the mountains, I promote social cohesion and communal resistance to power-addicts.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:ZuS

ragdish wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Lastly, if this no-free-lunches is directed to the poor people who can not afford health care and that makes you feel good about yourself for differentiating on that level, you are a sad sad man.

Whoa!!! You're preaching to the choir!! I personally support a single payor system for all not unlike what is offered through the Veterans Administration. I mentioned nowhere in my post class distinction or superiority. If that is you're interpretation of what I said, then you are a sad sad man who cannot understand prose. You should seriously be mindful of who you're speaking to before hurling epithets. I see this a lot nowadays on RRS particularly among those on the left whose minds are so constipated by emotions that they trash those who support them.

All I said was a historical truth that Americans are resistant to taxation to support a universal health plan. My Joe Sixpack refers to every single American and not just the man living on skid row. You can accordingly destroy my argument and I would humbly say "I'm wrong". But don't assume what's in my conscience on this matter.

Well, then you should be aware of the distortion of reality you get from the discussion framing corporate effort. "Joe Sixpack" does not exist and is a product of colorful CNN/FOX/NBC/CBS factory of feelings of helplessness, trying to appeal to our cynical pragmatist defense mechanism. Thousands of people organizing, protesting and creating problems for the leadership on all levels because their life is or could soon be hanging by the thread, those people are real.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:How do we pay for

ZuS wrote:

How do we pay for it? The answer is simple - public option, public health care, single payer, whatever you want to call it - is MUCH CHEAPER than corporate insurance. Why? No insane money drain to investors, CEOs, mass disinformation industry they call marketing, no conflict of interest between profits and quality health care.

OK, but why wouldn't a voluntary non-profit have the same function as government run? Why can't people that feel as you do start this non-profit? Why must participation be mandatory?

I might support a voluntary health insurance program run by the government. Something a kin to the post office where it's revenues must be greater than expenditures, and companies like FedEx are allow to compete against it. The problem is it will run a deficit(like Medicaid) and they will have to tap into the general fund which is already at 1Trillion per year.

Can you just change single payer so that only the people that want it and use it pay for it all?

ZuS wrote:

Now, on the subject of rewarding failure, no - it does not reward failure.

I could be the laziest person on earth. Never change my whole life and I still get great health insurance. What's my incentive to change?

ZuS wrote:

I work and study every waking hour and have had one vacation in the last 8 years. I am active in the local community and spend a significant part of my time and financial resources on people around me. 

Great so you're responsible, what guarantee do we have that everyone else that receives government benefits will be?

ZuS wrote:

I don't know this Octomom, but I presume it is a mother of 8 siblings. Her responsibility is caring for the kids and bringing them up which is an exhaustingly tough job and very valuable to the society. She has tremendous responsibility. She has kids so I don't have to and I will gladly take responsibility for a part of upbringing of those kids. I don't feel like having kids at the moment, so helping her pays some of my debt to the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

So her responsibility wasn't to stop having babies after she already had 6 and was on public assistance?

ZuS wrote:

I promote social cohesion and communal resistance to power-addicts.

Social cohesion must be based on fair and largely voluntary social contracts. If your putting a gun to people head to pay for some else's health insurance and to pay for their irresponsible behavior, how is that promoting social harmony. It just promotes class warfare and hurts the economy.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ZuS wrote:How do

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

How do we pay for it? The answer is simple - public option, public health care, single payer, whatever you want to call it - is MUCH CHEAPER than corporate insurance. Why? No insane money drain to investors, CEOs, mass disinformation industry they call marketing, no conflict of interest between profits and quality health care.

OK, but why wouldn't a voluntary non-profit have the same function as government run?

First: Financing. No investor will finance a service, they finance only corporate ventures that increase their own wealth. No investor will agree to have 100% of the investment and profit go to health services. There actually are non-profits doing their own thing, but they don't get financing enough to cover any significant amount of people.

Second: Investor interest is tied in with other big industry interests. They are not going to empower the working class with a stable health care option that will make them less petrified when it comes to losing their job. They will and do fight tooth and nail against any meaningful stable health care option.

EXC wrote:

Why can't people that feel as you do start this non-profit? Why must participation be mandatory?

People do, but it's like having your own fire department - it's just not efficient on it's own. It needs the national network for standardisation, training, equipment and quality control. Compliance with government regulation and financing is also much harder if you don't have an army of lawyers and lobbyists that cut deals and obtain subsidies for you. I must stress again - you should not see health insurance as an industry - there is no profit in providing health care. It's a service. The only way it can be a profit industry is if you provide next to no service, which is what is happening right now in the US. It's not a business, it's society trying to cope with illness, crime, fire and flood. Once these things are for-profit, we are getting less out than we put in and it leads to true disasters and destruction of community.

It's not that you must participate, it's that quality health care should available and affordable for all, even if your income allows no room for such 'luxury'. Ask Cheney, the man is alive because he has federal health coverage. If he had to wait for some insurance worker to approve his bypas, Dick might have been dead now. So we save public health care for darth vader, nothing for the public.

Benefits from public health care are too many to number. One of them is that people are generally just less afraid of life, not as cynical and participate in societal decision making more readily. A more important one is that people don't have to worry about additional bills while you are not working because you are taking care of a sick child. The number 1 reason for family bankrupcy in US are medical bills. These people are NOT iresponsible, they just can't keep up at a time of intense prolongued illness because of medical bills, regardless of their insurrance - the best coverage just dissapears as soon as the insurance company deems them to be not profitable customers. The impact on the core family from this is unimaginable and the cost to the society is worse than anything you can calculate.

EXC wrote:

I might support a voluntary health insurance program run by the government. Something a kin to the post office where it's revenues must be greater than expenditures, and companies like FedEx are allow to compete against it. The problem is it will run a deficit(like Medicaid) and they will have to tap into the general fund which is already at 1Trillion per year.

Can you just change single payer so that only the people that want it and use it pay for it all?

All kinds of half-breeds are possible, we are still running a small specialised private health hospital corpse. The point is really that you should be able to get same treatment only medical questions asked, even if everyone in the family lost work and you are basically on food stamps. This makes for a healthier, more flexible and much more optimistic population and helps to keep families together and working for a better tomorrow.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Now, on the subject of rewarding failure, no - it does not reward failure.

I could be the laziest person on earth. Never change my whole life and I still get great health insurance. What's my incentive to change?

What's my incentive not to be the laziest person on earth? I want that girl that likes a hard working man with a purpose. I want respect from my peers. I want access to high quality research equipment and expensive tools. I want more options. I want to leave a mark on the world. I want to be entertained with meaningful endavours that I can look back upon once I am 80 yars old with satisfaction. Take your pick, or better yet, take all of them.

In Denmark if you do nothing at all, you will not die of hunger and you will always see a good doctor. You will live a sad life. Nobody wants a sad life.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

I work and study every waking hour and have had one vacation in the last 8 years. I am active in the local community and spend a significant part of my time and financial resources on people around me. 

Great so you're responsible, what guarantee do we have that everyone else that receives government benefits will be?

NONE Smiling but it's highly unlikely, as I pointed out above. However, you have my guarantee that the health insurance lobby will not enact insane policies by purchasing politicians Eye-wink

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

I don't know this Octomom, but I presume it is a mother of 8 siblings. Her responsibility is caring for the kids and bringing them up which is an exhaustingly tough job and very valuable to the society. She has tremendous responsibility. She has kids so I don't have to and I will gladly take responsibility for a part of upbringing of those kids. I don't feel like having kids at the moment, so helping her pays some of my debt to the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadya_Suleman

So her responsibility wasn't to stop having babies after she already had 6 and was on public assistance?

Dude, bringing kids up is a job. I don't know when in hell did our society go to this inhuman and anti-female position that bringing humans up is not worth resources. Those kids are not her kids, they are our kids. In 20 years time their generation will be working for us and to secure our pensions. Depending on what we put in their heads, they can change the world for better or blow it up. I vote for the former. What's the matter with you? She has many kids, so she needs more pay and those kids need to know that the society is here to help. That's ok.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

I promote social cohesion and communal resistance to power-addicts.

Social cohesion must be based on fair and largely voluntary social contracts. If your putting a gun to people head to pay for some else's health insurance and to pay for their irresponsible behavior, how is that promoting social harmony. It just promotes class warfare and hurts the economy.

In Denmark there is still a small amount of consideration that businesses take towards society, but the most important is the political power that private interest does NOT have. We have to assert political influence in US, the difference between public opinion and policies supported and enacted by corporate politicians is just insane.

As to making everyone comfortable with solutions, well, this is a cultural issue. I certainly know many business owners who would much rather keep all the money and not contribute to anything but their yachts and expensive cars. The crucial thing here is not to allow separation of classes to such a degree that the rich & powerful never have to face the effects of their actions and that they daily have to live with the social consequences of their actions. In the US the classes are at all times separated by both space and security installations. This is going to be tough to beat, but is no reason to fight it any less.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:First: Financing.

ZuS wrote:

First: Financing. No investor will finance a service, they finance only corporate ventures that increase their own wealth. No investor will agree to have 100% of the investment and profit go to health services. There actually are non-profits doing their own thing, but they don't get financing enough to cover any significant amount of people.

Second: Investor interest is tied in with other big industry interests. They are not going to empower the working class with a stable health care option that will make them less petrified when it comes to losing their job. They will and do fight tooth and nail against any meaningful stable health care option.

Well I disagree, I think the non-profits don't succeed because they loose more money than they take in and most people find they get a better deal with companies like CIGNA.

ZuS wrote:

People do, but it's like having your own fire department - it's just not efficient on it's own. It needs the national network for standardisation, training, equipment and quality control. Compliance with government regulation and financing is also much harder if you don't have an army of lawyers and lobbyists that cut deals and obtain subsidies for you. I must stress again - you should not see health insurance as an industry - there is no profit in providing health care.

 

You still don't explain why this must be mandatory and not voluntary. If this is so much better, why wouldn't people voluntarily submit to it? This is all a red herring. Your real agenda is to get the rich to pay for the health care of the poor.

ZuS wrote:

It's a service. The only way it can be a profit industry is if you provide next to no service, which is what is happening right now in the US.

 

So is your grocery store, your hair cutter, your mechanic, your automobile insurance. If you don't like their price and service find someone else. That's freedom.

ZuS wrote:

What's my incentive not to be the laziest person on earth? I want that girl that likes a hard working man with a purpose.  

If your a hardworking doctor, engineer or computer programmer in Denmark, you get taxed at like 60%. If you're a musician that just does gigs a couple nights a week or paints whenever you feel like it, you pay almost no taxes and you get the same benefits as everyone else. Given that chicks dig musicians and artists, what should I do in Denmark? With that kind of progressive tax rate, my lifestyle is pretty much the same no matter what I do or how much I work.

ZuS wrote:

 In Denmark if you do nothing at all, you will not die of hunger and you will always see a good doctor. You will live a sad life. Nobody wants a sad life.

If I was a hardworking professional in Denmark, I would just be taxed to death to pay for others to pursue their passions like music, art and making babies they can't take care of themselves.

ZuS wrote:

Dude, bringing kids up is a job. I don't know when in hell did our society go to this inhuman and anti-female position that bringing humans up is not worth resources. Those kids are not her kids, they are our kids. 

She didn't get any of my sperm! Why is having babies so sacred to you? Isn't overpopulation the real cause of environment problems, war, poverty, etc..?

ZuS wrote:

In 20 years time their generation will be working for us and to secure our pensions. 

Just like their mom did. California is too broke to pay for education now because of women like her.

ZuS wrote:

Depending on what we put in their heads, they can change the world for better or blow it up. I vote for the former. What's the matter with you? She has many kids, so she needs more pay and those kids need to know that the society is here to help. That's ok.

So her hobby is making babies with anonymous sperm donors. Great, why can't society pay for me to pursue my hobbies?

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Well I disagree, I

EXC wrote:

Well I disagree, I think the non-profits don't succeed because they loose more money than they take in and most people find they get a better deal with companies like CIGNA.

Didn't we start off with watching an interview in which an experienced CIGNA professional basically comes out and tells that CIGNA is not in the business of providing care, but earning profits by denying care? People don't get a better deal with CIGNA, they get shafted. NO - the market DOES NOT work, because the customer is DISINFORMED. CIGNA will NOT be pushed out of the market, even though they provide terrible insurance, because they provide efficient propaganda of scare tactics on many levels and exercise big-money lobbying on a grand scale.

Can you understand that intellectually? Market forces as learned in your economics class DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. Lobbying and propaganda are much more powerful than customer dissatisfaction, especially when it comes to services in which you can not learn from your mistakes - you get sick in the US, you might well end up on the street and out of insurance forever, or simply in permanent debt. Add to this an army of lawyers that will bancrupt even the wealthiest people trying to challenge the industry in court, and you have little to no way out of the private monopoly.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

People do, but it's like having your own fire department - it's just not efficient on it's own. It needs the national network for standardisation, training, equipment and quality control. Compliance with government regulation and financing is also much harder if you don't have an army of lawyers and lobbyists that cut deals and obtain subsidies for you. I must stress again - you should not see health insurance as an industry - there is no profit in providing health care.

 

You still don't explain why this must be mandatory and not voluntary. If this is so much better, why wouldn't people voluntarily submit to it? This is all a red herring. Your real agenda is to get the rich to pay for the health care of the poor.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

That you disagree with most Americans would normally be to your credit, but that you disagree with most medical professionals and agree with most of the Senate, Congres and CIGNA leadership is deeply troubling. Browse the links a bit, let the significance of these numbers sink in.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

It's a service. The only way it can be a profit industry is if you provide next to no service, which is what is happening right now in the US.

So is your grocery store, your hair cutter, your mechanic, your automobile insurance. If you don't like their price and service find someone else. That's freedom.

No, that's idiocy. If you buy rotten food in a store, you return it and get your money back. If they deny you the money, you get angry and go to another store. If you get cancer and are denied health coverage even though you are insured, you die. I don't understand how you can even begin to make health care vs. milk analogies. You haven't thought this through at all.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

What's my incentive not to be the laziest person on earth? I want that girl that likes a hard working man with a purpose.  

If your a hardworking doctor, engineer or computer programmer in Denmark, you get taxed at like 60%. If you're a musician that just does gigs a couple nights a week or paints whenever you feel like it, you pay almost no taxes and you get the same benefits as everyone else. Given that chicks dig musicians and artists, what should I do in Denmark? With that kind of progressive tax rate, my lifestyle is pretty much the same no matter what I do or how much I work.

Artists pay the same taxes as everyone else, what are you talking about? Being an artist in Denmark is hard work, there is massive competition and it's not eazy to make a living at all. My brother just mastered from the Copenhagen Arts Academy with flying collors and a hefty money award for the work of the year 2009, and I am still helping him financially, because there really is no work for him in the "market model". At the same time his work is essential for the community, because he brings images we usually don't get to see and makes them front and center - lonelyness in a home for elderly, images of mass graves across the world, he travels and invests himself, so that people can see the results of their actions and choices.

I know what you are considering to be artists and you are wrong. Britney Spears, 50-cent and R.Kelly are not artists, but corporate propaganda. Here's an explanation from someone who seams to be an actual artist: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=da&q=pop+song&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=mZNsSse9BqCemwPUgsDXCQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4#

You can be sure to find real artists in the gutter of each society - there isn't much money in fighting moneyed interest.

By the way, normal people get taxed around 40-50%, depending on how well off they are. I get taxed 60% for the most part of my earnings because I make considerably more than any professional. Also, any working person in Denmark receives far more than a person doing the same job in the US, even though they earn about the same for their employer.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

 In Denmark if you do nothing at all, you will not die of hunger and you will always see a good doctor. You will live a sad life. Nobody wants a sad life.

If I was a hardworking professional in Denmark, I would just be taxed to death to pay for others to pursue their passions like music, art and making babies they can't take care of themselves.

Like I mentioned before, art is more than music and is essential for balance in society - we need to see what we are doing form the perspective of our victims and real artists provide this for us. We don't want to see it and we will pay not to see it, which makes real artists a pain in the ass, but that is just the point. No place for real artists in your market model, my friend. You think Picasso would have been popular for making Guernica in Franco's regime? Here's a quote: "In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death". Inceidentaly, this caste he talks about includes all the Spanish corporate leaders and the Spanish industry in general. More likely he would be strung up, just like any artist in our modern society that goes against the corporate and power-hungry tide is strung up in various ways.

And about your objection to people having babies - I have already said that it's one of the most valuable jobs there are: procreation and upbringing of our next generation. If you envy them so much, start making babies. Or become an artist. Or just follow whatever "passion" you have. But stop denying people their worth on grounds that their activity is "not profitable". The least "market model profitable" activity is often the most beneficial for the society, and the most "market model profitable" activity is usually ridiculously detrimental. This is really not surprising if you think about it, because robbery in broad daylight is a very profitable activity, unless there are enforced rules against it. This is also why the corporate sector does not like enforcable rules or enforcement of rules in general that much. They just phrase it differently - free market, free trade, deregulation etc.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Dude, bringing kids up is a job. I don't know when in hell did our society go to this inhuman and anti-female position that bringing humans up is not worth resources. Those kids are not her kids, they are our kids. 

She didn't get any of my sperm! Why is having babies so sacred to you? Isn't overpopulation the real cause of environment problems, war, poverty, etc..?

The babies are like 99.99999% your DNA - they are human. It's not your sperm, but they are closer to your kin than anything in the universe.

No - overpopulation is not as big an issue as the gap between public opinion and power policy. Power policy has one purpose - acquisition and maintenance of power, regardless of consequences. Corporate interest follows this in lock step, because their definition of profit is naturally attached to power. Read "Power: A New Social Analysis" by Bertrand Russel.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

In 20 years time their generation will be working for us and to secure our pensions. 

Just like their mom did. California is too broke to pay for education now because of women like her.

Huffington Post, July 26th 2009: "A Senate report estimated in 2008 that the United States loses up to $100 billion a year in tax revenue to offshore tax havens (PDF). ... U.S. Public Interest Research Group offers a state-by-state breakdown of the cost to taxpayers of tax revenue lost to "shell companies and sham headquarters" in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands."

The complete report by U.S. Public Interest Research Group: http://www.uspirg.org/uploads/jv/lm/jvlmB2IEyrOWuei2w7dEBQ/taxshellgamefinalreport_national.pdf

The mentioned state-by-state breakdown in $ per year: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/taxes.html

As you can see in the list, the state of California loses some 11,5 billion dollars per year by conservative estimates to corporate tax evasion. This is plenty of resources for any imaginable education, public health care option, hell maybe even some money left over for homeless shelters and the industrial infrastructure.

And you blame a woman for this, because she is bringing up the next generation of American workers, fathers and mothers. I understand where you are coming from, the problem is that it's an imaginary place created by the tunnel-vision public discourse, pure propaganda.

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Depending on what we put in their heads, they can change the world for better or blow it up. I vote for the former. What's the matter with you? She has many kids, so she needs more pay and those kids need to know that the society is here to help. That's ok.

So her hobby is making babies with anonymous sperm donors. Great, why can't society pay for me to pursue my hobbies?

That's not her hobby, that is her 24/7/52 job. It's hard and demanding, although it has it's personal rewards. It is a job that needs to be done and if she's good at it, she should do more of it. Can you get that through your head?

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Can you understand

ZuS wrote:

Can you understand that intellectually? Market forces as learned in your economics class DO NOT WORK THAT WAY. Lobbying and propaganda are much more powerful than customer dissatisfaction, especially when it comes to services in which you can not learn from your mistakes - you get sick in the US, you might well end up on the street and out of insurance forever, or simply in permanent debt. Add to this an army of lawyers that will bancrupt even the wealthiest people trying to challenge the industry in court, and you have little to no way out of the private monopoly.

 

Basically you're saying the government is too corrupt and incompetent to regulate capitalism so let's let the government run everything. With the same competence that they regulate the market now they will run health care? So basically give the government more power for fucking up.

Can you understand in any way that a government bureaucrat and politician is no less self interested than a CEO? Why do you want government to be your nanny?

You keep implying that CIGNA is a criminal organization without listing any crimes they committed. What specific crime did they commit that has not been prosecuted?

Yes, and if one did a survey of how many people would like a free lunch or would like Santa to deliver free presents next Xmas, 99% of the people would say yes I want something for nothing. If you sent people the bill in the mail every month to pay for this unlimited health services, how many would send a check? That's the real question.

ZuS wrote:

CIGNA leadership is deeply troubling.

No one is putting a gun to your head to give money to them. If you think they suck you're free to ignore them. If I think government run health insurance sucks, I'm still force to pay for it.

ZuS wrote:

No, that's idiocy. If you buy rotten food in a store, you return it and get your money back. If they deny you the money, you get angry and go to another store. If you get cancer and are denied health coverage even though you are insured, you die. I don't understand how you can even begin to make health care vs. milk analogies. You haven't thought this through at all.

CIGNA did not commit fraud. You are making up lies. This CEO never said they committed fraud. It was written in their contracts exactly what they would provide. They did what the were obliged to do. If people don't like the fact they don't cover everything, find another company that will. They lived up to the terms of their contract.

If they committed insurance fraud you can file a class action suit today. And give the money to the victims if your so concerned about them getting screwed by CIGNA.

When you buy fruit in a store there is an implied contract what you will get. With insurance, they write it in the contract. Did any of these so-call 'victims' believe CIGNA would cover everything? Why did they believe that?

ZuS wrote:

Artists pay the same taxes as everyone else, what are you talking about? Being an artist in Denmark is hard work, there is massive competition and it's not eazy to make a living at all. 

Denmark has a highly progressive income tax. Only a few artists make a high income, most are 'starving artists'. So they don't pay hardly any income tax right? But if your a nurse that makes $150K a year, your tax rate is like 60% plus high sales taxes on luxury items. So your lifestyle ends up about the same. Except the artist gets to pursue what they love and have a lot less stress in their job. So Denmark will have labor shortages in the profession they need most.

ZuS wrote:

And about your objection to people having babies

Making shit up again. I object to people having babies they can't take care of themselves and expect everyone else to pitch in.

ZuS wrote:

Dude, bringing kids up is a job. I don't know when in hell did our society go to this inhuman and anti-female position that bringing humans up is not worth resources. Those kids are not her kids, they are our kids. 

Unfortunately making babies is not a job. A job is something you must do to survive, having babies is not a job because we have birth control. So no one has a baby because they must.

ZuS wrote:

And you blame a woman for this, because she is bringing up the next generation of American workers, fathers and mothers. I understand where you are coming from, the problem is that it's an imaginary place created by the tunnel-vision public discourse, pure propaganda.

Well last time I checked we have like 12% unemployment. So we don't need anymore workers. Like their father, an anonymous sperm donor that never has to pay a dime for his offspring?

So, only male CEOs are greedy. But women that pump out babies with men that have no responsibility are 'holy' to you. To you the womb is sacred and no woman can be greedy. Apparently on businessmen can be greedy.

ZuS wrote:

That's not her hobby, that is her 24/7/52 job. It's hard and demanding, although it has it's personal rewards. It is a job that needs to be done and if she's good at it, she should do more of it. Can you get that through your head?

She's not doing the job, neither is the sperm donor, the taxpayers are.

This is what she voluntarily decided to do. If I buy an expensive airplane as a hobby then no longer can afford the maintenance will anyone bail me out?

Can you do the math Zus? If her children have 14 kids with no job or spouse to support them, and this continues for generation after generation, how long before all governments are broke? How long before war, poverty and disease must inevitable control the population?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:....Nice way tho

EXC wrote:

....

Nice way tho chop up a post. You are answering bits and pieces, often taking things out of context. Let's see a few:

      a) you misrepresent my comment of the polls - I particularily commented on the majority of professional medical personel and their belief that single payer is far supperior to what US has now. I even say that being against popular opinion would normally be to your credit, how can you start answering a completely opposite claim? I also say that is is troubling that you are on the side of Congres, Senate and the insurance industry, you never answer that either. Way to go, Walter Lippmann the 2nd, if I ever need someone to completely kill an argument with irelevant babble, I will call you;

      b) that I suggested that CIGNA commited fraud is of course an outright lie, since I never said anything of the sort. Once you need the coverage, their job is to deny it in any way possible. This is the point that you do not answer. Of course, there are many people who directly and concretely accuse both CIGNA and other insurance companies of fraud in court and they are always faced with a team of lawyers who are there to do one thing and one thing only: convince the court to deny coverage, regardless of who is right. A lawsuit like that takes a while and costs money. And people die.;

      c) you deliberately ommit my comments and cling to minor issues, like completely ignoring the figure of 11,5 billion of state taxes whisked off to tax havens in the year 2008 from California alone and talking about how I am biased against "male CEOs". I am a male CEO, so that's going to be tough. I am biased against idiotic systems that sell lives of the many for profit of the few.

      d) a number of other misinterpretations and avoidance of facts are there, but I am too tired to list them here. Maybe if I was talking with someone who would present honest arguments back...

To add insult to injury, you state that companies "provide for what's in the contract and nothing more". That is a blatant admission of their functional inferiority to total universal coverage, which is demonstratively cheaper, faster, more cost-effective both in short and long run, healthier for the patient and not taking up precious space in the political arena. Did you just turn your brain off as you read and answered my last post? Maybe you are working for an insurance company and just can't bring yourself to open your eyes? Or am I missing some obscure motive for this brainfart?

Regardless, here's the a bit more from a republican who used to be in the Johnson administration, fresh from this Friday: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch.html

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:That's not her

ZuS wrote:

That's not her hobby, that is her 24/7/52 job. It's hard and demanding, although it has it's personal rewards. It is a job that needs to be done and if she's good at it, she should do more of it. Can you get that through your head?

Jobs are a contract between the employer and the employee. In this scenario, her salary for this "job" comes from the taxpayers. I don't remember hiring her.

People will procreate far more than necessary regardless of whether they receive handouts from the government, especially certain religious groups. Paying women that push out babies by the bucket is a waste of valuable resources. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Actually, you spent most of

Actually, you spent most of your time on this:

EXC wrote:

She's not doing the job, neither is the sperm donor, the taxpayers are.

This is what she voluntarily decided to do. If I buy an expensive airplane as a hobby then no longer can afford the maintenance will anyone bail me out?

Can you do the math Zus? If her children have 14 kids with no job or spouse to support them, and this continues for generation after generation, how long before all governments are broke? How long before war, poverty and disease must inevitable control the population?

US went to war in Iraq for power and profit, not because Octomom had another kid. While population might be a problem, it's nothing we can't deal with. The industrial military pharmaceutical insurance energy complex is creating problems none of our systems can deal with, especially because the rational decision making is taken out of the picture by the same power and profit interest.

I mean what is it? You just don't care that you live in a country governed by power and profit rather than democracy? You think it's ok for a company to just plow through as it sees fit? Are you seriously more concerned with a woman having 14 kids rather than the fact that power and profit vested interest will not allow public sphere to deal with any problem that arises, including overpopulation?

Maybe you are not at a stage where you can see your leadership for what they are. Maybe you still think you actually have a republic, some political leadership which is accountable to the public. Maybe you think that the insurance corporations are in the business of insuring people, rather than making profit. Maybe you think that propaganda is subject to the "economic model", rather than that the economic model is the child and invention of propaganda.

Whatever it is, you need to take a look around. Start by turning on some alternative media. Bill Moyers' Journal is excelent, which is why I post it so much. Same with DemocracyNow.org. Give it a go.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:ZuS

butterbattle wrote:

ZuS wrote:

That's not her hobby, that is her 24/7/52 job. It's hard and demanding, although it has it's personal rewards. It is a job that needs to be done and if she's good at it, she should do more of it. Can you get that through your head?

Jobs are a contract between the employer and the employee. In this scenario, her salary for this "job" comes from the taxpayers. I don't remember hiring her.

People will procreate far more than necessary regardless of whether they receive handouts from the government, especially certain religious groups. Paying women that push out babies by the bucket is a waste of valuable resources. 

While we are talking population, there is this issue of abortion. Choice is essential to single payer system in every country that has it and religious nutcases know this. Here is an opinion you might want to take into consideration when deciding on where you stand with single payer health care: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07242009/watch2.html

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:      b) that

ZuS wrote:

      b) that I suggested that CIGNA commited fraud is of course an outright lie, since I never said anything of the sort. Once you need the coverage, their job is to deny it in any way possible. This is the point that you do not answer. Of course, there are many people who directly and concretely accuse both CIGNA and other insurance companies of fraud in court and they are always faced with a team of lawyers who are there to do one thing and one thing only: convince the court to deny coverage, regardless of who is right. A lawsuit like that takes a while and costs money. And people die.;

There job is fulfill the terms of their contract. So if people can only afford to buy insurance that only partially covers their potential medical needs, why is that CIGNA's problem?

Is it the duty of a grocery store to meet all the food needs of the poor families that may shop there? If a poor family can only afford to buy $100 of food but they need $200 of food to make it through the week, is the grocery store obliged to give them the rest for free? The children may go hungry if they don't.

ZuS wrote:

      c) you deliberately ommit my comments and cling to minor issues, like completely ignoring the figure of 11,5 billion of state taxes whisked off to tax havens in the year 2008 from California alone and talking about how I am biased against "male CEOs". I am a male CEO, so that's going to be tough. I am biased against idiotic systems that sell lives of the many for profit of the few.

You ignore the fact that if they didn't have these tax havens, these businesses would stop altogether and lay off their employees adding to the ranks of the unemployed. The reason they can escape taxation is because the tax system is so irrational. It punishes success and encourages waist and fraud. User fees are the way to go. Income tax sucks.

      d) a number of other misinterpretations and avoidance of facts are there, but I am too tired to list them here. Maybe if I was talking with someone who would present honest arguments back...

ZuS wrote:

To add insult to injury, you state that companies "provide for what's in the contract and nothing more". That is a blatant admission of their functional inferiority to total universal coverage, which is demonstratively cheaper, faster, more cost-effective both in short and long run, healthier for the patient and not taking up precious space in the political arena.

It won't drive down cost because if you say you'll pay for everything a patient needs, the medical industry will invent and expensive cure for every disease.

There is one big problem with single payer universal. How to pay for it. It will have to come from continually increasing income and business taxes. This will kill so many businesses and jobs that this will eventually bankrupt society. We already can't pay for medicaid, and you basically want to expand this to 100% of the population. Insanity.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC ... you really need to

EXC

 

... you really need to live in Canada for a while...


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

EXC

 

... you really need to live in Canada for a while...

Well, they don't have a better job to offer me with lower taxes than I do now? Otherwise we'd see mass migrations to Canada. Which proves my point that socialism kills business. So find a good job with a good income after taxes and I'll move there. I'll even drink suck ass Molson.

People vote with their feet. I saw plenty of people coming to the USA from Canada to get a job, but I never met anyone moving to Canada because they found a better paying job there.

They only reason socialism partially works in Canada is because you have vast natural resources with a relatively low population. The export of lumber, minerals, metals, etc.. is what funds your socialism. How could a country like Haiti pay for every expensive medical procedure every citizen needs? When the natural resources of Canada run out, your country will go bankrupt.

When I look on the Internet for jobs, where are the listings for socialist paradises like Canada, Denmark and Cuba? I'll move there if they are such a paradise.

So I think you should live in Haiti for a while then tell us if you think goverment can pay for every medical procedure it's citizens need.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:People vote with

EXC wrote:

People vote with their feet. I saw plenty of people coming to the USA from Canada to get a job, but I never met anyone moving to Canada because they found a better paying job there.

Perhaps the reason you never met them, is because they already left and never looked back?

Come on, are you honestly trying to pass such irrelevent tripe off as an arguement, here?

 

I almost hate to just blow off everything you said, but its really not worth the time to explain it

So, all i shall do is type in small, neat, little obscure sentences... with possibly some mockery...

 

EXC, the amount of typing i would be forced to do, just to show you how big of an idiot you are, on a topic i dont even care for, is really mind boggling; Government analysis, Economic analysis, Their Compairative counter-parts, to name a few >.<

The sheer breadth of information i would have to cover just to prove how socialised medicine works, let alone "socialism" in general , its potential... is a stupidly huge undertaking that i am in no way motivated into doing...

uh, and dont even get me started on the "Human" factor... *shiver*

I mean, i'm quite happy to sit on the side lines and just chant "You fucking moron, you dont understand! AHAHAHA"

 

 

Think about this... Doomy is FOR socialised medicine... why the fuck would Doomy be for something that helps people? right? ... ya... think about it...

 

... No wait... bad example! i was just thinking aloud! oh god damn it >.<

What Would Kharn Do?


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:There job is

EXC wrote:

There job is fulfill the terms of their contract. So if people can only afford to buy insurance that only partially covers their potential medical needs, why is that CIGNA's problem?

It's not, that is our problem. The people who paid for insurance might not get coverage the coverage they are entitled to on the grounds of some completely unforeseen technicality, since they are not lawyers and even lawyers can't compete with CIGNA's ingenuity when it comes to denying coverage. These people are going to snowball into debt on top of their inability to work, which has been detrimental to the working class for decades in the US. That is our problem as a society.

EXC wrote:

Is it the duty of a grocery store to meet all the food needs of the poor families that may shop there? If a poor family can only afford to buy $100 of food but they need $200 of food to make it through the week, is the grocery store obliged to give them the rest for free? The children may go hungry if they don't.

Again - of course not. Corporations in general are autonomous tyranical systems with immense power in the US that have attained the rights undreamed by any single individual. They can literally ignore any and all plights of the society. We have no quarrel here, I just see them for what they are, while you walk around with your Thomas Friedman Bible in your hand.

The hungry are our problem as a society. If you don't think you have a responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry in a society that can afford 50 years of continuous war, you need to step up before I can respect your position.

EXC wrote:

You ignore the fact that if they didn't have these tax havens, these businesses would stop altogether and lay off their employees adding to the ranks of the unemployed. The reason they can escape taxation is because the tax system is so irrational. It punishes success and encourages waist and fraud. User fees are the way to go. Income tax sucks.

Do you hear your thoughts while writing those words? Corporations can basically destroy the country by simply laying people off. Sounds like if Saddam was born in the US, he would be a CEO.

EXC wrote:

It won't drive down cost because if you say you'll pay for everything a patient needs, the medical industry will invent and expensive cure for every disease.

Don't worry, the medical industry knows their only ticket is lobbying for the same thing the health insurance industry is - if the private inssurance goes, they will be the next targeted for outlandish prices and bullshit advertizing. Actually inlandish, because people often skip the border to buy their medicine in Canada these days - just cheaper and better regulated to keep the public healthy.

EXC wrote:

There is one big problem with single payer universal. How to pay for it.

Nope - it's 20-30% cheaper and delivers service, oh, about 100 times better - no middle man to delay everything and doctors decide treatment, drugs etc. Amazing isn't it? That professional doctors get to decide what the patient needs, instead of an office cleark in CIGNA who's yearly bonus depends on saying no?

EXC wrote:

It will have to come from continually increasing income and business taxes. This will kill so many businesses and jobs that this will eventually bankrupt society. We already can't pay for medicaid, and you basically want to expand this to 100% of the population. Insanity.

Not at all, it will just create level playing field for all those employers that are paying insane health care costs right now. It might give the auto industry another chance, keeping tens of thousands of jobs inside the USA. It would make the country healthier and take one worry off the list in an American home. It would push religious fanatics one step back and claim interest of the public for government policy. The only people out of a job would be the CEOs in the insurance companies and the lobbyists working for them, but somehow I am pretty sure they can manage. And if they can't, at least they are sure to always have adequate health coverage in time of need.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote:Nope - it's 20-30%

ZuS wrote:

Nope - it's 20-30% cheaper and delivers service, oh, about 100 times better - no middle man to delay everything and doctors decide treatment, drugs etc. Amazing isn't it? That professional doctors get to decide what the patient needs, instead of an office cleark in CIGNA who's yearly bonus depends on saying no?

The proof is in the pudding. If Canadians are all so happy with the current system, there is no reason not to make paying into it voluntary and letting people get private insurance or no insurance if they so choose. If the systems is so much superior, CIGNA would not be able to compete right? Who would buy there crappy insurance that cost %30 more?

The fact is it's just a form a welfare/wealth redistribution, you have to take funds from other parts of the economy instead of charging people insurance. The fact that the system is mandatory just proves this.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ZuS wrote:Nope -

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Nope - it's 20-30% cheaper and delivers service, oh, about 100 times better - no middle man to delay everything and doctors decide treatment, drugs etc. Amazing isn't it? That professional doctors get to decide what the patient needs, instead of an office cleark in CIGNA who's yearly bonus depends on saying no?

The proof is in the pudding. If Canadians are all so happy with the current system, there is no reason not to make paying into it voluntary and letting people get private insurance or no insurance if they so choose. If the systems is so much superior, CIGNA would not be able to compete right? Who would buy there crappy insurance that cost %30 more?

The fact is it's just a form a welfare/wealth redistribution, you have to take funds from other parts of the economy instead of charging people insurance. The fact that the system is mandatory just proves this.

The way it is now, you have to invest in things the industry wants, you have to elect people the industry will not shoot down with propaganda, you have to consider the CEOs to be an equal partner at the table when any kind of political decision is made. They are anti-democratic by their very nature and they can't help it. The real cost of corporate insurance to the society is unknowable and certainly much more than what we can see on the surface. Just the fact that they have the power to assault and break a whole administration on their own, all the while taking valuable time away from so many issues is bound to incur staggering cost to the tax payer. And they don't give a shit, not for a second.

But I think we might be able to see eye to eye on some level. I think that private industry should be able to compete with public health care and we can tolerate a small sector specialised in difficult or in other ways particularly burdenous procedures, so that the public health service is not under preassure - this could work. Of course, any political involvement on the part of these private players should be punishable with severe penalties. Especially no private industry contributions to politicians should be tolerated and their advertisement should be held to scrutiny for accuracy and political neutrality. If a private player in the market attacked or promoted some political policy in Denmark, the erosion of the democratic system would be imediate and profound, which is why it is illegal and seen as morally abhorrent by almost everyone.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ZuS wrote:Nope -

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

Nope - it's 20-30% cheaper and delivers service, oh, about 100 times better - no middle man to delay everything and doctors decide treatment, drugs etc. Amazing isn't it? That professional doctors get to decide what the patient needs, instead of an office cleark in CIGNA who's yearly bonus depends on saying no?

The proof is in the pudding. If Canadians are all so happy with the current system, there is no reason not to make paying into it voluntary and letting people get private insurance or no insurance if they so choose. If the systems is so much superior, CIGNA would not be able to compete right? Who would buy there crappy insurance that cost %30 more?

The fact is it's just a form a welfare/wealth redistribution, you have to take funds from other parts of the economy instead of charging people insurance. The fact that the system is mandatory just proves this.

Hmm ...not entirely sure why you bring in Canada.  First, health care isn't national.  What I mean is that it's not nationally administered.  Each province must abide by legislation (Canada Health Act) directing it to provide a standard, basic level of health care for all citizens that must be essentially equal in all provinces.  In Ontario, OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Programme) is collected via income tax.  It is simply factored by income in the annual taxation process.  In Alberta, however, the fee for their provincial health care was paid for separate from taxes until a change I am still investigating was enacted in January 2009.  I assume this means that the fees for the health service are collected via income tax now.

Anyhow, my point is that it doesn't make sense to talk about Canadians being happy with the current system, unless by that you mean the Canada Health Act.  I've never heard anyone bang on the Canada Health Act, since it really only makes it necessary for provinces to have similar basic health services.  Different provinces have different ways of administering their hospitals.  They budget differently.  They have different staffing problems.  There is very little room for comparison.  What you hear about 'Canadian' health care is usually actually Ontarian health care.  The problems in Ontario are practically unique to the province.  It has a lot to do with the population, the amount of health care professionals and the dismal way in which hospitals are run, not at the provincial level, but individually.

Quote:
Well, they don't have a better job to offer me with lower taxes than I do now? Otherwise we'd see mass migrations to Canada. Which proves my point that socialism kills business. So find a good job with a good income after taxes and I'll move there. I'll even drink suck ass Molson.
What has that got to do with anything?  That's not even valid.  Lower taxes do not equal incentive for mass migration.  Besides, I'm sure if you thought you could qualify for the Northern living allowance, you'd move here.  (It's an incentive to move North of a particular latitude.  You get paid living expenses, get a large bonus if you stay at least 3 years and get annual free flights in the country to leave the shit hole you'd be living in and rejoin civilization in the South.)

Quote:
People vote with their feet. I saw plenty of people coming to the USA from Canada to get a job, but I never met anyone moving to Canada because they found a better paying job there.
Umm ...to get what jobs, specifically?  If you mean health care jobs, most of the emigrants are leaving Ontario.  And it's not even that many highly qualified health care workers in the grand scheme of things.  They're not voting against the health care system (or at least, we don't know if they are).  They're moving where they think they can get better(?) employment or more money.  I don't know that health care professionals necessarily make more money in the states.  It's possible that the market is more competitive in certain places in the states.  Or there happen to be positions for their chosen specialty, what with larger populations to serve.  That has nothing to do with provincial health care though.  The hospitals and clinics are all private and health care professionals, according to the sunshine report in Ontario, make up a rather large amount of people earning over $100,000.

Quote:
They only reason socialism partially works in Canada is because you have vast natural resources with a relatively low population. The export of lumber, minerals, metals, etc.. is what funds your socialism. How could a country like Haiti pay for every expensive medical procedure every citizen needs? When the natural resources of Canada run out, your country will go bankrupt.
Yeah, but that's not what our social health care pays for and it's paid for by the people living in provinces.  It's not paid for nationally.

Quote:
When I look on the Internet for jobs, where are the listings for socialist paradises like Canada, Denmark and Cuba? I'll move there if they are such a paradise.
I don't think people claim Canada is a socialist paradise.  Have you ever even tried to find out what services are provided by provinces in their health care packages?  It's things like yearly teeth and eye exams for children uner 16.  It's some live saving and necessary surgery.  It's for emergency health care.  It's for standard immuniations and immunizations to reduce public health risk.  It's surgery for boken bones (but not necessarily the cost of x-rays or casts).  It's not for the room you stay in.  It's not for drugs.  It's (usually) not for ambulance service.  Honestly, you must have huge misconceptions about what provincial health care entails.  The service is meant to provide a stanard, basic level of health care to all citizens so that those with or without health care can at least get basic access to examinations and treatment for emergency health issues.

Quote:
So I think you should live in Haiti for a while then tell us if you think goverment can pay for every medical procedure it's citizens need.
And you should drop your inane misconceptions and do some bloody reading.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:When I look on the

EXC wrote:

When I look on the Internet for jobs, where are the listings for socialist paradises like Canada, Denmark and Cuba? I'll move there if they are such a paradise.

Denmark here, we have just around 2% unemployement, econoimic crysis and all.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
There has been a great deal

There has been a great deal of public anger here in the UK recently about how right wing American media has portrayed our National Health Service (NHS). Speak to most Britons and they are usually quite proud of the NHS. In fact, I would go as far to say that it was our crowning acheivement of the 20th century. If we get ill, then we can count on the NHS to treat us in most cases, and more often than not it won't cost us a penny. Of course, it's not perfect, but it works, and it works regardless of how much money you earn. I am personally outraged by the misrepresentation of the NHS in the media. One woman who appeared on an anti-health-reform advert in the US talking about her negative NHS experience (which there are always going to be in any system) said she felt duped by the group responsible, and that her words had been taken out of context. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8200817.stm )

I guess we also take a different view on taxation. In Britain we get good quality public services provided by the state. We don't mind being taxed, it is our contribution to the running costs of these public services. Where there is money being squandered we are usually very critical. For example, the recent MPs expenses scandal has really damaged the reputation of Parliament as the public has called for greater regulation and transparency on the money spent on the runnings of Parliament. We're certainly not going to hand over our money without questioning where it goes.

Even if the claims made in the right-wing media regarding the NHS weren't complete bullshit - Obama isn't proposing an American NHS, rather plans to make healthcare affordable to the 40 million people who can't afford it. As I understand a recent ammendment to the bill will allow non-profit insurance co-ops to provide the free/affordable healthcare. Of course, the system would require taxpayers' money to run, but certainly not the levels which we pay in the UK. Almost every government in the world has a budget for healthcare.

On another note, I think Obama needs to get this bill through. If corporate lobbyists get their way it could halt the progress he's making in other areas such as climate change.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote:I

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

I guess we also take a different view on taxation. In Britain we get good quality public services provided by the state. We don't mind being taxed,

Apparently, not everyone feels this way:

We’re fleeing high-tax Britain, say City tycoons

 

And didn't an Enlish band write the song 'Taxman'?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Poor, poor tycoons that will continue running their businesses and move to avoid paying personal taxes, dodging their contribution to society.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Poor, poor

ClockCat wrote:

Poor, poor tycoons that will continue running their businesses and move to avoid paying personal taxes, dodging their contribution to society.

 

Don't dis EXC, Cat. He is pointing out that tycoons are moving to other places where it is eazier to avoid taxes and that they are taking their honestly robbed capital with them. They know we all contributed to the wealth of the country, they just like to decide they deserve more because their job consists of deciding stuff - pretty obvious, no? They feel entitled to take a good chunk of our common wealth to other parts of the world, where it will not be used for silly things like health care and education. Also it is very important to destabilise any form of public service regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, simply because it can be done by a corporate entity for a profit. Is it more efficient? Of course it is, they have the market fantasy model to proove it. See when there is competition and this curve meets this other curve - they describe the intricate workings of the market while inserting and retracting their genitalia in and out of your ass.

I can understand how one can be worried that the state officials might be corrupt and a threat, but I can't understand how one can not be worried by the obvious and blatant corruption, abuse and subversion of national and international political systems by the huge corporate entities, who in recent years have taken over running 60% of US government, not even counting health care. Each one of them is a miniature tyranical dictatorship, one is foolish if one expects anything else but a disaster.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ZuS wrote: who in recent

ZuS wrote:

 who in recent years have taken over running 60% of US government, not even counting health care. Each one of them is a miniature tyranical dictatorship, one is foolish if one expects anything else but a disaster.

OK great so now we'll have socialized medicine in the USA. So all this means is that we'll all be forced to hand over all our income to the government who will then turn it over to the greedy capitalist pigs for us. At least before socialized medicine we had a choice about from which pigs to buy overpriced crappy medical services and insurance.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ZuS wrote:

 who in recent years have taken over running 60% of US government, not even counting health care. Each one of them is a miniature tyranical dictatorship, one is foolish if one expects anything else but a disaster.

OK great so now we'll have socialized medicine in the USA. So all this means is that we'll all be forced to hand over all our income to the government who will then turn it over to the greedy capitalist pigs for us. At least before socialized medicine we had a choice about from which pigs to buy overpriced crappy medical services and insurance.

 

 

I wonder if it is fun living in your delusional world.

 

 

Judging by your constant bitterness at a progressing society, I would imagine not.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I wonder if

ClockCat wrote:

I wonder if it is fun living in your delusional world.

Judging by your constant bitterness at a progressing society, I would imagine not.

 

And what's your delusional world? Medicaid isn't bankrupt so let's expand it to cover everyone.

The coming goverenment bankruptcy and mass inflation our present entitlement programs will cause is progress? So let's increase governement spending.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat wrote:I

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

I wonder if it is fun living in your delusional world.

Judging by your constant bitterness at a progressing society, I would imagine not.

 

And what's your delusional world? Medicaid isn't bankrupt so let's expand it to cover everyone.

The coming goverenment bankruptcy and mass inflation our present entitlement programs will cause is progress? So let's increase governement spending.

You might be right about insanity of this bill. The way the congress is stripping the bill and the way the administration is getting closer to handing over a huge amount of cash to the health industry for covering the whole nation, it's pretty close to insane. No country I know that has single payer system would dream of putting another 30% on top of the expenses, just so some lobbyists and corporate investors would be happy. And certainly none of them would dare introduce private sector incentivised to deny care and abuse citizens. So yea, you might be right that this bill is going to suck.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.