August 4, 2011 at 6:06 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
But then what happens if you get Cancer. Do you just die? What about the people who literally can't afford healthcare, do you just leave them to die.
My mother had the best healthcare you can have and she got cancer and died. So what was your point?
At least we have companies over here investing billions of dollars to find a cure for cancer because when they do, they will get their research funds back plus more for profit.
To make it even better, I get to select which doctor I want to take care of me. Some doctors charge more than others. Do I want a good one and pay extra or an inexperienced one to save money? Well, that's my decision to make and not the government's.
It's your decision if you have the money. If you're on Welfare, or in a low paid job, perhaps just starting out in your career, then it's not. You have to go with the cheapest. I think healthcare is too important for people to have to accept sub-quality care because they're not especially rich.
That's my point exactly. If I want the better things in life, I need to work for them. Why should the poor get the exact same care as someone that is rich (by the way, I'm not rich). I would expect someone like Bill Gates to get better healthcare than myself. Only makes sense, he has more money than I do.
Socialism works great on paper but fails in the real life because it requires each member of society to pull their own weight. Human nature is a funny thing. If you give them a service for free instead of requiring them to work, they will find a way to not work. In a capitalist market, those who work the hardest gain the most spoils. Removing the incentive for these hard workers to work, by redistributing their spoils, does nothing more than create mass poverty, it does not eliminate poverty.
I'm a libertarian so I don't even want to pay for our local fire department. Why should I have to pay for someone else's house that burns down (if I didn't have anything to do with that <smile>). I think if you call the fire department, you should have to pay for that service. We have farm subsidies over here to keep the price of basic staples low like bread. I'm allergic to gluten so I don't eat bread but my taxes still go toward the farmers to keep those prices low so other people can buy it cheaper. I believe if you want bread, you should pay whatever it will cost without my tax dollars affecting the pricing.
If you truly believe in Socialism, donate your money to your local charity to help the poor. Nothing is preventing you from doing that -- at least it's your choice. I don't want the government forcing me to donate to charity which is basically what socialism is doing. I need to take care of myself and my family first and one day, if I have money left over, I can elect to donate it to the less fortunate if I want.
August 4, 2011 at 6:32 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (8/3/2011)
GSquared (8/3/2011)
Government's role in human civilization is application of force. So, the moment it moves outside of defense against force, it turns into a problem, not a solution. Simple as that.
So what's defense of force? Do civil rights count or are we only looking at invasion by a foreign government?
I'm not sure I agree here that it's just force. I think government needs to provide a framework and "bumpers" against us getting too far in one direction. IMHO, unbridled capitalism is just as bad as socialism.
When the police protect you from being mugged/raped/murdered, then they are using force to defend you against force. That's an appropriate role for government. It's not limited to "foreign aggression" by recognized national governments.
When the government mandates that banks must give loans to high-risk home buyers, that's an inappropriate role for government. When the government tells you that you have to use environmentally and personally hazardous light-bulbs, that's an inappropriate role for government. When government protects Wall Street investors from their own avarice and stupidity by giving them guarantees and cash to cover obviously poor investments, that's inappropriate. When government spawns the world's most massive Ponzi scheme and uses it to garner votes, that's inappropriate government. The list goes on. All major political parties, and not just here in the US, are guilty of twisting the role of goverment to line their own pockets or to abuse power, or worse.
You want an effective bumper against unbridled capitalism? How about the right/ability to boycott companies that don't behave the way you want them to? How about unions to protect their employees against abuses? How about litigation to repair damages from harmful products/services? Do you really think people whose only real expertise is manipulating voters are the best judges and arbiters of, well, anything?
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 6:49 am
Freddie-304292 (8/3/2011)
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
GSquared (8/3/2011)
Government's role in human civilization is application of force. So, the moment it moves outside of defense against force, it turns into a problem, not a solution. Simple as that.Exactly right. Too much government control makes us into a socialist country. Socialism has been proven to fail by looking at countries like England and Canada. Since healthcare is provided to everyone, try go see a doctor when you get a heart attack and hope you get seen within their 3 hour limit. There's no incentive to be a doctor in those countries so you have a shortage.
Sorry, I'm not having that. Our NHS here in England is fantastic. Not only will you get seen instantly with a heart attack, but you don't get asked if you have insurance before you get treated.
My dad was saved by the NHS when he had his heart attack, and he gets all the pills he has to take now for free. I've read tales of people in the states too scared to go to the doctors when they're between jobs, because they won't be able to get insured if he discovers something that might count as a pre-existing condition. I really don't understand how any of you can think that's better.
Socialism hasn't been proven to fail in this country, thank you very much. What little we have of it works very well. And we don't have a shortage of Doctors here. It's a well paid position. Not only have we got plenty of our own, but doctors from throughout the world come here to practise at some of the most renowned hospitals in the world. We get a lot wrong here, but our healthcare is damn good if you ask me. It's something we're very proud of.
No, he does NOT get them for free. Everyone pays for them.
In single-payer health systems, the whole concept is that healthy people pay MUCH more for the few services they need, so that unhealthy people can ride their coat-tails. That's a well-recognized economic fact. It's purely a penalty for doing well, as with all of Socialism. Penalize the successful and healthy in order to subsidize the unsuccessful and unhealthy.
Why should other people pay for the fact that I'm obese and don't exercise enough? I make decisions that are quite likely to lead to my own premature death because of them, with regards to my lifestyle and diet. Why should someone else pay for my judgement? That's not fair to the rest of you, but it's what single-payer/Socialized medicine is all about.
I have no problem whatsoever with giving people a hand up to recover from the pitfalls of life. I have serious problems with people, including myself, getting a mandated hand out to cover our own poor judgement. Life is rough, and we do better as a team than as a conglomerate of individuals. We all benefit from helping each other out when the going gets rough. We all suffer from penalizing the successful by using the threat of deadly force to make them pay for the indigent. 30% of my after-tax income goes to charitable causes intended to help people overcome hardships and disasters. But that's by MY choice. I choose what causes I want to support that way. I choose how much, and how often, I donate. I can choose to not donate when I need it for situations in my own life.
When I'm taxed to pay for these things, it's at gunpoint, and I really, really dislike being compelled to donate for things I really cannot personally support. Because of taxes for these things, my money actually ends up supporting causes I see as harmful, destructive, even evil. I don't get to refuse to pay for those things, because the rest of the US has decided to hold a gun to my head and force me to support them.
I'm sorry if you don't see it that way. If you think holding a gun to my head to make me pay for your favorite charities is fair, equitable, just, righteous, needful, and desireable, there really isn't much I can do about that, except revile it publicly. And if you think the government needs to hold a gun to your head to make you pay for my self-induced future heart attack, that's also your choice, however idiotic I consider it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 6:51 am
That's my point exactly. If I want the better things in life, I need to work for them.
But it's not as simple as that. We all go through periods of having more or less money, and we need a safety net, especially for our health, for the times when we don't have money. Working hard is no guarantee of earning more money, as the millions currently being made redundant through no fault of their own will attest.
Why should the poor get the exact same care as someone that is rich (by the way, I'm not rich). I would expect someone like Bill Gates to get better healthcare than myself. Only makes sense, he has more money than I do.
You can buy more care then the NHS provides over here, but our basic tax funded health care is good enough that most people don't feel the need to. That's a real achievement.
Socialism works great on paper but fails in the real life because it requires each member of society to pull their own weight. Human nature is a funny thing. If you give them a service for free instead of requiring them to work, they will find a way to not work.
Again you're mixing socialism with communism. Socialism works side by side with capitalism. It provides a safety net for those who are out of work (at the moment our welfare safety net is too big, but that's another argument) through no fault of their own. Or those who are too sick to work. It's not a disincentive to work. Only your basics, health and education, are provided by the state, you still get all the other trappings of being rich through working. I wouldn't work if it didn't offer me the opportunity to get the good things in life, I totally agree with you on that point. People need an incentive to work harder or things don't get better. That's why communism fails where socialism works. You need that incentive in there.
The safety net can be good for the economy. It allows more people to take risks with their lives, start that business or whatever, which unbridled capitalism would deny them.
I'm a libertarian so I don't even want to pay for our local fire department. Why should I have to pay for someone else's house that burns down
There's no logical argument for that, it's just down to your attitude to life. The fire department stops your house burning down if the neighbours can't afford to pay to stop theirs. That's how it works.
I don't want the government forcing me to donate to charity which is basically what socialism is doing.
Again,down to attitude. I'm happy to pay for the essential services to be run by Government. I'm all for equality of opportunity. And I want the Government to look after the health of the nation. It's what I pay them for. Just a different way of looking at things.
To simplify, I would say, unbridled capitalism bad, Communism (which is pretty much unbridled socialism) bad, regulated capitalism with a hint of socialism good.
August 4, 2011 at 7:04 am
He's not mixing anything with anything. That's his point of view. Then end.
August 4, 2011 at 7:24 am
cengland0 (8/3/2011)
Ninja's_RGR'us (8/3/2011)
3 HOURS for hear attack? Where the heck did you get that info? 99.9999% of the time when there's an emergency like that you get treated immediatly. And P.S. you don't get stuck with the bill either way !You do get stuck with the bill. Your tax rate is much higher because you're paying for everybody's healthcare and not just your own.
The irony of this is that the US spends almost as much as a portion of GDP on Medicare and Medicaid as universal health care nations spend to cover everybody. And then there is a massive amount of private spending on top of it.
August 4, 2011 at 7:31 am
I just found the pay for Doctors in NHS (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553):
Doctors in training
In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,412. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £27,798. For a doctor in specialist training the basic starting salary is £29,705.
Specialty doctor and associate specialist (2008) (SAS doctors)
Doctors in the new specialty doctor grade earn between £36,807 and £70,126.
Consultants
Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £74,504 and £100,446 per year, dependent on length of service. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.
You have to be kidding me. The requirements for becoming a doctor in the U.S. vary somewhat by specialty. In general, doctors complete a 4-year undergraduate degree program, spend four years in medical school and then complete 3-7 years of residency training before they are eligible for licensing. (10 - 15 years of training). You think going through that much training is worth the amounts NHS pays? I think not!
In the US, a regular family doctor gets paid on average of $173,000/year (http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Family-Practice-salary.html). If you specialize, the sky is the limit on what you can earn.
August 4, 2011 at 7:42 am
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
I just found the pay for Doctors in NHS (http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553):Doctors in training
In the most junior hospital trainee post (Foundation Year 1) the basic starting salary is £22,412. This increases in Foundation Year 2 to £27,798. For a doctor in specialist training the basic starting salary is £29,705.
Specialty doctor and associate specialist (2008) (SAS doctors)
Doctors in the new specialty doctor grade earn between £36,807 and £70,126.
Consultants
Consultants can earn a basic salary of between £74,504 and £100,446 per year, dependent on length of service. Local and national clinical excellence awards may be awarded subject to meeting the necessary criteria.
You have to be kidding me. The requirements for becoming a doctor in the U.S. vary somewhat by specialty. In general, doctors complete a 4-year undergraduate degree program, spend four years in medical school and then complete 3-7 years of residency training before they are eligible for licensing. (10 - 15 years of training). You think going through that much training is worth the amounts NHS pays? I think not!
In the US, a regular family doctor gets paid on average of $173,000/year (http://www1.salary.com/Physician-Family-Practice-salary.html). If you specialize, the sky is the limit on what you can earn.
The word "basic" is important here. Many doctors and dentists do private work on the side; this boosts their earnings significantly. Also (although I don't have any links to prove this) I believe that salaries in the USA are higher in general than they are here in the UK. And, in general, we work shorter hours and get more holiday than you do. I'm not saying that all of that is right or wrong, just that it's not always easy to do a direct comparison.
John
August 4, 2011 at 7:51 am
Just out of interest, what do people pay for health insurance in the States?
August 4, 2011 at 8:02 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Just out of interest, what do people pay for health insurance in the States?
That depends on many factors.
Are you in a group or individual plan?
What do you want your deductible to be?
Does that include dental, vision, and drugs?
As for me, I pay $52.48 twice a month. Remember, that is an option. I could select better insurance if I want but this is sufficient for me. I've had major back surgery, an ambulance ride, and prescription pills and I pay very little out of pocket.
The company I work for wants to have healthy employees so they subsidize the insurance. I could have selected to work as a contractor and get paid more but not have this subsidy.
Working for a specific company is a two-way street. The company wants a good candidate and the potential employee wants good pay and benefits. I wanted these benefits so I accepted the companies offer. It was my choice and I could have gone elsewhere if I didn't like their offer. Perhaps I could have found a company that would offer to pay 100% of my insurance but would I have been happy with that job? Would they let me work from home?
August 4, 2011 at 8:18 am
It's hard to know what I spend on health personally, as it's part of my tax. I pay £1269 a month in taxes, including local property tax. I'm on £40,000 a year ($65,317). The average salary here is £30,583 ($49,929) so most people would pay less then that.
Don't know what the taxes, average salary, and public services are over there to make a comparison. I suspect it varies wildly from state to state. We are provided with private health care by the company I work for, at a cost of about £50 a year, which I've used once to get an insurance medical done sooner, but they've cut the funding so we have to pay a £250 excess, which isn't worth it, so I'll probably drop it next year. Insurance is only really offered as a benefit in certain sectors over here, as it's not really needed. Most people don't bother with it unless they're looking for stuff to spend their money on.
August 4, 2011 at 8:21 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Just out of interest, what do people pay for health insurance in the States?
$400/month is pretty usual for a medium-level plan. It varies a lot depending on where you live. Like everything else, it's more expensive in California or New York than in Kansas or Wyoming, for example, but $400/month is about average.
Some spend a lot more than that, some less. Many, it's part of their compensation package, so they don't pay it themselves, but it still has that cost.
If you spend another $50-100 per month on supplemental insurance, like Aflac, you get a lot of the normally out-of-pocket expenses covered. My wife's co-pays on her recent surgery were covered by her Aflac supplemental insurance, so we had no real out-of-pocket on them, when it came to net costs.
There are other options, like Medicare Supplemental Insurance, that can cover various things at various expenses.
We don't really have a lack of insurance available, it's more that politicians benefit from demogogery about it.
Oh, and on the idea that a heart attack patient going to an American emergency room can be turned away because of lack of insurance, that's just a straight-up lie. ERs are legally required to take in anyone who goes to them. They can bill you later, and that's where people with no insurance can run into problems, but they don't get turned away by the doctors. Rather, when they do, the doctor or the hospital is committing a crime and can be prosecuted and/or litigated against with pretty much guaranteed success. The people who claim patients without insurance are being turned away en mass, are lying to you and trying to manipulate you.
The ER mandated admission program causes its own problems. It's not uncommon for homeless people to go to an ER, mutter something about chest pains, and the hospital is then required to put them in a bed overnight and keep an eye on them, in case it's a heart attack. It's a standard way to get inside and in a bed during bad weather in many US cities. It's a big enough problem that some US hospitals are shutting down their ERs so they can avoid the costs associated with having to double as homeless shelters. San Francisco has a huge homelessness problem, mainly due to politicians blundering around, lost in the infinite vastness of their own ignorance, and this problem is very amplified there.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 4, 2011 at 8:26 am
cengland0 (8/4/2011)
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
Just out of interest, what do people pay for health insurance in the States?That depends on many factors.
Are you in a group or individual plan?
What do you want your deductible to be?
Does that include dental, vision, and drugs?
As for me, I pay $52.48 twice a month. Remember, that is an option. I could select better insurance if I want but this is sufficient for me. I've had major back surgery, an ambulance ride, and prescription pills and I pay very little out of pocket.
The company I work for wants to have healthy employees so they subsidize the insurance. I could have selected to work as a contractor and get paid more but not have this subsidy.
Working for a specific company is a two-way street. The company wants a good candidate and the potential employee wants good pay and benefits. I wanted these benefits so I accepted the companies offer. It was my choice and I could have gone elsewhere if I didn't like their offer. Perhaps I could have found a company that would offer to pay 100% of my insurance but would I have been happy with that job? Would they let me work from home?
I have to say - you must never have been sick. If you had been, no matter what your resources might be, you would know how screwed up our own system really is. There are a LOT of scenarios today where people in the US get hurt because we think that healthcare can work using the old economic model: unfortunately, healthcare is one of those scenarios where economics as is don't work. The adverse selection model means that those who need the most can't get it (because it will NEVER make economic sense to cover them because the health provider won't recoup the money). You might want to work, but there are times (outside of your control) where you won't be able to: when that happens, you'll be on your own with NO safety net.
I am a firm believer in free enterprise and the economic principle: I did however read past the "invisible hand" principle to also see where the economic principles fail or don't work. And no - the government is NOT just about being a military or policy force: it also provides services for the public good. So we can choose to be those who would let people die on the street because it makes no economic sense to take care of them, or we can choose to figure out the hard questions: what CAN we provide, and what's the fairest way to provide it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
August 4, 2011 at 8:32 am
Freddie-304292 (8/4/2011)
At least right now, I can decide for myself (instead of the government making the decisions for me) where I want to spend my money. If I want healthcare, I can either pay the doctor directly or I can get health insurance. If I don't want healthcare, I don't have to pay for it and keep the extra money for something else I might want instead.
But then what happens if you get Cancer. Do you just die? What about the people who literally can't afford healthcare, do you just leave them to die.
This micro-management of people's lives is illustrative of the socialist (aka liberal) mindset. They are just not happy unless they are monitoring and/or controlling every single decision a person might make. They seem to obsess over the thought that someone may actually prefer something different than they do, or that one person might have different values and goals in life.
But worst of all it is the belief that if they simply surrender their freedom's over to government they will have some amount of security... or at least they are told they will have that. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "Those willing to give up their freedoms for the promise of security deserve neither".
This manner of personal freedom is concept not really understood by so many people. It is as if they have failed to learn the lessons of history even when confronted directly with the facts. Personally, I believe liberalism to be a mental disorder for it cannot be explained in any other rational way.
The probability of survival is inversely proportional to the angle of arrival.
August 4, 2011 at 8:35 am
Hard to say for definite, but it sounds like I'm paying about the same as someone in the states for my health care, and I'm covered if something were to happen to me if I lost my job and can't afford to pay anymore. I definitely prefer our system.
What do people do over there if they're out of work and throw their back out, or develop a serious illness? What happens if you have to leave your job because you fall ill?
Viewing 15 posts - 166 through 180 (of 238 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply