Greater Equality: How Equality Effectively Determines a Nation's Social Aspects
- Thread starter Zimmerman
- Start date
So here's the issue with that article, it misrepresents how democratic socialism works. For instance, in Canada. My Mother is on the sunshine list(makes over 100,000 dollars a year and works for the govenrment). SHE PAYS 44,000 DOLLARS A YEAR IN TAXES. With 25,000 of that going towards PUBLIC FUCKING HEALTHCARE.Yes, that's right. My mother pays 25,000 dollars a year towards healthcare so she can wait for 8 hrs in an emergency room and wait 10 months for an MRI. It doesn't work well, in fact it really doesn't work at all. Holland's taxes are much higher than that, that article is a misrepresentation.
Socialism makes citizens be charitable towards others without any choice. You are being MADE to pay for others, and in my mothers case they are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. There's plenty of people I went to highschool with that are perfectly content to graduate and start collecting welfare(playing for Team Canada, as we call it).
Please tell me how anything more fair than me keeping what I make, and you keeping what you make. That seems reasonable, no? Then tell me how is it fair that an outside source determine how much of what I make, you get to keep.
“If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reasons also reject every kind of government action"
Socialism makes citizens be charitable towards others without any choice. You are being MADE to pay for others, and in my mothers case they are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. There's plenty of people I went to highschool with that are perfectly content to graduate and start collecting welfare(playing for Team Canada, as we call it).
Please tell me how anything more fair than me keeping what I make, and you keeping what you make. That seems reasonable, no? Then tell me how is it fair that an outside source determine how much of what I make, you get to keep.
“If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reasons also reject every kind of government action"
Why's that? There's public healthcare, severely subsidized post-secondary education, extensive welfare.
Dude, if my mom had an insurance plan, lets say she pays 6,000 dollars a year for it? Well that's still a lot less than the 25,000 she pays now..for inferior care.
Do some research man, socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Dude, if my mom had an insurance plan, lets say she pays 6,000 dollars a year for it? Well that's still a lot less than the 25,000 she pays now..for inferior care.
Do some research man, socialism isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Zimmerman
Active member
Canada is a shitty example for several reasons. Their healthcare system is not very good, but is still ranked one better than the US is.
What happens when you need an expensive surgery? What if your grandma had HIV and needed a drug cocktail? What is your grandma couldn't afford healthcare on her own?
What happens when you need an expensive surgery? What if your grandma had HIV and needed a drug cocktail? What is your grandma couldn't afford healthcare on her own?
Zimmerman
Active member
The last two questions:
HIV patients generally need a "drug cocktail" which can cost many thousands of dollars per year. The rest is self explanatory.
If your grandma couldn't afford healthcare in a country without single payer healthcare she'd be fucked.
The rest is self explanatory.
Would you rather only those who could afford it be healthy? Is a rich cancer patient any different from a poor one?
Healthcare should not be looked at as a business, something to be profited from. It needs to be looked at as a necessity everyone needs and is entitled to.
HIV patients generally need a "drug cocktail" which can cost many thousands of dollars per year. The rest is self explanatory.
If your grandma couldn't afford healthcare in a country without single payer healthcare she'd be fucked.
The rest is self explanatory.
Would you rather only those who could afford it be healthy? Is a rich cancer patient any different from a poor one?
Healthcare should not be looked at as a business, something to be profited from. It needs to be looked at as a necessity everyone needs and is entitled to.
Abu_Hajaar
Active member
As much as I wished this worked it does not. People are naturally self centered and out to make it for themselves thus by taking away the chance to make a profit you also lose a lot of incentive to make advancements in the healthcare field. I do think everyone should have access to good and affordable healthcare but sucking the capitalism out of it doesn't solve the problem either.
Well, if that happened to my grandma I'd have to say sucks to be her. Seriously though, PRIVATE RUN CHARITY PROGRAMS can help people in situations like that. Programs that are much more effective and efficient than the public option.
Profit motivates innovation, as Barack Oganja stated. My Dad broke his neck in Utah on new years day. The care he received at park city medical center was FAR superior to anything he'd receive in Canada. Simply because he was paying for it.
Profit motivates innovation, as Barack Oganja stated. My Dad broke his neck in Utah on new years day. The care he received at park city medical center was FAR superior to anything he'd receive in Canada. Simply because he was paying for it.
theater.thug
Member
No...
Zimmerman
Active member
Is what you've been told your whole life. Money wise, single payer costs everyone less money. That is a fact.
Healthcare is a right. How could it not be in a country where you have the right to life? So you're saying a trust fund kid deserves better care, but if you got laid off and can't afford healthcare you need, tough shit? I cannot for the life of me understand that.
Healthcare is a right. How could it not be in a country where you have the right to life? So you're saying a trust fund kid deserves better care, but if you got laid off and can't afford healthcare you need, tough shit? I cannot for the life of me understand that.
Alright nigga, u talkin bout facts. Post em. You wanna win this argument then post credible sources comparing single payer with a privatized system.
I feel like this quote by Armstrong Williams is appropriate "Let’s pretend the government does give you a new right, a right to health care. What will that mean in practice? That means that they will have to force someone to act against their will to provide for your care. The government cannot make new doctors appear out of thin air—in fact, Obamacare appears to be causing just the opposite effect—and it cannot make things cost less than they do. Price controls do not work: my saying that a Rolls Royce costs five dollars doesn’t make it so. The laws of supply and demand don’t need to play well in the swing states; they will rule whether we like it or not."
The private sector will always lead innovation my son. I suggest reading more.
I feel like this quote by Armstrong Williams is appropriate "Let’s pretend the government does give you a new right, a right to health care. What will that mean in practice? That means that they will have to force someone to act against their will to provide for your care. The government cannot make new doctors appear out of thin air—in fact, Obamacare appears to be causing just the opposite effect—and it cannot make things cost less than they do. Price controls do not work: my saying that a Rolls Royce costs five dollars doesn’t make it so. The laws of supply and demand don’t need to play well in the swing states; they will rule whether we like it or not."
The private sector will always lead innovation my son. I suggest reading more.
Zimmerman
Active member
Congressional Budget Office
“If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at
Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be
covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In
fact, all US residents might be covered by
health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even
somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower
payment rates for services used by the privately insured."
Congressional Budget Office
“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people
would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in
taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would
decrease by $910 per capita.
The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have
$144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer
payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita"
I'm sure I could find plenty more, and even stronger sources. Americans are the most dissatisfied of any industrialized country with their healthcare. That is fact (UCBoulder).
A single-payer system not only covers everyone, it lowers the overhead cost.
“If the nation adopted…[a] single-payer system that paid providers at
Medicare’s rates, the population that is currently uninsured could be
covered without dramatically increasing national spending on health. In
fact, all US residents might be covered by
health insurance for roughly the current level of spending or even
somewhat less, because of savings in administrative costs and lower
payment rates for services used by the privately insured."
Congressional Budget Office
“Under a single payer system with co-payments …on average, people
would have an additional $54 to spend…more specifically, the increase in
taxes… would be about $856 per capita…private-sector costs would
decrease by $910 per capita.
The net cost of achieving universal insurance coverage under this single payer system would be negative.”
“Under a single payer system without co-payments people would have
$144 a year less to spend than they have now, on average…consumer
payments for health would fall by $1,118 per capita"
I'm sure I could find plenty more, and even stronger sources. Americans are the most dissatisfied of any industrialized country with their healthcare. That is fact (UCBoulder).
A single-payer system not only covers everyone, it lowers the overhead cost.
Hahahahahahahahhahahahahah no. You can't post sources from the government, which has an enlightened self-interest to switch to a single-payer system. You haven't posted ANY independent sources that show that a single-payer system lowers overhead cost. Showing things from any other country. You're just talking in circles.
Zimmerman
Active member
Yes I can, but if it pleases you:
"
Single-payer saves money.
By having one organization handle all of the bureaucracy and all of
the administration of the health care system (mostly consisting of
paperwork and payments) paper-pushing greatly decreases in frequency and
cost. More of each of our dollars that go toward health care would
actually be used to care for people's health, instead of going toward
managers and forms. Single-payer eliminates the bulk of paperwork
duplication, and in the process, could potentially save hundreds of
BILLIONS (that's 100,000 million) of dollars. As it is right now,
American businesses are at an economic disadvantage, because their
health costs are so much higher than in other countries. The Canadian
branches of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler all publicly support Canada's
health care system, because it saves them an enormous amount of money,
compared to their counterparts in the US.
What's more, a single-payer system would mean fewer personal
bankruptcies due to medical bills--and an end to patients actually
receiving bills. In most countries with a single-payer system, patients
never see a bill. The billing process doesn't even involve patients.
(This saves money, too--think of how much work goes into itemizing each
bill, sending it to each patient, following up on the bill if there's
been an error... and on, and on.)
Most single-payer systems save a ton of money by buying prescription drugs for its patients in huge
bulk quantities. You know the money you save for buying in bulk at
Costco or Sam's Club? Think of applying that concept to buying
prescription drugs for America's 290 million people."
-Grahamazon
Payment
Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a
“global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as
hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service,
salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group
practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of
the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society)
and a state payment board. Government would serve as administrator, not employer.
Financing
We propose an equitable financing program in which everyone pays
their fair share. Under this program, all employers and employees will
pay a modest payroll tax. This will produce a dramatic savings for
those responsible private employers and state and local governments
which currently purchase health insurance for their employees. By
drawing on the immense wealth that has accrued to the richest Americans
and large corporations over the past 25 years, 95% of people will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying.
Administrative Savings
The General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings of
10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and
administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002. This savings would pay
for providing medical care to those currently under served.
Cost Containment
A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine
determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce
costs by more than $400 billion a year despite the expansion of
comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of
savings.
-Healtchcare Now .org
I could find more
Think of it this way: Many more people die every year because they don't have coverage than do from terrorist attacks, yet homeland security covers everyone. If 15% of Americans suddenly weren't protected from terrorists, the outrage would be incredible. Then why is it that people aren't guaranteed care for their health?
Healthcare should be based on need. Not ability to pay.
"
Single-payer saves money.
By having one organization handle all of the bureaucracy and all of
the administration of the health care system (mostly consisting of
paperwork and payments) paper-pushing greatly decreases in frequency and
cost. More of each of our dollars that go toward health care would
actually be used to care for people's health, instead of going toward
managers and forms. Single-payer eliminates the bulk of paperwork
duplication, and in the process, could potentially save hundreds of
BILLIONS (that's 100,000 million) of dollars. As it is right now,
American businesses are at an economic disadvantage, because their
health costs are so much higher than in other countries. The Canadian
branches of Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler all publicly support Canada's
health care system, because it saves them an enormous amount of money,
compared to their counterparts in the US.
What's more, a single-payer system would mean fewer personal
bankruptcies due to medical bills--and an end to patients actually
receiving bills. In most countries with a single-payer system, patients
never see a bill. The billing process doesn't even involve patients.
(This saves money, too--think of how much work goes into itemizing each
bill, sending it to each patient, following up on the bill if there's
been an error... and on, and on.)
Most single-payer systems save a ton of money by buying prescription drugs for its patients in huge
bulk quantities. You know the money you save for buying in bulk at
Costco or Sam's Club? Think of applying that concept to buying
prescription drugs for America's 290 million people."
-Grahamazon
Payment
Hospital billing would be virtually eliminated. Instead, hospitals would receive an annual lump-sum payment from the government to cover operating expenses—a
“global budget.” A separate budget would cover such expenses as
hospital expansion, the purchase of technology, marketing, etc.
Doctors would have three options for payment: fee-for-service,
salaried positions in hospitals, and salaried positions within group
practices or HMOs. Fees would be negotiated between a representative of
the fee-for-service practitioners (such as the state medical society)
and a state payment board. Government would serve as administrator, not employer.
Financing
We propose an equitable financing program in which everyone pays
their fair share. Under this program, all employers and employees will
pay a modest payroll tax. This will produce a dramatic savings for
those responsible private employers and state and local governments
which currently purchase health insurance for their employees. By
drawing on the immense wealth that has accrued to the richest Americans
and large corporations over the past 25 years, 95% of people will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying.
Administrative Savings
The General Accounting Office projects an administrative savings of
10 percent through the elimination of private insurance bills and
administrative waste, or $150 billion in 2002. This savings would pay
for providing medical care to those currently under served.
Cost Containment
A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine
determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce
costs by more than $400 billion a year despite the expansion of
comprehensive care to all Americans. No other plan projects this kind of
savings.
-Healtchcare Now .org
I could find more
Think of it this way: Many more people die every year because they don't have coverage than do from terrorist attacks, yet homeland security covers everyone. If 15% of Americans suddenly weren't protected from terrorists, the outrage would be incredible. Then why is it that people aren't guaranteed care for their health?
Healthcare should be based on need. Not ability to pay.
Zimmerman
Active member
1. Everyone deserves to be healthy
2. Economic standing should not determine your care, since it is nearly unrelated to your actual health.
3. People will need healthcare whether or not they can afford it.
4. It's good economics: It costs less, and keeps the workforce healthier.
5. A healthy population is an able one.
Birth control is healthcare. I honestly don't see it as any different from heart medication. Since when does the government support sexual habits?
2. Economic standing should not determine your care, since it is nearly unrelated to your actual health.
3. People will need healthcare whether or not they can afford it.
4. It's good economics: It costs less, and keeps the workforce healthier.
5. A healthy population is an able one.
Birth control is healthcare. I honestly don't see it as any different from heart medication. Since when does the government support sexual habits?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA FUCKING PLEASE. PLEASE FUCKING SHOW ME AN INDEPENDENT NON-BIASED SOURCE. It's like you're too stupid to do what I ask.
Copy and pasting from HealthcareNow.org's website...which is TRYING TO get a single payer system..is not non-biased or independent. You fail to realize, that anything government run is ripe with abuse and mismanagement. The government doesn't do anything well and I dare you to prove me wrong.
Dude, people fucking die. It's a fact of life, I'm not going to try and institute a single payer system because I don't like the fact people die. We don't live in a utopia homie. Bad shit happens, get used to it. PEOPLE AREN'T guaranteed healthcare because it's NOT A RIGHT.
Also, just an aside. Single payer WILL NOT WORK based on the dependency load in the future. There's going to be too many baby boomers and not enough people paying into the system to care for everyone. Jus sayin..
Copy and pasting from HealthcareNow.org's website...which is TRYING TO get a single payer system..is not non-biased or independent. You fail to realize, that anything government run is ripe with abuse and mismanagement. The government doesn't do anything well and I dare you to prove me wrong.
Dude, people fucking die. It's a fact of life, I'm not going to try and institute a single payer system because I don't like the fact people die. We don't live in a utopia homie. Bad shit happens, get used to it. PEOPLE AREN'T guaranteed healthcare because it's NOT A RIGHT.
Also, just an aside. Single payer WILL NOT WORK based on the dependency load in the future. There's going to be too many baby boomers and not enough people paying into the system to care for everyone. Jus sayin..
From a report on Canada in The Economist: “Health spending, which is administered by the provinces, has increased from nearly 35 percent of their budgets in 1999 to 46 percent today. In Ontario, the most populous province, it is set to reach 80 percent by 2030, leaving pennies for everything else the government does.”
feihlination
Active member
that is a financial problem. the structure of who pays how long and who receives how much was determined when the demographics were different.
i agree that these systems are not optimal, but you can increase the financial efficiency over rebalancing the payment structures.
i agree that these systems are not optimal, but you can increase the financial efficiency over rebalancing the payment structures.
Abu_Hajaar
Active member
It's a great idea but the bill itself was rushed so it has quite a few kinks in it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
You need to tax people more as a whole, and start taxing lower income brackets more than they already are. It's becoming apparent it's unsustainable in Canada. Which has 1/10th the population of America. You can't create money where there isn't any, the cost of the system as a whole is increasing because of population and the increasing number of baby boomers. Unsustainable demographic model, like I said before.
Abu_Hajaar
Active member
Whoops! I meant to quote zimmermans post
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2221289/Justice-Lucie-Sick-toddler-died-70-minute-wait-GP-surgery.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/patients-die-waiting-for-surgery-117393578.html
http://andrewelsbury.com.au/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=40&cntnt01returnid=19
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/patients-die-waiting-for-surgery-117393578.html
http://andrewelsbury.com.au/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=40&cntnt01returnid=19
accualyisdolan
Active member
A hundred billion is 100,000 million? Wow Zimmerman mommy must be so proud of your amazing math prowess
Sit
Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country - stats from WHO.
The US government spends more on healthcare per person than almost any other country, and as a whole the US spends the most as a % of GDP in the world. And still doesn't have universal healthcare.
The WHO ranked US health system 37 in the world in 2000, and The Commonwelth Fund found it came last when compared to 7 other developed nations.
You want to talk about inefficiency, the current US setup is the model of inefficiency.
The US government spends more on healthcare per person than almost any other country, and as a whole the US spends the most as a % of GDP in the world. And still doesn't have universal healthcare.
The WHO ranked US health system 37 in the world in 2000, and The Commonwelth Fund found it came last when compared to 7 other developed nations.
You want to talk about inefficiency, the current US setup is the model of inefficiency.
accualyisdolan
Active member
Bye Zimmerman you might do better by calling socialized medicine a luxury paid for by the rich instead of considering it a right that everyone should demand. No one has to become a doctor. If you cut yourself it isn't you fucking right to force a doctor to stitch you up. It is a luxury. If you get hurt and a doctor treats you for free, you thank him. You don't bitch to him about how he MUST treat you because it is your right to force him into labor. Screw your fucking head on straight Zimmerman. Your getting fed; thank the hand that feeds you, don't bite it you entitled fucking douchebag
Sit
Member
So one girl died after her parents were too stupid to take her to ER when it was clear a doctors surgery was far too packed. Not due to the system, but simply to human error and her parents didn't call an ambulance when her lips were blue.
12 people died in 3 years waiting because they were assessed incorrectly, and would have been seen earlier if they had been assessed properly, read the article you posted.
The last ones are people waiting for elective surgery, which is surgery not for emergency situations.
Seems like tons of people dying bro.
12 people died in 3 years waiting because they were assessed incorrectly, and would have been seen earlier if they had been assessed properly, read the article you posted.
The last ones are people waiting for elective surgery, which is surgery not for emergency situations.
Seems like tons of people dying bro.
http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/03/universal-health-care-kills/
In Ontario alone
The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became “medically unfit for surgery.” The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that “109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.”
Yea.....
In Ontario alone
The Canadian Medical Association Journal reports that in one year, 71 Ontario patients died while waiting for coronary bypass surgery and over one hundred more became “medically unfit for surgery.” The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that “109 people had a heart attack or suffered heart failure while on the waiting list. Fifty of those patients died.”
Yea.....
Oh, posted before I wanted it to.
"And England? The BBC reports that “up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery.” The Times reports that a British woman “will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug.” A Daily Telegraph headline reads: “Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists.” “Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives,” reports another article."
Merpdederp. Dis is hawkward.
"And England? The BBC reports that “up to 500 heart patients die each year while they wait for potentially life-saving surgery.” The Times reports that a British woman “will be denied free National Health Service treatment for breast cancer if she seeks to improve her chances by paying privately for an additional drug.” A Daily Telegraph headline reads: “Sufferers pull out teeth due to lack of dentists.” “Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives,” reports another article."
Merpdederp. Dis is hawkward.
Sit
Member
They are waiting for heart bypasses, they are pretty much dead. Studies have shown that it is inevitable that some people diagnosed with this die, because they need surgery instantly. Unless you have unlimited resources, you cannot actually save everyone.
And the other articles don't seem to exist anymore, that's awkward, becasue headlines are a good indication of truth.
When you look at the huge numbers of people these systems are dealing with, the are doing a pretty good job.
And the other articles don't seem to exist anymore, that's awkward, becasue headlines are a good indication of truth.
When you look at the huge numbers of people these systems are dealing with, the are doing a pretty good job.
Sit
Member
It really does work. Economically, the NHS in the UK was found to be the 2nd most efficent system in the world, out of 17 countries, US was the most inefficient.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
The US system, unless you are made of money, is a joke.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services
The US system, unless you are made of money, is a joke.
Sit
Member
You are honestly out of touch with reality. The media may hate the NHS, but if you actually look at the numbers, they do a really good job.
They reduce number of deaths by 3,900 per million people. The US manages to achieve a reduction of 2,500, with vastly more spending. So the NHS saves more lives, with less money, than the US does.
The US system is a model, around the world, of what not to do if you are creating a health system.
They reduce number of deaths by 3,900 per million people. The US manages to achieve a reduction of 2,500, with vastly more spending. So the NHS saves more lives, with less money, than the US does.
The US system is a model, around the world, of what not to do if you are creating a health system.
Zimmerman
Active member
You say post a source. I do. It's from the gov't and you ask for a private one. I do. Then you ask for an unbiased one. People post more facts and you simply dismiss them with shaky reports, laughing, and shitty insults.
I've come to the conclusion that you wouldn't change if Alyn Rand came up to you and advocated for single-payer or democratic socialism. The facts simply don't phase you. We're "the model for inefficiency" and yet we shouldn't change to the system every other industrialized nation has to an extent.
I can guarantee you that the deaths in the US are in much greater #s than the ones in Canada that occur as a result of waiting for care.
That's it for now. It's late. Maybe I'll respond to individual comments tomorrow.
I'm now actually ignoring Dolan. He can't speak for himself and yet he's fine insulting my intelligence like a fool.
Healthcare is a right.
I just hope this part of the debate ends and we can get back to the actual thread.
I've come to the conclusion that you wouldn't change if Alyn Rand came up to you and advocated for single-payer or democratic socialism. The facts simply don't phase you. We're "the model for inefficiency" and yet we shouldn't change to the system every other industrialized nation has to an extent.
I can guarantee you that the deaths in the US are in much greater #s than the ones in Canada that occur as a result of waiting for care.
That's it for now. It's late. Maybe I'll respond to individual comments tomorrow.
I'm now actually ignoring Dolan. He can't speak for himself and yet he's fine insulting my intelligence like a fool.
Healthcare is a right.
I just hope this part of the debate ends and we can get back to the actual thread.