Page 9 of 12 [ 192 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12  Next

Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

13 Dec 2005, 1:06 am

toddjh wrote:
Umm, I think you might want to check that in the real world. Governments are often just as corrupt as corporations, except they have no accountability or competition to keep them in check.
Jeremy


Such as Responsible Government?
Combined with STV (Single Transferable Vote) that would work well to keep governments in check.

In Canadian Health Care, the problem is wait times.
What does France do to have the best Health Care?


_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.


anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

13 Dec 2005, 1:34 am

Responsible Government? Talk about an oxymoron.

There is no responsibility or accountability unless you hold the pursestrings. Only when taxes are optional will you have responsibility in government.

Next you'll tell me the politicians care.



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

13 Dec 2005, 1:49 am

Responsible Government is when the members of parliament can bring down the government through a vote of non-confidence.
This only happens if it is a minority government.

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


_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.


Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

13 Dec 2005, 8:00 am

toddjh wrote:

Well, the last is dead wrong. By law, no one can be turned away for medical care because of their inability to pay. It's highly inefficient, but anyone can go to the emergency room and get treated at any time, no questions asked.


Only for emergency care (stitches, having a baby, heart attacks, etc). Not for colds, flu like symptoms, etc. There are even some that are makeing people PAY UP FRONT for some expenses. (A friend of mine had taken his little girl in for stitches, he had to fork up the cash up front to get her seen in the ER). I had to pay up front for a physical a few months ago. My meds before I had insurance didnt "qualify" for assistance. So my ADHD went untreated, I had to go off my harmones for "female issues", and my depression wasnt serious enough to get assistance in the cost of the meds. Seeing a shrink at 80.00 an hour was not an option. had I been able to, the cost of the meds would have cost over 150.00 a month. not that much, but when you are part time and making less than 600.00 a month (half of that was going to a school loan, and 1/4 to fuel... that left enough to pay taxes and insurance on the car, and I had enough pocket change for lunch once a week). Know what the free clinic told me? "I made too much money". But the people driving the lexus and bmws to the clinic didnt? A dr visit to my family phys. was 75.00 with no tests run.... my yearly female physical? Over 400.00. and that doubled over the span of two years. But my insurance company doesnt pay that much... They are able to negoaite that down....
Again, I digress.
Quote:
It's largely possible because market-determined prices for prescription drugs and medical procedures in the U.S. help foot the bill for medical R&D. We're essentially subsidizing medical research for everybody else, which is one reason why our per-capita medical costs are so high (though not the only reason by a long shot). If the U.S. switched to universal healthcare, prices in the rest of the world would increase significantly and you'd have to increase taxes even more.


But youre right, socialized medicine ISNT the answer. capping lawsuits and malpractice preimums is a start. And making it harder to keep a med from going generic (by changing the applied uses etc) is a start. Oh, and I really dont give a crap for the fact that the med I pay 75.00 for in the US is sold for 2.00 over seas. that BS had GOT TO STOP. The drug companies are bleeding us dry, to save the rest of the world? not to sound so uncaring, but not everyone in the US can afford the costs of health care, so why should we pay for someone else too?



Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

13 Dec 2005, 8:06 am

RobertN wrote:

LadySmokeEater, you are being too defeatist!! There is plenty that can be done. The Bush administration keeps the economy tilted in favour of the rich (tax cuts, etc) and cuts programs for the poor. Therefore, this administration is an enemy of the public good. I absolutely agree about insurance companies. But they only care about profits and their shareholders. That is why health services MUST be state owned, because then their only concern is the patients, not making profits. Helping vulnerable people cuts too deeply into their Bottom Line.

You are starting to see that the corporate side of America is the enemy, and that is good. Now go one step further and just think about a life without greedy insurance companies. Its possible....its been done over here in Europe!! All our health is nationalised. There is "Cradle to Grave" security to quote one famous 1940's politician.


Man, its not JUST the bush admin. its every admin. Some are better at making it look like they arent.
But socialized medicine isnt the answer either. It would raise taxes too high. capping insurance preimums would be a start, though. Making a medical paton unrenuable under the guise of "for a different application"....
I never said I didnt see the greed. I only said that I didnt think socialism was the way to go.

Read my post before this one and you'll see why i have a defeatest attitude about insurance and meds



Mithrandir
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Location: Victoria, BC Canada

13 Dec 2005, 12:16 pm

Ladysmokeater wrote:
RobertN wrote:

LadySmokeEater, you are being too defeatist!! There is plenty that can be done. The Bush administration keeps the economy tilted in favour of the rich (tax cuts, etc) and cuts programs for the poor. Therefore, this administration is an enemy of the public good. I absolutely agree about insurance companies. But they only care about profits and their shareholders. That is why health services MUST be state owned, because then their only concern is the patients, not making profits. Helping vulnerable people cuts too deeply into their Bottom Line.

You are starting to see that the corporate side of America is the enemy, and that is good. Now go one step further and just think about a life without greedy insurance companies. Its possible....its been done over here in Europe!! All our health is nationalised. There is "Cradle to Grave" security to quote one famous 1940's politician.


Man, its not JUST the bush admin. its every admin. Some are better at making it look like they arent.
But socialized medicine isnt the answer either. It would raise taxes too high. capping insurance preimums would be a start, though. Making a medical paton unrenuable under the guise of "for a different application"....
I never said I didnt see the greed. I only said that I didnt think socialism was the way to go.

Read my post before this one and you'll see why i have a defeatest attitude about insurance and meds


If socialized medicine isn't the anwser then why is France world best for health care?
US having purely privite is 37'th
Canada having purely socialized is 30'th


_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe.


toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

13 Dec 2005, 1:10 pm

Mithrandir wrote:
If socialized medicine isn't the anwser then why is France world best for health care?


It's not a question of whether or not it has good results, it's a question of whether the cost is too high. France's taxation has stalled their economy. Unemployment is sky-high, economic growth is anemic, and the system is likely not sustainable. We'll see how much longer they can afford their health system, especially if the U.S. caps prescription drug prices, which will drive France's costs even higher.

Jeremy



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

13 Dec 2005, 2:52 pm

France's problems step in large part from their labour restrictions, which have created institutional unemployment much higher than their official figures. Labour follows supply and demand like everything else for sale, and these labour regulations make labour far less valuable on the open market. Real average wages (including those unemployed and excluding public servants) won't increase without an increase in demand. Initially that means allowing wages to go down and hours to go up, like it or not. Chirac's proposal to increase value by taxpayer-funded training programs is a fool's errand. Only the employers know what forms of training is required and how to efficiently increase the value of the labour they rent.

Like I've said elsewhere though, nothing is going to change until the bills stop being paid. At some point there is going to be a total collapse, tax revolt, or something along those lines. That isn't to say anyone will learn from this experience however, we certainly haven't.



Ladysmokeater
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,048
Location: North of Atlanta, South of Boston, East of the Mississippi, and West of the Atlantic

13 Dec 2005, 5:11 pm

so what would be the perfect system? taking into account human nature and all, I dont think that exists.....



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

13 Dec 2005, 6:41 pm

Why do people keep asking for a system? Haven't most of us been failed by a system?

How about this, if you have labour to lease (you want to work for money) and someone wants to buy it (he wants to pay you) and you like the terms (the wage is agreeable), then who's business is it other than the two of you?!

If minding one's own business a system?



toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

13 Dec 2005, 6:57 pm

anarkhos wrote:
Why do people keep asking for a system? Haven't most of us been failed by a system?

How about this, if you have labour to lease (you want to work for money) and someone wants to buy it (he wants to pay you) and you like the terms (the wage is agreeable), then who's business is it other than the two of you?!


Even then, you need some form of authority to enforce the terms of contracts and settle disputes, if nothing else. And then you need an equitable system to determine which people occupy those positions of authority.

Some kind of system is unavoidable. It's just the scope and nature of that system which needs to be determined.

Jeremy



Laz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,540
Location: Dave's Toilet

13 Dec 2005, 7:02 pm

Master and servant



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

13 Dec 2005, 8:17 pm

toddjh wrote:
Even then, you need some form of authority to enforce the terms of contracts and settle disputes, if nothing else.


The terms of this contract are ongoing, and you're not going to contract with anyone disreputable. This scenario doesn't require any central authority.



toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

13 Dec 2005, 8:53 pm

anarkhos wrote:
The terms of this contract are ongoing, and you're not going to contract with anyone disreputable. This scenario doesn't require any central authority.


You think there are never going to be disputes about whether the terms of the contract have been fulfilled? I think that's pretty naive. It happens all the time in the real world, even when people aren't trying to cheat each other.

Jeremy



anarkhos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 429
Location: Oregon

13 Dec 2005, 8:56 pm

Of course there are disputes, and they happen all the time in international trade as well despite there not being a central authority.



toddjh
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 277
Location: Champaign, IL, USA

13 Dec 2005, 10:29 pm

anarkhos wrote:
Of course there are disputes, and they happen all the time in international trade as well despite there not being a central authority.


Yes.

We call them wars.

Jeremy