You'll have to point out the fallacies in my statement, dude. I don't see it.
Value #1. "I like being healthy" as opposed to being unhealthy Value #2: "I like seeing other people healthy" as opposed to seeing other people unhealthy Value #3: "I think health is important" as opposed to it being unimportant.
Value: how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions
You're a proponent of private healthcare and private insurance companies, right?
I'm a huge proponent of private healthcare, yes. I don't really give a fuck about private insurance companies, but I certainly support their rights to exist and operate as they see fit.
If so, why? If not...?
For the same reason I'm a fan of private grocery stores, private record stores, private travel agents, private message parlors, private dance instructors, private construction crews, private banks, private 90s seattle grunge bands, private eyes, and private abortions.
I never really understood this argument. People put tons of other things in the hands of the government that are life or death matter. I mean it is the government that makes sure planes don't crash into each other in the air, it is the government that makes sure that your country doesn't get invaded, how is having the government making sure that doctors get paid any different than that? I mean it is not like I bureaucrat is going to be the one giving you your physical exam, you still go see a real doctor.
Air traffic controllers do not work for the government. The airlines were deregulated in 1978! The government does make sure that the country doesn't get invaded, but that is only for self preservation reasons! All they want to do is preserve their power!
Government can not be the solution to a problem that was caused by government!
I'm a huge proponent of private healthcare, yes. I don't really give a fuck about private insurance companies, but I certainly support their rights to exist and operate as they see fit.
For the same reason I'm a fan of private grocery stores, private record stores, private travel agents, private message parlors, private dance instructors, private construction crews, private banks, private 90s seattle grunge bands, private eyes, and private abortions.
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think the healthcare sector should be a business and shouldn't be ruled like a business or treated like one.
edit: Well, I'm off for a weekend of hardcore partying and if I should happen to injure myself... I know I can just walk into a hospital - or be carried into one - and get the treatment I need, no questions asked. I don't have to prove or show I can pay the treatment. I'll get top quality care and at after my stay in the hospital I walk out, not paying a dime, because we have additional hospitalisation insurance, without it I'd pay 25%. Point being; I'm quite satisfied, I hope you are too.
Okay I have read most of this and want to add some other things to the discussion. For my background, I have been working in hospital administration for an upstate NY hospital for the past 7 years.
Each year when an insurance carrier increases the rates on its patients and "adjusts" (down) its coverage, it is also on the other side telling the provider (hospital, doctors office, clinic what have you) that such and such which they previously got X dollars for, they will no longer be paying or will be paying at a much reduced rate. (This is more where the industry is abusing its power by reimbursing the providers less, making it harder to provide more care). Now that would seem to be a screaming admission that the US needs UHC and on the surface it is. The problem comes with medicaid/medicare which all ready exsists in the US. It pays even less then the insurance industry for everything because it is the gov't and it can. So I dont see a single payer system run by the gov't working because they will simply not pay enough to sustain the care. Managed care and over abuse of the system by a population 8/9 times the size of Canada's would be major problems.
And since the reality is we live in a capitalist society UHC will kill all research, there will be no advancement, no new drugs, procedures or devices because there will be no profit to support there development.
know1, is on the right track let people pay out of pocket that can and let them get major medical (this is how it was in the 60s and 70s) for anything big that can be planned out or treated over time. Exsisting tax supported programs persist for those that can't. If this idea allows individual doctors to price their market, the doctor in rural WV will charge $5 (less then current medicare copays) for check ups and he will make a profit without having to split the pot with the gov't/insurance carrier. Less people on medicare means more available for those that need to be on it.
The hospitals fear having a UHC system shoved down there throats and many are sure that they will not survive should such a thing come to pass. They really do not have a ton to worry about though because the insurance and pharmacy lobbys are never going to allow it to happen.
Its rambling but there is some sense in there trust me.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
My point isn't about Europeans criticizing America's healthcare system (or vice versa). My point is about people who advocate universal systems in which all people are required to participate who then have the gall to say things like "Well, I guess we disagree".
My point isn't about Europeans criticizing America's healthcare system (or vice versa). My point is about people who advocate universal systems in which all people are required to participate who then have the gall to say things like "Well, I guess we disagree".
Well, white people love talking about "free" healthcare. And you're on a Pearl Jam message board. So, there you go.
I'm not proposing anything. This is the system I live in, I agree with it and I tried to explain how it works. I'm not forcing you to come live here, I'm not forcing that system on Americans either.
I'm satisfied with it, I hope you are satisfied with your system. Many Americans aren't, apparently. Some look for information, I tried to explain who the system here works.
I'm not proposing anything. This is the system I live in, I agree with it and I tried to explain how it works. I'm not forcing you to come live here, I'm not forcing that system on Americans either.
I'm satisfied with it, I hope you are satisfied with your system. Many Americans aren't, apparently. Some look for information, I tried to explain who the system here works.
I'm neither satisfied with the US system nor am I impressed by the system you describe.
My point isn't about Europeans criticizing America's healthcare system (or vice versa). My point is about people who advocate universal systems in which all people are required to participate who then have the gall to say things like "Well, I guess we disagree".
Look, someone's will is always imposed onto others. Always. The majority of this country, where I live, agrees with our system.
Yes, I'm sure there are people who disagree with it as I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with other stuff.
Nevertheless, it is what it is... and if it were up to me it wouldn't be this way at all, however, my ideas and ideals are not applicable to a lagre society, or at least not very realistic. Like I said, I'm quite satisfied with what we have... It's not perfect. I doubt any system is. If the majority of this country wanted privatized healthcare, I'd have to accept that too... and it looks like that might become a reality imposed by the EU.
Look, someone's will is always imposed onto others. Always.
How so? If you had a system wherein doctors and patients operated freely based on their own personal values and desires, whose will is being imposed on whom?
The majority of this country, where I live, agrees with our system.
Good for your majority! Questionable for your minorities...
Yes, I'm sure there are people who disagree with it as I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with other stuff.
But what does disagreement matter when you have fun toys like laws and guns?
How so? If you had a system wherein doctors and patients operated freely based on their own personal values and desires, whose will is being imposed on whom?
Well, you'd come close to what I had in mind, but like I said, is such a system realistic?
Good for your majority! Questionable for your minorities...
Indeed.
But what does disagreement matter when you have fun toys like laws and guns?
I'm not sure I understand your question... edit: I sure I don't understand your question.
Question, in your system where doctors and patients operated freely based on their own personal values and desires, do the doctors take a mandatory Hippocratic Oath?
Well, you'd come close to what I had in mind, but like I said, is such a system realistic?
Absolutely. It's no more unrealistic than any other overhaul of the dominant health care systems.
I'm not sure I understand your question... edit: I sure I don't understand your question.
My question was a commentary on the fact that the greater extent to which you're willing to exercise violence, the less the "disagreement" of others (and the principles from which it stems) are actually relevant to you. There are many people inside UHC systems who disagree with them, but they have no option to exercise their own disagreement as they are forced to participate in those systems.
Question, in your system where doctors and patients operated freely based on their own personal values and desires, do the doctors take a mandatory Hippocratic Oath?
If such an oath were "mandatory", would it be a free system?
Comments
You're really really fond of economics, aren't you?
Economicize this!
Anyway, I don't think economics should be applied to every aspect of life. Certainly not healthcare. I prefer the system I live in.
But in the words of d2d and 60 million French people; c'est la vie!
naděje umírá poslední
Why do you care about health care?
Because I care about health?
naděje umírá poslední
Why do you care about health?
Because I like being healthy, I like seeing other people healthy, because I think health is important. Could we speed this up, Socrates?
naděje umírá poslední
???
You'll have to point out the fallacies in my statement, dude. I don't see it.
naděje umírá poslední
Value #1. "I like being healthy" as opposed to being unhealthy
Value #2: "I like seeing other people healthy" as opposed to seeing other people unhealthy
Value #3: "I think health is important" as opposed to it being unimportant.
Value: how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions
What you are talking about is economics.
OK, I see your point.
You're a proponent of private healthcare and private insurance companies, right?
If so, why? If not...?
naděje umírá poslední
I'm a huge proponent of private healthcare, yes. I don't really give a fuck about private insurance companies, but I certainly support their rights to exist and operate as they see fit.
For the same reason I'm a fan of private grocery stores, private record stores, private travel agents, private message parlors, private dance instructors, private construction crews, private banks, private 90s seattle grunge bands, private eyes, and private abortions.
Air traffic controllers do not work for the government. The airlines were deregulated in 1978! The government does make sure that the country doesn't get invaded, but that is only for self preservation reasons! All they want to do is preserve their power!
Government can not be the solution to a problem that was caused by government!
04/25/03 05/02/03 5/3/03 6/24/03 6/28/03 7/5/03 7/6/03 7/11/03 7/12/03 7/14/03
09/28/04 09/29/04 10/01/04 10/02/04
09/28/05 09/30/05 10/03/05
5/24/06 5/25/06 5/27/06 5/28/06 5/30/06 6/01/06 6/03/06 6/23/06 6/24/06 7/22/06 7/23/06
6/20/08 6/22/08 6/24/08 6/25/08
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think the healthcare sector should be a business and shouldn't be ruled like a business or treated like one.
edit: Well, I'm off for a weekend of hardcore partying and if I should happen to injure myself... I know I can just walk into a hospital - or be carried into one - and get the treatment I need, no questions asked. I don't have to prove or show I can pay the treatment. I'll get top quality care and at after my stay in the hospital I walk out, not paying a dime, because we have additional hospitalisation insurance, without it I'd pay 25%. Point being; I'm quite satisfied, I hope you are too.
naděje umírá poslední
If we disagree, so be it. But only one of us is proposing a system that the other has to be party to.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5691021&postcount=23
Each year when an insurance carrier increases the rates on its patients and "adjusts" (down) its coverage, it is also on the other side telling the provider (hospital, doctors office, clinic what have you) that such and such which they previously got X dollars for, they will no longer be paying or will be paying at a much reduced rate. (This is more where the industry is abusing its power by reimbursing the providers less, making it harder to provide more care). Now that would seem to be a screaming admission that the US needs UHC and on the surface it is. The problem comes with medicaid/medicare which all ready exsists in the US. It pays even less then the insurance industry for everything because it is the gov't and it can. So I dont see a single payer system run by the gov't working because they will simply not pay enough to sustain the care. Managed care and over abuse of the system by a population 8/9 times the size of Canada's would be major problems.
And since the reality is we live in a capitalist society UHC will kill all research, there will be no advancement, no new drugs, procedures or devices because there will be no profit to support there development.
know1, is on the right track let people pay out of pocket that can and let them get major medical (this is how it was in the 60s and 70s) for anything big that can be planned out or treated over time. Exsisting tax supported programs persist for those that can't. If this idea allows individual doctors to price their market, the doctor in rural WV will charge $5 (less then current medicare copays) for check ups and he will make a profit without having to split the pot with the gov't/insurance carrier. Less people on medicare means more available for those that need to be on it.
The hospitals fear having a UHC system shoved down there throats and many are sure that they will not survive should such a thing come to pass. They really do not have a ton to worry about though because the insurance and pharmacy lobbys are never going to allow it to happen.
Its rambling but there is some sense in there trust me.
— Socrates
My point isn't about Europeans criticizing America's healthcare system (or vice versa). My point is about people who advocate universal systems in which all people are required to participate who then have the gall to say things like "Well, I guess we disagree".
Well, white people love talking about "free" healthcare. And you're on a Pearl Jam message board. So, there you go.
Insightful.
I'm not proposing anything. This is the system I live in, I agree with it and I tried to explain how it works. I'm not forcing you to come live here, I'm not forcing that system on Americans either.
I'm satisfied with it, I hope you are satisfied with your system. Many Americans aren't, apparently. Some look for information, I tried to explain who the system here works.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm neither satisfied with the US system nor am I impressed by the system you describe.
Look, someone's will is always imposed onto others. Always. The majority of this country, where I live, agrees with our system.
Yes, I'm sure there are people who disagree with it as I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree with other stuff.
Nevertheless, it is what it is... and if it were up to me it wouldn't be this way at all, however, my ideas and ideals are not applicable to a lagre society, or at least not very realistic. Like I said, I'm quite satisfied with what we have... It's not perfect. I doubt any system is. If the majority of this country wanted privatized healthcare, I'd have to accept that too... and it looks like that might become a reality imposed by the EU.
naděje umírá poslední
It was not my intention to impress, even if it was, I'd be a fool if I thought I could impress everyone.
naděje umírá poslední
How so? If you had a system wherein doctors and patients operated freely based on their own personal values and desires, whose will is being imposed on whom?
Good for your majority! Questionable for your minorities...
But what does disagreement matter when you have fun toys like laws and guns?
Fair enough.
Well, you'd come close to what I had in mind, but like I said, is such a system realistic?
Indeed.
I'm not sure I understand your question... edit: I sure I don't understand your question.
naděje umírá poslední
naděje umírá poslední
Absolutely. It's no more unrealistic than any other overhaul of the dominant health care systems.
My question was a commentary on the fact that the greater extent to which you're willing to exercise violence, the less the "disagreement" of others (and the principles from which it stems) are actually relevant to you. There are many people inside UHC systems who disagree with them, but they have no option to exercise their own disagreement as they are forced to participate in those systems.
If such an oath were "mandatory", would it be a free system?