[ QUOTE ]
Yes Lupus but having someone else pay for that accident doesn't seem right to me, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you pay for medical insurance, you're already doing that. One way or another, you're paying to cover someone else's recovery unless you're using the crap out of your medical coverage. Also, hospitals jack up charges to your insurance in order to make up losses for covering uninsured people, but obviously it isn't stated that way.
[ QUOTE ]
vassago: sounds like you've yet to experience the harsh reality that life isn't always fair. When your company gets bought and shut down by a competitor, then you get hit by a car while riding your bike, and you can't pay the $80k of medical bills, would you still call it your fault? Poor planning? Believe it or not, not everything in life is under your control. No amount of planning can promise you a smooth ride.
I vote for national health care. Yes Michael Moore is a tool, and manipulates images and information to shape people's opinions, but at least he occasionally shines a spotlight on an important, neglected subject. I'll give him that. Plus, I like the way he stirs the pot (whether or not I think he's a reptile).
At the risk of being called a naive hippy, we are going to need to start taking care of eachother if we're going to advance as a species or a society. Yes, there are poor people who are poor because they are lazy and stupid. There are also a lot of poor people who got the shitty end of life's stick, through no fault of their own. Automatically filing every poor person into the "it's their fault, they're lazy" category is a good way to distance yourself from reality and avoid feeling anything, but it's not a very healthy way to live. You'll probably find yourself at the shitty end of life's stick some day, and you're probably going to need someone else's help to deal with it.
I'd pay extra taxes for national health care, as long as it was actually going to help people and not into the pockets of the people that already have most of our money.
I feel the need to point out that 'insurance is a scam' (which is true) and 'the US needs universal health care' are two seperate issues. I am against UHC simply because I don't believe the US govt could actually manage such a program well enough to justify the expense, or like Ferg said I believe corrupt politicians would just appropriate the money.
[ QUOTE ]
Not everyone who makes use of the system is "taking advantage".
[/ QUOTE ]
From my experience working for a federally funded NPO the vast majority of people are NOT taking advantage. I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes to help those that honestly do need it even if that means supporting that minority that are just scamming the system.
I also feel that health care should be a basic human right. It seems very uncivilized to me that in the wealthiest country in the world (or are we still?) people are left to suffer and die if they cannot afford health care. How about we revoke that top 1% tax cut and let the wealthiest people in the country pay for it? Seems fair to me.
-Visit to the doctor to find out what you're sick with (re: feeling like you have the flu)
[/ QUOTE ]
$15 co-pay
[ QUOTE ]
-Do you have a family doctor or is it strictly 'walk-in' clinics?
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on your plan. I have a HMO. While more expensive (and restrictive in the doctor you can choose) it covers much more. I pick my doctor from a list of available doctors on the network.
[ QUOTE ]
-Do you even go when you have these types of symptoms or do you just hit up a pharmacy and get some Nyquil?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I feel ill, I'll go. I get bronchitis when I get super sick, so I usually get meds to clear that up. I don't go for regular colds though.
[ QUOTE ]
-Hospital visit? Say... you've started to limp for no reason and it hasn't left you for a week.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't had to do hospital stay yet. My family has, and it wasn't terribly expensive for them. My plan shows hospital stays as being 85% covered.
[ QUOTE ]
-Common surgery like an appendectomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Never needed one, though my plan states it's 90% covered.
All preventative care is 100% covered (check ups, etc).
I have some serious digestive issues, and recently had to go in for a edoscopy & colonoscopy. The entire procedure (including sedative) was around $8000 or whatever. I only had to pay $75. That's pretty damn good in my book.
Sure, I haven't had a monumental accident that crippled me. I don't have a $100,000 procedure to rack up my med bills. Perhaps if I did, and wasn't covered, I'd think differently about the system. But as others have stated, I just don't think it will work.
Sonic -sounds like the doctors there fuck the patients over as well as the insurance company?
What's co-pay?
From reading the stories, and watching the movie, (yah yah Moore's a this-and-that) I'm quite surprised the entire country of the USA isn't fighting for nation-wide health care. All that shit that Nixon was saying in that tape, is quite false. It really just seems like the almighty dollar is what started the privatized health-care you fellas have in the USA; not what is best for the individual.
To me, this is what is sickening the most: When anyone tries to fight that system (re: Hilary) they get bought out and shut down. I suppose thats partly do to the individuals character, to allow themselves to be bought out, but the pressure alone may make anyone crack.
It's sad really.
Moore's point about, "I wonder why we're told to hate the French..." I liked.
"It really just seems like the almighty dollar is what started the privatized health-care you fellas have in the USA; not what is best for the individual."
"It really just seems like the almighty dollar is what started the privatized health-care you fellas have in the USA; not what is best for the individual."
A friend of mine developed cancer while she was in college. Luckily it was discovered at an early stage during a checkup, and a surgery was immediately scheduled. The day before her surgery she was alerted that her insurance had been cancelled. NO other company would insure her for a "pre-existing condition". She dropped out of school, and planned to take a job or two and wait for 6 MONTHS for that insurance begin and hope they wouldn't deny her.
Another friend was denied to be seen by a clinic doctor. She didn't have insurance, but she had the cash in hand to pay for the visit. Still was refused. Over a year later and after many frustrations, she was diagnosed with a well developed autoimmune disease. After being ignored during a followup, the medication wasn't working, she asked to be referred to another doctor, and was denied. She later found a new doctor, and the new treatment is working well. Nearly three years to live a somewhat normal life again.
Many doctors care more for their payment than patients. And perhaps the frequent lawsuits against doctors has contributed to this. But either way the Hippocratic oath is being forgotten, and the health care BUSINESS is corrupt and flawed. In many ways it's doing more harm than good, denying those who require treatment and can be treated...and that is the same as doing harm, or even murder. All deserve to be treated equally, and all deserve to be treated well. No advantage to immigrant offspring, the rich, etc.
We need a new system.
I'm lucky: young, fairly healthy and taking preventative measures. I avoid doctors like the plague.
I guess the reason most Americans aren't up in arms about it is because we get insurance through work. On the other hand alot of people work at jobs they hate just because of the insurance.
[ QUOTE ]
When I found a lump I had to register for a GP. They had a 4 day wait, but bumped me right to the front. They sent me to hospital for scans and tests.
I'm guessing private insurance, I got misdiagnosed with a terminal illness as a kid and my parents private insurance (they ran their own landscaping business) started grumbling about cancelling them.
Recently, my mom's insurance from her hospital secretary job covered all the bills when my dad got cancer.
Cost me nothing apart from social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be this:
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
National healthcare plans aren't free, its just that you aren't writing the check to the healthcare provider yourself, so you don't see the costs involved.
I really hate seeing socialized medicine lauded as free, because it is anything but free. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but the perception that socialized medicine is free is more heavily spun than anti-abortion being "pro-life."
Cost me nothing apart from social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be this:
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
National healthcare plans aren't free, its just that you aren't writing the check to the healthcare provider yourself, so you don't see the costs involved.
I really hate seeing socialized medicine lauded as free, because it is anything but free. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but the perception that socialized medicine is free is more heavily spun than anti-abortion being "pro-life."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's true, it isn't free. Health care costs money, and there's no way around that. Doctors need to be paid just like everyone else, whether or not that money is coming from tax revenue or private insurance companies. The difference is, insurance companies are running a for-profit business, so a significant portion of health care expenses are being used just to line the pockets of insurance companies.
I understand why some people have some fundamental disagreement with socialized medicine, but the way I see it, the wellbeing of our citizens is one of the things that shouldn't be turned into a for-profit industry.
While it would be nice to cut out the insurance companies from the equation, most every government agency is just as large of a bloated bureaucracy as any insurance company.
Additionally one of the nice things about privatization of medicine is that when the company you are with makes a decision you do not like, it is possible to choose another company. You can't do that when the only game in town is the government. And when you have a government that makes unpopular decisions that cost billions of dollars and years of labor and lives based off of falsified and/or incorrect data, do you really want to have those same people dealing with your health care?
Despite not having socialized medicine for everyone on a national level, there are numerous stateside and federal methods of assisting the poor with health care. When trying to justify nationalized health care people tend to focus on the impoverished not being able to afford health care, despite the fact that social security and welfare programs, PLUS statewide programs all provide health care solutions, especially for children. Just because not everyone is getting government subsidized health care does not mean nobody is getting it.
The way I see it, every last possible thing should be capitalized, because the only truly equalizing system is an entirely open market. The current economic disparity in the world is largely the result of selective regulation preventing an open market from equalizing wealth.
You can read In Defense of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg if you'd like to know more.
I'm about to open a whole new can of worms here, but I'm enjoying the conversation so what the hell (hopefully this won't take the conversation in a bad direction). I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up by the people who oppose socialized medicine, but how does illegal immigration effect socialized medicine?
For those of you who live in countries that have a socialized system, could you give me some insight on this? I'm guessing that no one is refused care, but if a person can't prove they are in the country legally (either as a visitor with a passport or a citizen), are they reported to the authorities? This adds an interesting element to the debate, because even if illegal immigrants aren't refused care, if health care providers are obligated to report them, then most illegal immigrants would avoid seeking medical attention even when they are severely ill, out of fear of being deported. Some people would argue that it is wrong to report them because they would then avoid seeking help due to fear of being deported (which I think is actually pretty common even in our current system), and some people would argue that they are a burden on the system. I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed yet.
"Additionally one of the nice things about privatization of medicine is that when the company you are with makes a decision you do not like, it is possible to choose another company."
That's sounds wonerful....But let's say my insurance company decides not to cover the medicine I need to survive....It's a free market....so I can choose to go with another company...But hey, I have a preexisting condition...and no other insurance company will cover the cost of my medicine because they can see that they are going to make 0 dollars for picking me up...an in fact are going to loose money....So it really only leaves me with 2 choices....Go without my meds...or go into debt trying to pay for rediculously expensive medicine.
[ QUOTE ]
That's sounds wonerful....But let's say my insurance company decides not to cover the medicine I need to survive....It's a free market....so I can choose to go with another company...But hey, I have a preexisting condition...and no other insurance company will cover the cost of my medicine because they can see that they are going to make 0 dollars for picking me up...an in fact are going to loose money....So it really only leaves me with 2 choices....Go without my meds...or go into debt trying to pay for rediculously expensive medicine.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you got the insurance, they can't simply drop you, thats fraud. Just like how in this movie most of the cases are examples of these corporations cheating people out of money, but that doesn't mean a UHS is the answer.
I don't even oppose a UHS for economic reasons really, I oppose it for personal reasons. I do not want to be forced into a system I don't want to be in, where I am to care for other people, and other people are to care for me. It's not a matter that I don't have morals for the random person, it's a matter that I do not think people should be forced to worry for me. I want to do whatever i want, I want the right to be an idiot, and a universal health care system means it is other people's business how I live my life.
Insurance companies, have the right to only allow non drug users, or people who live life safely (seat belts, no risk), because if people do not like that they can always go to another insurance company. But when you make it on a national level, you take away these rights at birth, with no options. To me, that is more important than any economic reasons
Seems to me that insurance companies have far more control over how you live your life than a national health care system would. If you don't live within the guidelines they lay out for you, you're pretty much fucked. I've never felt any restrictions over my life, living in canada in terms of health care and I lived most of my life as a reckless idiot.
I fail to see why it is easier to agree to pay taxes that fund a bloated, excessive military budget for blowing people up on other continents instead of taking care of your own.
The video snippet of Reagan preaching against the subversive, democracy-killing socialism of universal health care was great. It's funny, but not 'hahah' funny. More like 'nobody really buys into that shit do they?' scary kinda funny. You know they do, or the gov't wouldn't use US tax dollars to fund that fear-mongering tripe.
Personally I think an NHS in the US at this point would be a complete failure. It would be a disaster trying to implement a system that goes against corporate domination and spurns preventative health care simply because it's not good for business. None of the drug or insurance companies have people's health as their priority. Those are two big Goliath's you'd have to topple before even thinking about making changes. And that's just not the american way. Besides that, they'd sabotage every effort made that attempts to break dependency on them. That's not conspiracy theory either - just basic corporate survival.
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that insurance companies have far more control over how you live your life than a national health care system would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but with them you at least have a choice.
The government of Canada feels it's their responsibility to slowly outlaw smoking, by banning it at all public areas. They justify this because it saves the health care system money, because people get less sick, this is also how they justify raising the sin taxes (if you have ever been to Canada, everything that is harmful is either heavily taxed or outlawed).
That, is taking away from my rights.
Talking about how much americans get screwed over by their own system, i remember Ronald Reagan when i was a kid giving a small blurb about ketchup being a vegetable.
And if your like me living in the great north and taking for granted that the system works here better than elsewhere and other countries should do this or that, you've never been really sick as of yet.
Funny, as a canadian who was a smoker at the time all that was going down, I had no problem with it. I quit in the end simply because I finally had the will power to ween myself off a stupid habit to begin with. As a smoker I never saw that it was my god given right to dirty up someone else's airspace though. It's just downright rude and disrespectful. I fully support that ban. If we as individuals are unwilling to take preventative measures, we're kindof leaving our gov't with a difficult decision to do it for us. I don't see them doing something that is in everyone's best interests in terms of health as hampering my freedom at all. That's a very small sacrifice for the individual smoker to make for the benefit of all. Smoke outside or in designated areas. Pretty simple really, and I had no trouble doing it myself without feeling 'less free'.
Taxing harmful substances makes sense to me too, especially if it cuts health care costs in our system. You aren't taking away people's freedom, you're just making it more expensive up front for them to make unhealthy choices. We're still free to poison our bodies however we like. Pretty sure the cost down the line for treating lung cancer would be nothing compared to paying a few extra cents per pack of smokes over the next 20 years. If that acts as a deterrent for some then the system is working. If not, then at least you know you helped fund the very system that ends up supplying you the chemo you need for the cancer you freely gave to yourself. Woo!
As for choice in the US, I really don't see it as such. Just because you have the right to choose your insurance company or health care provider doesn't guarantee you anything. That was one of the points of Moore's film. All you are paying for is the illusion of choice and security, and only if you are lucky enough to actually fit within the increasingly impossible list of pre-qualifying conditions - which they don't often tell you up front. You could end up paying them for years only to realize you never really were covered in the end anyway. I'd sooner have a government regulated system that guarantees my health coverage than depend on a corporation who's bottom line has nothing to do with my health.
I don't find it reassuring at all giving money to a company that employs many people and spends millions of dollars to find ways to NOT cover my ass when I need it.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the reason most Americans aren't up in arms about it is because we get insurance through work. On the other hand alot of people work at jobs they hate just because of the insurance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Out of the dozen or so jobs I've had I think only one of them ever offered health insurance. Even then I would've had to pay $90 a month for it cause the place I worked for at the time only paid for about half the cost of it. I'd say most of the businesses here don't offer insurance. The place I work for now doesn't. Even my mother working at the nuclear power plant for $25 an hour can't get insurance through her work. They don't offer it.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that insurance companies have far more control over how you live your life than a national health care system would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but with them you at least have a choice. The government of Canada feels it's their responsibility to slowly outlaw smoking, by banning it at all public areas. They justify this because it saves the health care system money, because people get less sick, this is also how they justify raising the sin taxes (if you have ever been to Canada, everything that is harmful is either heavily taxed or outlawed).
That, is taking away from my rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um... sorry to burst your bubble, but that exact same thing is happening in this country. I think tobacco taxes are close to 30% in some states (and always rising), and taxes on alcohol are pretty high also. And in a lot of states, it's illegal to smoke in public buildings (even bars and strip joints).
[ QUOTE ]
I'm about to open a whole new can of worms here, but I'm enjoying the conversation so what the hell (hopefully this won't take the conversation in a bad direction). I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up by the people who oppose socialized medicine, but how does illegal immigration effect socialized medicine?
[/ QUOTE ]
Its a scary thought that you might visit a country and have an accident only to find there will be no help for you - or you have to reply on a corporate decision on wether you are elidgable to receive appropraite treatment after the fact.
I have heard of people who'd flown back from the states to receive their medical treatment in the uk because of the fucked up system.
You know I never heard about people complaining about Illegal Imigrants using the health system when I lived in the Uk, or even about visitors from other countries.
I've been living in Canada for two years and suprisingly its never been brought up as an issue over here either.
Understandably II's might be concerned over seeking medical care for fear of deportion, but I dont know what the policy is for proceedure. I'd want treatment in someone else' country and so I have never felt there was a need to complain about others seeking it where I live.
Anyone heard of the Hippocratic Oath? Its an oath that was traditionally taken by Doctors and includes a statement (modern version at least);
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
I think negligence due to corporate interests fundamentally breaks that oath.
I kind of tried to stay out of this debate but the compulsion seems to have won. As someone who's lived in the UK for a fair chunk of his life, and then here in the States for another 7, I have to say that I just can't understand any argument against a subsidised national health service.
Whenever I talk to my mum on the phone, she moans about the NHS. Waiting lists, extra hidden costs, all sorts of stuff, but she really has no idea just how good she has it. My sculpture tutor survived melanoma last year. But even with good healthcare, at the age of 49 she's now in the kind of financial debt that she has very little chance of ever getting out of, and that's what's so frightening about the whole system to me. A serious problem can really badly screw you over for a very very long time indeed, health insurance or no health insurance.
I still have no clue how much this whole childbirth malarke is going to set me back, but from what I'm gathering it can be a sizeable amount, even with the already good healthcare which I have from my employer.
[ QUOTE ]
If we as individuals are unwilling to take preventative measures, we're kindof leaving our gov't with a difficult decision to do it for us. I don't see them doing something that is in everyone's best interests in terms of health as hampering my freedom at all. That's a very small sacrifice for the individual smoker to make for the benefit of all. Smoke outside or in designated areas. Pretty simple really, and I had no trouble doing it myself without feeling 'less free'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that entirely that if you do not want that in a restaurant, you don't need to have it. Businesses are private property, so they have the option of doing whatever they want.
But if I want to start, say, some smoking bar, I can not legally do that. If I put signs saying 'smoking' all over the place, if i put it in the middle of the prairies, and I only let other smokers in who agree with it, I still can't do it. That, in my view, is less freedom, whether you smoke or not.
[ QUOTE ]
As for choice in the US, I really don't see it as such. Just because you have the right to choose your insurance company or health care provider doesn't guarantee you anything. That was one of the points of Moore's film. All you are paying for is the illusion of choice and security, and only if you are lucky enough to actually fit within the increasingly impossible list of pre-qualifying conditions - which they don't often tell you up front. You could end up paying them for years only to realize you never really were covered in the end anyway. I'd sooner have a government regulated system that guarantees my health coverage than depend on a corporation who's bottom line has nothing to do with my health.
[/ QUOTE ]
The government does have a place in insuring health coverage, and that is insuring that the insurance companys do not scam you out of the contract. This is what Moore's film showed well, that the USA is obviously not doing a good job of this.
[ QUOTE ]
I think tobacco taxes are close to 30% in some states (and always rising), and taxes on alcohol are pretty high also.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know there are also sin taxes in the US, but really, not NEARLY as much as in Canada. In my province, hard alcohol can basically only be bought by a government operated liquor board store. Not only can you not smoke in a bar, but you can not smoke on the patio of the bar, you can not smoke where it's possible to sit down.
I am very thankful for a lot of the laws / rules against smoking. I don't have a problem with it personally or think down on people that do but my wife and I are both non-smokers and never have and it honestly bothers my lungs when I can smell it.
Some people are really courteous about not smoking around non-smokers and others are not. I had a lady light up while in line at Disneyland while my wife, myself and my 1 1/2 year old son were standing behind her getting all of her smoke. Ok not only is it against the parks policy to smoke in undesignated areas but she was doing it right in line where a ton of people didn't want to breath that in. I'm sorry I don't want my son breathing that in because this lady with the yellow fingers can't wait 20 minutes for her next fix. I asked her politely (the first time) to put it out so others wouldn't have to breath it in and she turned around and blew a huge puff right into my face and told me to mind my own business.
Honestly I could have punched the lady and not felt bad about doing it and probably would have taught her a lesson but then I would be arrested, banned from Disney and my wife would hate me for getting us banned. So instead of beating on an older woman I grabbed the thing out of her mouth and dropped it on the ground and smashed it with my foot and told her if she had a problem with what I just did to tell the park officials exactly WHY I did what I did. She left the line, nothing ever happened and we had a great day the rest of our trip.
Was I wrong for grabbing it from her nasty chapped lips? Sure but I was thanked by a ton of people that were behind me in line so I didn't let it bother me.
I also am thankful for some states starting to pass the law where you can't smoke in your car if there is a child in the car with you. Makes sense to me. Some people feel that it's my child. If I want to smoke around my kid it's my right. Well what about that childs rights?
And last but not least. While in the Navy. Do you know how much time people waste taking smoke breaks? Oh my god I got bored while on deployment and just relaxed outside on the back of the ship where everyone smokes and wrote down how many times each person came out. One lady came out over 15 times each time staying for 10 minutes or more. She spent less time working than she did smoking. Later that week I was in the gym about an hour before working hours ended and got written up for not being in my office / work station. I don't smoke and so I usually didn't take too many breaks so cutting out an hour early when I have nothing to do to go work out I didn't think would be a hassle. I brought up my little smoking report and was told that smoke breaks and going to the gym is two entirely different subjects. WTF!
[ QUOTE ]
I still have no clue how much this whole childbirth malarke is going to set me back, but from what I'm gathering it can be a sizeable amount, even with the already good healthcare which I have from my employer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, here in Michigan we have state run programs to cover the cost of childbirth. I didn't have to pay the hospital anything for my 3 daughters births. My gf was set-up for the same thing for giving birth to her daughter. But when she was 3 weeks from her due date I had to go to out of state to Indianapolis on a business trip. Since I was going to have a hotel room to myself and she didn't want to be alone while be so close to her due date she came along with me. She ended up going into labor the night we arrived in Indy and giving birth the next day. For which we are lucky because the hospital we went to supposedly has one of the best birthing units in the country. When Jade was born she had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck. They managed to clear it right away and save her without any complications. But they still kept her and my gf there for about 2 weeks to make sure everything was ok. That was 2 years ago and she's doing great. Nothing wrong with her.
A few months after she was born my gf received a bill from the hospital for over $20,000. The state of Michigan has refused to pay the bill since she gave birth out of state. We still haven't gotten it sorted out and there's no way we can pay that. I realize this isn't a case of an insurance company screwing her over but I still think it illustrates how fucked up the system is.
Sure I could buy health insurance if I gave up buying groceries or gas to get to work each month since the company I work for doesn't offer any insurance or to help pay for it. I think last I checked it would cost me over $200 a month to cover me and my kids. I already pay $600 a month in child support so I really can't afford that. Plus my oldest daughter has asthma which would fall under the "pre-existing condition" category. So any insurance company would probably refuse to cover her or at least any treatment for her asthma.
I'm fully in favor of an NHS. I don't care if it costs more in taxes or adding another socialist system to our society. I just want me and my family to be able to get medical help when they need it.
Yup. All insurance companies do it, too. They can deny you for just about any reason and there's no way you can get you can get your money back. Just health insurance gets the most spotlight since it's the most important one and the most costly.
[ QUOTE ]
It's like paying for car insurance but not getting the insurance's support when you have an accident.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did I mention many companies do that too in America? And if they do end up covering you, they will often cancel you right after, regardless of who's fault the accident was.
[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, every last possible thing should be capitalized, because the only truly equalizing system is an entirely open market.
[/ QUOTE ]
At the risk of turning this into a capitalism vs socialism debate...although I suppose it is in spirit already, how is a completely unregulated market equalizing? I may read that book when I get a chance as it did seem rather interesting, but I'm just curious off hand...How does unregulated capitalism not end up as competition crushing monopolies?
Most defenders of capitalism always cite that all past monopolies have come out of government intervention, and that a complete monopoly is unnatural and would not happen otherwise. I am not sure if thats entirely true though.
Although many people argue that, the more sophisticated arguement is that most monopolies come out of government control and the rest are temporary until someone with better technology comes along. I however think that there is no way to know that for sure.
Why is capitalism better than socialism in terms of efficiency and fairness to the consumer? Ironically, health care is one of the better examples you can use since it is heavily regulated "for your protection".
One of the main problems with health regulation is that it gives quacks and shysters the aura of legitimacy. The FDA is constantly letting dangerous drugs through and unlike a private organization like UL, the FDA has no competitors and so doesn't actually have to do a good job to stay in business. And what about doctors? I was just reading that some medical organization did a study that found on average you would have one medication error per day staying in a hospital-- any of which could kill you. That is a worse track record than McDonalds has with getting my special order right, and getting onions on my hamburger isn't going to kill me.
One of the big problems is that there are not enough medical personel, but this is also the result of regulation. These doctors are required to go to school for 8 years before they amputate the wrong limb or tell you you have an allergy to cheese based on asking 5 questions.
One of the most telling things about the medical and pharma industries are their fights to regulate even more things despite those things being completely safe. Lasik surgery is a big one. Doctors think that they should be the only ones allowed to do lasik, even though the existing procedures and technology are as safe as they can be given that they are shooting your eyeball with lasers. Pharmaceutical companies have been fighting recently to get vitamins classified as perscription drugs, I guess so that they have even more ways to kill you.
You see, 50,000 people die each year from medical errors, or the equivilent of 10 WTC attacks. Ironically, the number of medical errors hasn't improved at all since the 1940's despite the advent of computers. Why? Because they don't use them-- instead you have to depend on your doctor's retarded monkey handwriting and faulty memory.
And even if you fixed all these problems, the fundimental accounting of how medical procedures are done is still completely wrong. If you get cancer on the tip of your nose, and the doctor can improve your chance of survival 5% by cutting off your entire face vs. just cutting off the cancer, he would do it. Your quality of life doesn't enter into the decision for them. They are much more worried about being sued and getting paid, so they do the most extreme operation they can every single time.
So when it comes to universal health care, the question for me is would I want it even for free? The fact is that if I get health care or not, I still have a 100% chance of dying. If you believe in an afterlife or not, it doesn't matter. Either way you won't really care about what health care you got while you were alive.
Replies
Yes Lupus but having someone else pay for that accident doesn't seem right to me, either.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you pay for medical insurance, you're already doing that. One way or another, you're paying to cover someone else's recovery unless you're using the crap out of your medical coverage. Also, hospitals jack up charges to your insurance in order to make up losses for covering uninsured people, but obviously it isn't stated that way.
vassago: sounds like you've yet to experience the harsh reality that life isn't always fair. When your company gets bought and shut down by a competitor, then you get hit by a car while riding your bike, and you can't pay the $80k of medical bills, would you still call it your fault? Poor planning? Believe it or not, not everything in life is under your control. No amount of planning can promise you a smooth ride.
I vote for national health care. Yes Michael Moore is a tool, and manipulates images and information to shape people's opinions, but at least he occasionally shines a spotlight on an important, neglected subject. I'll give him that. Plus, I like the way he stirs the pot (whether or not I think he's a reptile).
At the risk of being called a naive hippy, we are going to need to start taking care of eachother if we're going to advance as a species or a society. Yes, there are poor people who are poor because they are lazy and stupid. There are also a lot of poor people who got the shitty end of life's stick, through no fault of their own. Automatically filing every poor person into the "it's their fault, they're lazy" category is a good way to distance yourself from reality and avoid feeling anything, but it's not a very healthy way to live. You'll probably find yourself at the shitty end of life's stick some day, and you're probably going to need someone else's help to deal with it.
I'd pay extra taxes for national health care, as long as it was actually going to help people and not into the pockets of the people that already have most of our money.
[/ QUOTE ]
Quoted entirely for truth.
Frank the Avenger
Not everyone who makes use of the system is "taking advantage".
[/ QUOTE ]
From my experience working for a federally funded NPO the vast majority of people are NOT taking advantage. I'm willing to pay a little more in taxes to help those that honestly do need it even if that means supporting that minority that are just scamming the system.
I also feel that health care should be a basic human right. It seems very uncivilized to me that in the wealthiest country in the world (or are we still?) people are left to suffer and die if they cannot afford health care. How about we revoke that top 1% tax cut and let the wealthiest people in the country pay for it? Seems fair to me.
-Visit to the doctor to find out what you're sick with (re: feeling like you have the flu)
[/ QUOTE ]
$15 co-pay
[ QUOTE ]
-Do you have a family doctor or is it strictly 'walk-in' clinics?
[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on your plan. I have a HMO. While more expensive (and restrictive in the doctor you can choose) it covers much more. I pick my doctor from a list of available doctors on the network.
[ QUOTE ]
-Do you even go when you have these types of symptoms or do you just hit up a pharmacy and get some Nyquil?
[/ QUOTE ]
If I feel ill, I'll go. I get bronchitis when I get super sick, so I usually get meds to clear that up. I don't go for regular colds though.
[ QUOTE ]
-Hospital visit? Say... you've started to limp for no reason and it hasn't left you for a week.
[/ QUOTE ]
I haven't had to do hospital stay yet. My family has, and it wasn't terribly expensive for them. My plan shows hospital stays as being 85% covered.
[ QUOTE ]
-Common surgery like an appendectomy?
[/ QUOTE ]
Never needed one, though my plan states it's 90% covered.
All preventative care is 100% covered (check ups, etc).
I have some serious digestive issues, and recently had to go in for a edoscopy & colonoscopy. The entire procedure (including sedative) was around $8000 or whatever. I only had to pay $75. That's pretty damn good in my book.
Sure, I haven't had a monumental accident that crippled me. I don't have a $100,000 procedure to rack up my med bills. Perhaps if I did, and wasn't covered, I'd think differently about the system. But as others have stated, I just don't think it will work.
What's co-pay?
From reading the stories, and watching the movie, (yah yah Moore's a this-and-that) I'm quite surprised the entire country of the USA isn't fighting for nation-wide health care. All that shit that Nixon was saying in that tape, is quite false. It really just seems like the almighty dollar is what started the privatized health-care you fellas have in the USA; not what is best for the individual.
To me, this is what is sickening the most: When anyone tries to fight that system (re: Hilary) they get bought out and shut down. I suppose thats partly do to the individuals character, to allow themselves to be bought out, but the pressure alone may make anyone crack.
It's sad really.
Moore's point about, "I wonder why we're told to hate the French..." I liked.
amen...
Isn't that the point of capitalism?
A friend of mine developed cancer while she was in college. Luckily it was discovered at an early stage during a checkup, and a surgery was immediately scheduled. The day before her surgery she was alerted that her insurance had been cancelled. NO other company would insure her for a "pre-existing condition". She dropped out of school, and planned to take a job or two and wait for 6 MONTHS for that insurance begin and hope they wouldn't deny her.
Another friend was denied to be seen by a clinic doctor. She didn't have insurance, but she had the cash in hand to pay for the visit. Still was refused. Over a year later and after many frustrations, she was diagnosed with a well developed autoimmune disease. After being ignored during a followup, the medication wasn't working, she asked to be referred to another doctor, and was denied. She later found a new doctor, and the new treatment is working well. Nearly three years to live a somewhat normal life again.
Many doctors care more for their payment than patients. And perhaps the frequent lawsuits against doctors has contributed to this. But either way the Hippocratic oath is being forgotten, and the health care BUSINESS is corrupt and flawed. In many ways it's doing more harm than good, denying those who require treatment and can be treated...and that is the same as doing harm, or even murder. All deserve to be treated equally, and all deserve to be treated well. No advantage to immigrant offspring, the rich, etc.
We need a new system.
I'm lucky: young, fairly healthy and taking preventative measures. I avoid doctors like the plague.
Everything was fine.
Cost me nothing apart from social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
When I found a lump I had to register for a GP. They had a 4 day wait, but bumped me right to the front. They sent me to hospital for scans and tests.
Everything was fine.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your lovely lady lumps? You are so fine, Rick.
Naw, testicular cancer.
Or do you get 2 different insurance plans? One through work and one privately?
Recently, my mom's insurance from her hospital secretary job covered all the bills when my dad got cancer.
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me nothing apart from social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be this:
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
National healthcare plans aren't free, its just that you aren't writing the check to the healthcare provider yourself, so you don't see the costs involved.
I really hate seeing socialized medicine lauded as free, because it is anything but free. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but the perception that socialized medicine is free is more heavily spun than anti-abortion being "pro-life."
This:
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me nothing apart from social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Should be this:
[ QUOTE ]
Cost me social contribution I've been paying since I had a job.
[/ QUOTE ]
National healthcare plans aren't free, its just that you aren't writing the check to the healthcare provider yourself, so you don't see the costs involved.
I really hate seeing socialized medicine lauded as free, because it is anything but free. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems, but the perception that socialized medicine is free is more heavily spun than anti-abortion being "pro-life."
[/ QUOTE ]
That's true, it isn't free. Health care costs money, and there's no way around that. Doctors need to be paid just like everyone else, whether or not that money is coming from tax revenue or private insurance companies. The difference is, insurance companies are running a for-profit business, so a significant portion of health care expenses are being used just to line the pockets of insurance companies.
I understand why some people have some fundamental disagreement with socialized medicine, but the way I see it, the wellbeing of our citizens is one of the things that shouldn't be turned into a for-profit industry.
Additionally one of the nice things about privatization of medicine is that when the company you are with makes a decision you do not like, it is possible to choose another company. You can't do that when the only game in town is the government. And when you have a government that makes unpopular decisions that cost billions of dollars and years of labor and lives based off of falsified and/or incorrect data, do you really want to have those same people dealing with your health care?
Despite not having socialized medicine for everyone on a national level, there are numerous stateside and federal methods of assisting the poor with health care. When trying to justify nationalized health care people tend to focus on the impoverished not being able to afford health care, despite the fact that social security and welfare programs, PLUS statewide programs all provide health care solutions, especially for children. Just because not everyone is getting government subsidized health care does not mean nobody is getting it.
The way I see it, every last possible thing should be capitalized, because the only truly equalizing system is an entirely open market. The current economic disparity in the world is largely the result of selective regulation preventing an open market from equalizing wealth.
You can read In Defense of Global Capitalism by Johan Norberg if you'd like to know more.
For those of you who live in countries that have a socialized system, could you give me some insight on this? I'm guessing that no one is refused care, but if a person can't prove they are in the country legally (either as a visitor with a passport or a citizen), are they reported to the authorities? This adds an interesting element to the debate, because even if illegal immigrants aren't refused care, if health care providers are obligated to report them, then most illegal immigrants would avoid seeking medical attention even when they are severely ill, out of fear of being deported. Some people would argue that it is wrong to report them because they would then avoid seeking help due to fear of being deported (which I think is actually pretty common even in our current system), and some people would argue that they are a burden on the system. I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed yet.
That's sounds wonerful....But let's say my insurance company decides not to cover the medicine I need to survive....It's a free market....so I can choose to go with another company...But hey, I have a preexisting condition...and no other insurance company will cover the cost of my medicine because they can see that they are going to make 0 dollars for picking me up...an in fact are going to loose money....So it really only leaves me with 2 choices....Go without my meds...or go into debt trying to pay for rediculously expensive medicine.
That's sounds wonerful....But let's say my insurance company decides not to cover the medicine I need to survive....It's a free market....so I can choose to go with another company...But hey, I have a preexisting condition...and no other insurance company will cover the cost of my medicine because they can see that they are going to make 0 dollars for picking me up...an in fact are going to loose money....So it really only leaves me with 2 choices....Go without my meds...or go into debt trying to pay for rediculously expensive medicine.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you got the insurance, they can't simply drop you, thats fraud. Just like how in this movie most of the cases are examples of these corporations cheating people out of money, but that doesn't mean a UHS is the answer.
I don't even oppose a UHS for economic reasons really, I oppose it for personal reasons. I do not want to be forced into a system I don't want to be in, where I am to care for other people, and other people are to care for me. It's not a matter that I don't have morals for the random person, it's a matter that I do not think people should be forced to worry for me. I want to do whatever i want, I want the right to be an idiot, and a universal health care system means it is other people's business how I live my life.
Insurance companies, have the right to only allow non drug users, or people who live life safely (seat belts, no risk), because if people do not like that they can always go to another insurance company. But when you make it on a national level, you take away these rights at birth, with no options. To me, that is more important than any economic reasons
An insurance company... commiting fraud...In the USA...naaaaaa....
I fail to see why it is easier to agree to pay taxes that fund a bloated, excessive military budget for blowing people up on other continents instead of taking care of your own.
The video snippet of Reagan preaching against the subversive, democracy-killing socialism of universal health care was great. It's funny, but not 'hahah' funny. More like 'nobody really buys into that shit do they?' scary kinda funny. You know they do, or the gov't wouldn't use US tax dollars to fund that fear-mongering tripe.
Personally I think an NHS in the US at this point would be a complete failure. It would be a disaster trying to implement a system that goes against corporate domination and spurns preventative health care simply because it's not good for business. None of the drug or insurance companies have people's health as their priority. Those are two big Goliath's you'd have to topple before even thinking about making changes. And that's just not the american way. Besides that, they'd sabotage every effort made that attempts to break dependency on them. That's not conspiracy theory either - just basic corporate survival.
Seems to me that insurance companies have far more control over how you live your life than a national health care system would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but with them you at least have a choice.
The government of Canada feels it's their responsibility to slowly outlaw smoking, by banning it at all public areas. They justify this because it saves the health care system money, because people get less sick, this is also how they justify raising the sin taxes (if you have ever been to Canada, everything that is harmful is either heavily taxed or outlawed).
That, is taking away from my rights.
And if your like me living in the great north and taking for granted that the system works here better than elsewhere and other countries should do this or that, you've never been really sick as of yet.
Taxing harmful substances makes sense to me too, especially if it cuts health care costs in our system. You aren't taking away people's freedom, you're just making it more expensive up front for them to make unhealthy choices. We're still free to poison our bodies however we like. Pretty sure the cost down the line for treating lung cancer would be nothing compared to paying a few extra cents per pack of smokes over the next 20 years. If that acts as a deterrent for some then the system is working. If not, then at least you know you helped fund the very system that ends up supplying you the chemo you need for the cancer you freely gave to yourself. Woo!
As for choice in the US, I really don't see it as such. Just because you have the right to choose your insurance company or health care provider doesn't guarantee you anything. That was one of the points of Moore's film. All you are paying for is the illusion of choice and security, and only if you are lucky enough to actually fit within the increasingly impossible list of pre-qualifying conditions - which they don't often tell you up front. You could end up paying them for years only to realize you never really were covered in the end anyway. I'd sooner have a government regulated system that guarantees my health coverage than depend on a corporation who's bottom line has nothing to do with my health.
I don't find it reassuring at all giving money to a company that employs many people and spends millions of dollars to find ways to NOT cover my ass when I need it.
I guess the reason most Americans aren't up in arms about it is because we get insurance through work. On the other hand alot of people work at jobs they hate just because of the insurance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Out of the dozen or so jobs I've had I think only one of them ever offered health insurance. Even then I would've had to pay $90 a month for it cause the place I worked for at the time only paid for about half the cost of it. I'd say most of the businesses here don't offer insurance. The place I work for now doesn't. Even my mother working at the nuclear power plant for $25 an hour can't get insurance through her work. They don't offer it.
That, is taking away from my rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to start an argument here, but how is smoking a 'right'?
[ QUOTE ]
Seems to me that insurance companies have far more control over how you live your life than a national health care system would.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah but with them you at least have a choice.
The government of Canada feels it's their responsibility to slowly outlaw smoking, by banning it at all public areas. They justify this because it saves the health care system money, because people get less sick, this is also how they justify raising the sin taxes (if you have ever been to Canada, everything that is harmful is either heavily taxed or outlawed).
That, is taking away from my rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um... sorry to burst your bubble, but that exact same thing is happening in this country. I think tobacco taxes are close to 30% in some states (and always rising), and taxes on alcohol are pretty high also. And in a lot of states, it's illegal to smoke in public buildings (even bars and strip joints).
[ QUOTE ]
That, is taking away from my rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to start an argument here, but how is smoking a 'right'?
[/ QUOTE ]
How is drinking a right? People generally don't seem to like the government messing with what they can/can't consume.
I'm about to open a whole new can of worms here, but I'm enjoying the conversation so what the hell (hopefully this won't take the conversation in a bad direction). I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up by the people who oppose socialized medicine, but how does illegal immigration effect socialized medicine?
[/ QUOTE ]
Its a scary thought that you might visit a country and have an accident only to find there will be no help for you - or you have to reply on a corporate decision on wether you are elidgable to receive appropraite treatment after the fact.
I have heard of people who'd flown back from the states to receive their medical treatment in the uk because of the fucked up system.
You know I never heard about people complaining about Illegal Imigrants using the health system when I lived in the Uk, or even about visitors from other countries.
I've been living in Canada for two years and suprisingly its never been brought up as an issue over here either.
Understandably II's might be concerned over seeking medical care for fear of deportion, but I dont know what the policy is for proceedure. I'd want treatment in someone else' country and so I have never felt there was a need to complain about others seeking it where I live.
Anyone heard of the Hippocratic Oath? Its an oath that was traditionally taken by Doctors and includes a statement (modern version at least);
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
I think negligence due to corporate interests fundamentally breaks that oath.
[ QUOTE ]
That, is taking away from my rights.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not to start an argument here, but how is smoking a 'right'?
[/ QUOTE ]
how is it not?
Whenever I talk to my mum on the phone, she moans about the NHS. Waiting lists, extra hidden costs, all sorts of stuff, but she really has no idea just how good she has it. My sculpture tutor survived melanoma last year. But even with good healthcare, at the age of 49 she's now in the kind of financial debt that she has very little chance of ever getting out of, and that's what's so frightening about the whole system to me. A serious problem can really badly screw you over for a very very long time indeed, health insurance or no health insurance.
I still have no clue how much this whole childbirth malarke is going to set me back, but from what I'm gathering it can be a sizeable amount, even with the already good healthcare which I have from my employer.
If we as individuals are unwilling to take preventative measures, we're kindof leaving our gov't with a difficult decision to do it for us. I don't see them doing something that is in everyone's best interests in terms of health as hampering my freedom at all. That's a very small sacrifice for the individual smoker to make for the benefit of all. Smoke outside or in designated areas. Pretty simple really, and I had no trouble doing it myself without feeling 'less free'.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that entirely that if you do not want that in a restaurant, you don't need to have it. Businesses are private property, so they have the option of doing whatever they want.
But if I want to start, say, some smoking bar, I can not legally do that. If I put signs saying 'smoking' all over the place, if i put it in the middle of the prairies, and I only let other smokers in who agree with it, I still can't do it. That, in my view, is less freedom, whether you smoke or not.
[ QUOTE ]
As for choice in the US, I really don't see it as such. Just because you have the right to choose your insurance company or health care provider doesn't guarantee you anything. That was one of the points of Moore's film. All you are paying for is the illusion of choice and security, and only if you are lucky enough to actually fit within the increasingly impossible list of pre-qualifying conditions - which they don't often tell you up front. You could end up paying them for years only to realize you never really were covered in the end anyway. I'd sooner have a government regulated system that guarantees my health coverage than depend on a corporation who's bottom line has nothing to do with my health.
[/ QUOTE ]
The government does have a place in insuring health coverage, and that is insuring that the insurance companys do not scam you out of the contract. This is what Moore's film showed well, that the USA is obviously not doing a good job of this.
[ QUOTE ]
I think tobacco taxes are close to 30% in some states (and always rising), and taxes on alcohol are pretty high also.
[/ QUOTE ]
I know there are also sin taxes in the US, but really, not NEARLY as much as in Canada. In my province, hard alcohol can basically only be bought by a government operated liquor board store. Not only can you not smoke in a bar, but you can not smoke on the patio of the bar, you can not smoke where it's possible to sit down.
Some people are really courteous about not smoking around non-smokers and others are not. I had a lady light up while in line at Disneyland while my wife, myself and my 1 1/2 year old son were standing behind her getting all of her smoke. Ok not only is it against the parks policy to smoke in undesignated areas but she was doing it right in line where a ton of people didn't want to breath that in. I'm sorry I don't want my son breathing that in because this lady with the yellow fingers can't wait 20 minutes for her next fix. I asked her politely (the first time) to put it out so others wouldn't have to breath it in and she turned around and blew a huge puff right into my face and told me to mind my own business.
Honestly I could have punched the lady and not felt bad about doing it and probably would have taught her a lesson but then I would be arrested, banned from Disney and my wife would hate me for getting us banned. So instead of beating on an older woman I grabbed the thing out of her mouth and dropped it on the ground and smashed it with my foot and told her if she had a problem with what I just did to tell the park officials exactly WHY I did what I did. She left the line, nothing ever happened and we had a great day the rest of our trip.
Was I wrong for grabbing it from her nasty chapped lips? Sure but I was thanked by a ton of people that were behind me in line so I didn't let it bother me.
I also am thankful for some states starting to pass the law where you can't smoke in your car if there is a child in the car with you. Makes sense to me. Some people feel that it's my child. If I want to smoke around my kid it's my right. Well what about that childs rights?
And last but not least. While in the Navy. Do you know how much time people waste taking smoke breaks? Oh my god I got bored while on deployment and just relaxed outside on the back of the ship where everyone smokes and wrote down how many times each person came out. One lady came out over 15 times each time staying for 10 minutes or more. She spent less time working than she did smoking. Later that week I was in the gym about an hour before working hours ended and got written up for not being in my office / work station. I don't smoke and so I usually didn't take too many breaks so cutting out an hour early when I have nothing to do to go work out I didn't think would be a hassle. I brought up my little smoking report and was told that smoke breaks and going to the gym is two entirely different subjects. WTF!
I still have no clue how much this whole childbirth malarke is going to set me back, but from what I'm gathering it can be a sizeable amount, even with the already good healthcare which I have from my employer.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, here in Michigan we have state run programs to cover the cost of childbirth. I didn't have to pay the hospital anything for my 3 daughters births. My gf was set-up for the same thing for giving birth to her daughter. But when she was 3 weeks from her due date I had to go to out of state to Indianapolis on a business trip. Since I was going to have a hotel room to myself and she didn't want to be alone while be so close to her due date she came along with me. She ended up going into labor the night we arrived in Indy and giving birth the next day. For which we are lucky because the hospital we went to supposedly has one of the best birthing units in the country. When Jade was born she had the umbilical cord wrapped tightly around her neck. They managed to clear it right away and save her without any complications. But they still kept her and my gf there for about 2 weeks to make sure everything was ok. That was 2 years ago and she's doing great. Nothing wrong with her.
A few months after she was born my gf received a bill from the hospital for over $20,000. The state of Michigan has refused to pay the bill since she gave birth out of state. We still haven't gotten it sorted out and there's no way we can pay that. I realize this isn't a case of an insurance company screwing her over but I still think it illustrates how fucked up the system is.
Sure I could buy health insurance if I gave up buying groceries or gas to get to work each month since the company I work for doesn't offer any insurance or to help pay for it. I think last I checked it would cost me over $200 a month to cover me and my kids. I already pay $600 a month in child support so I really can't afford that. Plus my oldest daughter has asthma which would fall under the "pre-existing condition" category. So any insurance company would probably refuse to cover her or at least any treatment for her asthma.
I'm fully in favor of an NHS. I don't care if it costs more in taxes or adding another socialist system to our society. I just want me and my family to be able to get medical help when they need it.
So very odd.
It's like paying for car insurance but not getting the insurance's support when you have an accident.
*turns on 'Fuck the System' by SoaD... just for this thread.
It's like paying for car insurance but not getting the insurance's support when you have an accident.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did I mention many companies do that too in America? And if they do end up covering you, they will often cancel you right after, regardless of who's fault the accident was.
The way I see it, every last possible thing should be capitalized, because the only truly equalizing system is an entirely open market.
[/ QUOTE ]
At the risk of turning this into a capitalism vs socialism debate...although I suppose it is in spirit already, how is a completely unregulated market equalizing? I may read that book when I get a chance as it did seem rather interesting, but I'm just curious off hand...How does unregulated capitalism not end up as competition crushing monopolies?
Why is capitalism better than socialism in terms of efficiency and fairness to the consumer? Ironically, health care is one of the better examples you can use since it is heavily regulated "for your protection".
One of the main problems with health regulation is that it gives quacks and shysters the aura of legitimacy. The FDA is constantly letting dangerous drugs through and unlike a private organization like UL, the FDA has no competitors and so doesn't actually have to do a good job to stay in business. And what about doctors? I was just reading that some medical organization did a study that found on average you would have one medication error per day staying in a hospital-- any of which could kill you. That is a worse track record than McDonalds has with getting my special order right, and getting onions on my hamburger isn't going to kill me.
One of the big problems is that there are not enough medical personel, but this is also the result of regulation. These doctors are required to go to school for 8 years before they amputate the wrong limb or tell you you have an allergy to cheese based on asking 5 questions.
One of the most telling things about the medical and pharma industries are their fights to regulate even more things despite those things being completely safe. Lasik surgery is a big one. Doctors think that they should be the only ones allowed to do lasik, even though the existing procedures and technology are as safe as they can be given that they are shooting your eyeball with lasers. Pharmaceutical companies have been fighting recently to get vitamins classified as perscription drugs, I guess so that they have even more ways to kill you.
You see, 50,000 people die each year from medical errors, or the equivilent of 10 WTC attacks. Ironically, the number of medical errors hasn't improved at all since the 1940's despite the advent of computers. Why? Because they don't use them-- instead you have to depend on your doctor's retarded monkey handwriting and faulty memory.
And even if you fixed all these problems, the fundimental accounting of how medical procedures are done is still completely wrong. If you get cancer on the tip of your nose, and the doctor can improve your chance of survival 5% by cutting off your entire face vs. just cutting off the cancer, he would do it. Your quality of life doesn't enter into the decision for them. They are much more worried about being sued and getting paid, so they do the most extreme operation they can every single time.
So when it comes to universal health care, the question for me is would I want it even for free? The fact is that if I get health care or not, I still have a 100% chance of dying. If you believe in an afterlife or not, it doesn't matter. Either way you won't really care about what health care you got while you were alive.
http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/2007/01/30/woman-becomes-quadruple-amputee-after-giving-birth.html
that is the most fucked up shit i have ever read. i just cant believe something like that could even happen.