From hereQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
the individuals involved must be compensated according to education, desire to work, effort put forth - that's capitalism.
Printable View
From hereQuote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Quote:
the individuals involved must be compensated according to education, desire to work, effort put forth - that's capitalism.
So there is cost sharing. And you pay into the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
This is just like insurance here.
But the UK government decides how to serve it out to the people.
And those below a certain poverty line don't pay but still get services - just like here.
Ok - back to your original question - do we think that having the government run the health care system is better then having the health care system run itself? No - I don't think that's a good idea.
I think that every time the government puts there hands into something it gets political, and I certainly don't want my health-care needs served by political agenda.
That may well be true, but your description of capitalism is not accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Read John Smith's work.
Yes, I agree that the political nature of the UK health system is flawed. Surely there must be some 'in-between' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Perhaps I have the wrong idea of the US 'insurance' scheme?
I understand insurance as the concept that you pay a premium on the understanding that if something goes wrong, the insurance company will pay for resulting cost.
If you can have different levels of insurance, which I presume have different premium costs, then you will get a different level of insurance cover.
If you cannot afford the 'A' cover then you don't get the 'A' treatment.
That, to me, is those with money get it, those without don't.
Am I right with this assessment?
No you are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Your national-level of pooling funds to pay for service is absolutely the exact same things a private-insurance company pooling of funds to pay for service.
In your system, the government decides what to cover (oh, we don't pay for mammograms unless the women is 40).
In a private system, the companies decide what to cover (with many state and federal guidelines) - and you can purchase from whatever company fits your whims.
That's where the real difference comes in. Not how to pool the funds - both ways are exactly the same - pooling funds to cover expenses for health care.
OK, but the point remains that if you don't have the money you cannot choose a 'company [that] fits your whims'Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
If you have money you get healthcare, if you have less you get less healthcare?
This is not the same premise as the UK. Regardless of the financial state of the individual they will receive the same quality of care as a trillionaire who exercises his rights under the same system.
Do you really believe that a trillionaire in your country does not purchase health care from a provider that is deemed by that trillionaire to be better then other providers? And pay for that service out of pocket?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I'm sure that the trillionaire would pay to go to the US for the 'best' doctors. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Do you not agree that if you have money you get better treatment?
In an ideal world everyone would be born equal. I say that clearly they're not because I wouldnt class an African child born with AIDs whos going to spend every minute of his short life suffering from starvation and the extremes of poverty to have a life equal to someone born in a more developed country.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I didnt indicate they are inferior, but they certainly have not been dealt a fair or equal hand in life.
We're not talking about Africa, nor AIDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
What we're talking about is people born in 'developed' nations. I can't think of an excuse that someone should be deemed 'less-equal' in either the UK, or the US let alone anywhere else.
Can you?
go ahead and roll your eyes smartarse. The US spends more oney on Medical Research and Education than your countrys GNP. That is not an insult to you or your country, It's just the way it is. education + research + practice = better surgeons go ahead and argue or call it subjective or whatever. It is obvious you have no clue and need to resort to smart asrse comment. I don't know about you but If I needed a liver transplant, I'd rather have it don in a hospital that does more liver transplants per year than the entire UK does. And I's also like to have it done by a doctor that realizes if he screws up and kills me he will loose every penny he has and never work again.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
You mean to tell me this entire fooking time you've been arguing against private healthcare and you have absolutley no Idea how it works? Whatever man. If you don't have money you get the same basic care as a person with money. Paying more for better insurance coverage means you get more services other than the base stuff you need to live a healthy life. Sorry welfare case, I'm not using my taxes to pay for your Breast implants and face lift.Quote:
Do you not agree that if you have money you get better treatment?
MasterBlaster - thanks for that - I kind of gave up on this thread ;)
How did this turn into a US vs UK healthcare debate?
Anyway, to answer yrfw's concern about poorer people receiving less health care - they generally do not receive the best health care. They do not schedule routine doctor visits, they generally only go to the hospital in emergency situations. In such situations, the hospitals are required to treat them. That does not mean the poor person gets off free - they will be billed - but the hospital generally never intends on seeing the compensation. To fill that gap, they jack the prices for everyone else who does pay.
Many states offer a state-wide care system for their poor. In Wisconsin here, its called 'BadgerCare'. It mainly helps single mothers with newborns, but it covers poor families nonetheless. And its graduated past a certain point - so under x amount of dollars, you pay nothing. Between x and y, you pay a percentage of the billed amounts. The system additionally covers routine visits and procedures.
Whether its better for private entities or a public entity to administer health-care, I have no idea. Both systems are in use here (on a State level anyway). Our state system seems to operate just as well as the private systems. So in my opinion, there probably is little difference - its still one big administrative mess no matter who looks at it.
They are both well off western nations and are just an example of each type of system. And for the most part they are the only systems most of us talking here have participated in.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Then please explain to me how I had knee surgery done by the Orthopedic sugeon who's clients included the Pittsburgh Steelers and Pitt Panthers while I was on state provided health care and didn't pay a penny? Pretty damn good surgeon if you ask me. Rebuilt my knees 3 times and hardly left a scar. I've been on both ends of the spectrum in my life. I've been treated and operated on for various injurys while having the best insurance money can buy to no insurance at all shortly after college. Bottom line. If you are sick you are going to be able to get health care and odds are you're getting a good doctor.
I believe that is because of our free-market health care/insurance system.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
That's only my opinion - I personally am friends with several doctors and have been involved in many meetings where insurance companies decide how to cover what with the dollars they have to cover it with.
This appears rather confusing. For a start I'm slightly puzzled by your belief that a doctor will do a better or more reliable job because he works under the threat of dissmisal and losing everything he ever has. I would prefer (and feel much more comfortable) with a doctor who is skilled (like the vast vast majority of them are) and does what's in the best interests of his patient regardless of consequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What you are talking about is not subjective (or whatever) as they are metrics that can be measured reliably. I am pleased that you have faith in your healthcare system as I do in mine.
No I am not arguing for or against private healthcare: you would do well to remember that you can get private healthcare in the UK, too. Why you (apparently) see this as some sort of personal attack bewilders me, I must admit.
I am trying to ascertain whether it is true or not that if you pay, in the US, you get more. This is certainly true in the UK. If you pay for private healthcare at the very least you get seen, and treated quicker because you've paid extra money - and not on the basis of clinical need. Is this the same in the US?
What this has to do with breast implants and facelifts I have no idea.
Noone is arguing the competence of the practising doctor. The discussion, I presume, is about if you pay do you get better treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
This is a good example where you haven't paid but still had excellent treatment.
Which is the crux of the matter really. Is it morally right to profit from other's misery?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
No the crux of the matter is that richer people have more benefits than the poor. Just the way it is.
You spin words well, but they are still spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Does a plumber who comes to your house after your basement floods profiting from your misery? Does the tow-truck driver that fixes your flat at 2:00 am in the rain profiting from your misery?
There is no more or no less profiting going on in our private health care system as in your public health care system. Everyone, in both systems, takes a slice.
Yes, that's a good point. I'll think about that one . . . . :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
ONE DAY! I GO AWAY FOR ONE BLOOMIN' DAY AND THIS THREAD GOES WILD! Yeeeeeshhhh!
Do you get more if you are richer? In general, yes. I can't account for MB's experience, but then again, I had a doctor offer me free orthopedic help when he picked me up hitch-hiking, so good things do happen.
I know plenty of people who determine how they handle their health in part by the prohibitive cost of health care if you lack insurance. This goes as far as people I know doing minor surgery and suturing on themselves or family members (the anesthetic you can easily guess, though it goes by many names) because the cost of a hospital visit was too high.
You do get a bill from most places, and they are not always written off as a loss by the hospital.
So my question is: Could we do better? I laid out where the money would come from, and it seems adequate. Could we do better, and how?
yrwyddfa
First let me just say that money does play an important role in the NHS and there is a cost/benefit trade off made, so it is not true to say that it puts people first whatever the cost. The NHS has a certain budget to play with and it rations it's resources to cater for those who need it's services.
However, even if one accepts that health care should be funded by the tax system (rather than by private individuals), it does not follow that it should be provided by the government.
I would like to see the NHS wound up and replaced entirely by privately run hospitals. That doesn't mean that health care could not still be fully (or partially) funded by the tax payer.
How ever much we cling to the principle of free care at the point of need, we should not be so quick to assume that the government must also administer the health care (because it is obviously a shambles).
Yes I agree - the government does not have to administer the health system.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Simon Like I inferred here.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
When you go to see a doctor usually there is something reasonably seriously wrong with you. When you need a mechanic, or a plumber it's a matter of convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
I wouldn't call the two the same - as getting medical treatment should never become a matter of convenience.
What about food and shelter? Shouldn't they be "free at the point of need"?Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The USSR already proved, through decades of "everyone" is equal that corruption overwhelms that type of system.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I prefer a socieity being driven by ability to gain status by working harder over one that is handed out a portion regardless of participation.
There will always be welfare and charity cases - they are unavoidable - but they should be a small percentage of the population and supported by the welfare state.
Sorry, but everyone should have health care, otherwise it wouldn't be very caring.
Sweden has 100% of it's population covered, the US - 30%. That is shocking, it's no wonder the US population is seen as obese and generally unhealthy. Health care access is bad enough but for only a quarter of the population to have access to a GP and less than 5% to have access to drugs (antibioitics etc..) :eek2:
On the face of it, yes, it appears shocking.
But I'm sure our American friends will argue that only people who cannot afford to pay are subsequently listed on these statistics. Everyone else covers themselves through private insurance.
It is, after all, not a measure of how many people have access to healthcare.
Still, it should be something the government is responsible for. I for one like the idea of the NHS. What I don't like is how it is run. All that should be needed for healthcare is to prove you are British (or been living here for a length of time, perhaps 5 years?) otherwise health care has to be paid for by insurance or some other means.
It's a great idea but one that is unlikely ever to be fair and equitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Salaries, as most working people on this forum will know, are not a function of hardwork.
Those who work long factory hours earn a great deal less than me. I would go to say that they work a lot harder than I do, too.
You see, under your system, I have a good salary and good standing in society because of the way I was born. I was born having an intellectual capacity on balance greater than a significant proportion of the population. This is, however you might dislike the idea, probably true for nearly every member of this forum. The set of programmers, as a rule, simply tend to be brighter than the average member of the population.
Under the capitalist system it is your business worth (ie how much many you can make, or save) that counts.
Success, therefore, must be a function of birthright (genetic factors go someway to predict the intellect levels of the children - as do the environmental factors of living with bright parents)
I know it's unpalatable but it's the truth. If you're rather lacking in the IQ area then you generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity.
I guess what your saying here - that the government is responsible for quality assurance of the healthcare system, and not the execution of it - is a reasonable idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Yes. The government shouldn't run the NHS (which they don't) but they should ensure that it is run professionally and to a very high standard....which is not the case at the moment
yrwyddfa
Obviously, one's birth right plays an important factor, how can it not? And what is so wrong with that? That is not a feature of the capitalist system, it is a fact of nature for all living things. The facilities you are born with determine to a large degree your capacity for success in life.Quote:
You see, under your system, I have a good salary and good standing in society because of the way I was born. I was born having an intellectual capacity on balance greater than a significant proportion of the population. This is, however you might dislike the idea, probably true for nearly every member of this forum. The set of programmers, as a rule, simply tend to be brighter than the average member of the population.
However, don't belittle individual effort. It is not merely enough to be exposed to opportunities. Successful people make their own opportunities when they don't already exist. They know when to seize an opportunity, rather than letting them float by untapped. Hard work and effort certainly play an important role in one's success too.
That's simply untrue. Progress will undoubtedly be more difficult, but still possible.Quote:
I know it's unpalatable but it's the truth. If you're rather lacking in the IQ area then you generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity.
IndeedQuote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I wasn't. I said that some people 'generally don't stand a chance in society regardless of opportunity'Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Do they? I can think of only one group of people who fit into that description: entrepreneurs. What happens if you are not endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit?Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
I think you'll find that most people seize their opportunities. But first you have recognise them as such. What skills do you need to recognise opportunity? Are you suggesting that the majority of people have the skills for this?Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
Perhaps. But by the very description some people will find the work hard, and have to put in an awful lot of effort to get the job done. Not very efficient, huh? What was that John Smith said about capitalism and efficiency . . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
More difficult, if not impossible. Not to say it can't be done. I'm sure someone has some pathological case that 'proves' this is all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by simonm
yrwyddfa
Yes you were: "Success, therefore, must be a function of birthright"Quote:
I wasn't.Quote:
However, don't belittle individual effort.
Then stop thinking about people as groups and starting thinking about them as individuals.Quote:
I can think of only one group of people who fit into that description: entrepreneurs. What happens if you are not endowed with an entrepreneurial spirit?
It's not just entrepeneurs. It's about whether you sit back and wait for things to come to you, for things to fall into your lap, whether you believe the world owes you a living. Or do you go out and get them, make things happen, because you believe only you can make your life better?
It's not so much about being born entrepeneurial skills or spirit. It's about attitude and outlook. This is something one learns.
Do they? Or do many people cling to what they know, afraid of change, afraid of risk, of rocking the boat?Quote:
I think you'll find that most people seize their opportunities.
Yes, I believe the majority have the ability, to a greater or lesser degree to do this. Indeed, part of overcomming the obstacles in your path is recognising that your fate is in your own hands and that you can change your destiny. Merely believing that your birthright has dictated the path of your life is a defeatist attitude. It resigns one to doing nothing and sitting back. A large part of being successful is believing you can affect your own destiny.Quote:
But first you have recognise them as such. What skills do you need to recognise opportunity? Are you suggesting that the majority of people have the skills for this?
I cannot agree with this, albeit makes a modicum of sense.
If I were born with no arms I could not become a world-class javelin thrower. If I had no legs, I could never compete with Dwain Chambers on the 100m dash. If I have no fingers then I would find the job as a computer programmer particularly difficult.
I believe that the intellectual capacity is of the same order as other physcial attributes.
Opportunity, and success are limited, by ones own attributes. No amount of 'positive mental attitude' can change that. Take cycling. I can never compete in the Tour de France, although I can still ride a bike. My muscular structure, by fluke of genetics, will never be made for cycling. My mysocin filaments are too short and fat. This means I can run fast, but have no endurance.
I cannot think my way out of this. I cannot change my attitude so that the way I'm made effectively changes my biological make-up.
I think that it's unfair to suggest that anyone can achieve whatever they want to if they could only work harder, or think more positively. Perhaps they could achieve more, but their success would always be limited by what consitutes themselves as an individual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Yes, its called training.