US Universal Healthcare

  • User
  • User
More
12 Mar 2019 15:54 - 12 Mar 2019 15:55 #335443 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Arisaig wrote:
It sorta is, and of course its more complex than the example I gave it. Your country loves war and profit of the rich over the lives and mental and physical well-being of the hard working American.

but, of course, more complex than that. More funded than the next twenty counties militaries combined, while many of those following it also fund a full military, pay their soldiers better, and have healthcare. But whadda I know, eh?


Guess why those countries can do that. yes you guessed it, The United States. Are you suggesting we just pull all those budgets and direct that money inward leaving all those foreign militaries having to actually spend their due on their defense or be invaded and in the process have their internal wealth collapse?

I dont think this discussion was supposed to be about US military defense anyway. :pinch:
Last edit: 12 Mar 2019 15:55 by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
12 Mar 2019 15:57 #335444 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
It sorta is, and of course its more complex than the example I gave it. Your country loves war and profit of the rich over the lives and mental and physical well-being of the hard working American.

but, of course, more complex than that. More funded than the next twenty counties militaries combined, while many of those following it also fund a full military, pay their soldiers better, and have healthcare. But whadda I know, eh?


Guess why those countries can do that. yes you guessed it, The United States. Are you suggesting we just pull all those budgets and direct that money inward leaving all those foreign militaries having to actually spend their due on their defense or be invaded and in the process have their internal wealth collapse?

I dont think this discussion was supposed to be about US military defense anyway. :pinch:


No, it wasn't supposed to be about it. Thanks.

And yes, the States should get their nose outta other countries and fix themselves first. Log outta your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbour...

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
12 Mar 2019 16:16 - 12 Mar 2019 16:16 #335447 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Arisaig wrote:
And yes, the States should get their nose outta other countries and fix themselves first. Log outta your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbour...[/color]


Bold words from one who has inhabited not one but two countries that greatly benefit from the United States protections. Everyone begs the US to help them and save them and when we do its complained about. We don't help we get accused of indifference, we do help we get accused of interference. Well take your medicine world and get over it.
Last edit: 12 Mar 2019 16:16 by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2019 20:57 #335469 by Manu
Replied by Manu on topic US Universal Healthcare

TheDude wrote: I've looked into the cost of some hospital supplies; some hospitals charge over 1000x the actual cost of an item (such as an IV bag) in the US. If hospitals and doctors did not charge ridiculously high fees, insurance companies would have to pay them less. If insurance companies didn't have to pay as much, people buying the insurance wouldn't have to pay as much. An affordable and reasonable healthcare system which doesn't require compulsory membership (and thereby respects the autonomy of individuals in the state) is totally achievable, it just requires doctors to take seriously their duty to heal the sick.


This is something I have seen reported by many American friends. The example of hospital supplies, or ambulance rides, for example. Why exactly are they so ridiculously high?

I am sure quality alone does not account for the high price. Also, what stops new and potentially smaller capitalists from wanting to invest? (If I were a capitalist, I would offer more affordable care, getting a huge chunk of the market and still making an interesting margin despite offering low cost).

The pessimist complains about the wind;
The optimist expects it to change;
The realist adjusts the sails.
- William Arthur Ward

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2019 21:57 #335472 by Tellahane
Replied by Tellahane on topic US Universal Healthcare

Manu wrote:

TheDude wrote: I've looked into the cost of some hospital supplies; some hospitals charge over 1000x the actual cost of an item (such as an IV bag) in the US. If hospitals and doctors did not charge ridiculously high fees, insurance companies would have to pay them less. If insurance companies didn't have to pay as much, people buying the insurance wouldn't have to pay as much. An affordable and reasonable healthcare system which doesn't require compulsory membership (and thereby respects the autonomy of individuals in the state) is totally achievable, it just requires doctors to take seriously their duty to heal the sick.


This is something I have seen reported by many American friends. The example of hospital supplies, or ambulance rides, for example. Why exactly are they so ridiculously high?

I am sure quality alone does not account for the high price. Also, what stops new and potentially smaller capitalists from wanting to invest? (If I were a capitalist, I would offer more affordable care, getting a huge chunk of the market and still making an interesting margin despite offering low cost).


It's high because of the number of people who don't pay and/or don't have insurance. Or worse they have government insurance programs such as medicare/medicaid.

For example, We HAVE to as an ambulance service anywhere servicing a 911 area, pick up and treat you, whether you have insurance or not. So if your overdosed as a homeless person in the park, we treat all of that, and we collect no money for it, because they can't pay. So when you do 2-3 of those inbetween a call with someone who has legit insurance and so forth on the regular basis, in order to cover the costs of those other calls you have to raise the costs of your supplies and interventions for billing across the board evenly. Same thing for hospitals. Then you have wonderful programs like state medicaid and medicare programs, who are so underfunded you don't get your costs covered from that either. I can take a transport to a specialist facility 2 hours away, Advanced life support, several meds and interventions going etc, and if they have medicare the cost of that ambulance ride "might" depending on your area be somewhere around $2500-$5000 easily, but medicare will only cover maybe $1500 of it and thats only because of the mileage, a 10 minute transport or down the street, doing all the interventions necessairy for say a possible heart attack, $1500, medicare will maybe pay $200...And we have to accept that because of government laws. So Those who have insurance or can self pay are essentially paying higher costs because of all the people who don't, or can't afford it.

You can possibly correlate the cost of healthcare to two problems, one being the amount of people who can't financially afford it, and thus a spinning circle that will only get worse, but also pharmaceutical companies who are not only charging out rages prices because they can, but they intentionally come up with and put out more expensive treatments, more expensive devices for "advanced care" and "scientific breakthroughs" and any other catch phrases to get you on board as well.

The whole thing is annoying, but unless the government is going to throw a budget equal to the US military at universal health care I highly doubt it will ever be a thing. They can't even fund medicare now...
The following user(s) said Thank You: Manu,

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
12 Mar 2019 22:41 - 12 Mar 2019 22:41 #335474 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare
What tella is saying is exactly what I said. Highly regulated requires services to be provided regardless of ability to pay and lack of free competitive market leaves no competition for companies or even doctors or hospitals so they can charge whatever they want and there is nothing to force them to drive down prices or increase quality.
Last edit: 12 Mar 2019 22:41 by .

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
14 Mar 2019 05:45 #335550 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
And yes, the States should get their nose outta other countries and fix themselves first. Log outta your own eye before you remove the splinter from your neighbour...[/color]


Bold words from one who has inhabited not one but two countries that greatly benefit from the United States protections. Everyone begs the US to help them and save them and when we do its complained about. We don't help we get accused of indifference, we do help we get accused of interference. Well take your medicine world and get over it.



Sweet sassafras, just what tabloids is yer nose stuck in?!:pinch:

To be straight and short, our government even if it "is" founding a major part of NATO, "can" redirect founding to proper healthcare for all. How? the Aussie gave a good example but it's not so much in tanks as it is aircraft. Congress is buying a jet called the joint strike fighter, and even tho statistics show it to be "massively" inefficient for the role's it's meant to takeover, there still going to pay the "$6 million per unit".

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
14 Mar 2019 06:57 - 14 Mar 2019 07:24 #335552 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic US Universal Healthcare
The F35 kicks arse! Lockheed Martin should hire me I could sing its praises so loud :D

Defense spending is one of those things.... the US (and 'the West') needs a technological advantage to counter for the numerical disadvantage it has against the pool of other players both individually (in China alone) or as pacts (like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation). And R&D costs a fortune.... and must be ongoing. Then add to that the higher standards of living required by developed countries in 'the West' and the military is going to be expensive, really expensive. But history tends to tell a story of preparation prevents poor performance, and so when it comes to security its of the highest need. No need for healthcare if your being invaded :silly: And no-one can magic up an innovation advantage to large capability overnight, especially in the time that a large low tech threat can develop increases in its capabilities - the mismatch affords them an advantage, as its just easier to make lots of simple stuff if you have the boots to wield it. Not only that, but having the technological advantage is the same as having the advantage of surprise, which for a good intentioned nation is a good thing (affords fast and effective reaction to surprise), but for a bad intentioned nation its a really bad thing (see Hitler).

Then of course add to that all the other security demands placed on it to support globalization and continued expansion of human rights. It's great to see the finish line but sprinting too soon might put one out the race entirely. It's a long game, something China seems quite good at.

PS: the F35 is going to cost closer to $100 million per unit, but there are various ways to measure cost of course; per flying hour, per jet, per jet plus share of whole fleet program supports etc etc.

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 14 Mar 2019 07:24 by Adder.
The following user(s) said Thank You:

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
14 Mar 2019 15:03 #335570 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: Sweet sassafras, just what tabloids is yer nose stuck in?!:pinch:

To be straight and short, our government even if it "is" founding a major part of NATO, "can" redirect founding to proper healthcare for all. How? the Aussie gave a good example but it's not so much in tanks as it is aircraft. Congress is buying a jet called the joint strike fighter, and even tho statistics show it to be "massively" inefficient for the role's it's meant to takeover, there still going to pay the "$6 million per unit".


Not buying aircraft is the single worst thing the military could do! Air power and wartime air superiority is the single most important deciding factor in any modern day war. Not keeping a strong air power would be the stupidest thing the US could do. A more effective route would be to actually cut that big govt budget you love so much that is slowly bleeding us dry and instead deregulate and privatize health care.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
14 Mar 2019 21:24 #335645 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare
I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Mar 2019 07:55 - 15 Mar 2019 08:00 #335677 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.


I disagree, for its not really a money saving effort but a money saving opportunity - for its not a loss of capability, just appropriate design. Specialization still exists where its needed, but its not needed everywhere. I decided to spoiler the rest of my reply because its way off topic :whistle:

Warning: Spoiler!

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 15 Mar 2019 08:00 by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Mar 2019 09:27 #335686 by JamesSand
Replied by JamesSand on topic US Universal Healthcare
You can have the best plane in the world, but it ain't much use if the pilot has the flu :dry: :lol: :silly:


Back onto healthcare - I have no idea of the mysteries of the US economy, but the Australian system (sort of) works (after a fashion)

Adders statement of "What does it cost for the public system.... 2% taxation on income." is not being completely honest.
Tax payers who earn a certain income are required to contribute that in order to access healthcare, (over or under a given threshold changes your contribution) but it only covers you for a certain range of services (of note, dental is not covered) and you better rather hope you're not in a hurry, because there is a bit of a wait for many things.

hence where private insurance comes in (which saves the G-man a bit of coin, so they'll actually give you some money BACK for buying private insurance....although this is obviously well known to the private insurance providers, so who knows if they just calculate some more into their premium so you feel like you're getting a rebate, but it ain't going into your pocket) and private insurance is in the business of making money, so they only cover you "up to" a certain figure (unlike a car, you're not covered for total write-off, that's a different insurance again :P ) - and doctors (and the other services involved - generally whoever owns the surgery/hospital, and anaesthetists etc) can charge whatever they want. So if a total head transplant is calculated to cost (say) $5000, but the doctor, surgery, rehab, etc etc bill runs to $10,000, you're still out $5k (plus your premium, plus your excess)

It's a bit hinky really, but if you're the sort of person who likes regular dental care, wears glasses, and enjoys regular upkeep on your flimsy, squishy husk, then the couple of grand it costs you a year is a necessary evil.

(There's other contributors as well, for example all employers are required to pay "Workers Compensation" - another hinky system that is hell to navigate if you actually intend to use it, but in theory means that your employer has to pay for any injuries or illnesses that occur due to your occupation (self employed people have to buy their own insurance) - however the regulations for this vary by state and many people simply can't be arsed utilising it unless it is a major injury, so it's just free money for the insurance providers.


So back to maintaining happy, healthy, and loyal citizens - cost of acquisition and maintenance of the platform itself aside - what does it cost to make and keep a pilot? (or a servicing technician?)

is it cheaper to look after the people you've got, or to keep building new ones?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
15 Mar 2019 15:09 #335694 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.



Are you some sort of expert on this? Have you ever served in the military? Are you an aeronautical engineer or is this just uninformed opinion?

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
15 Mar 2019 20:25 #335711 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Adder wrote:

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.


I disagree, for its not really a money saving effort but a money saving opportunity - for its not a loss of capability, just appropriate design. Specialization still exists where its needed, but its not needed everywhere. I decided to spoiler the rest of my reply because its way off topic :whistle:

Warning: Spoiler!




You note that it's meant to excel over the F16 and 18's, my beef with it is that it's meant to also replace the A-10 warthog in close air support. 1 You can't just lob a missile to do the job when there's troops not 10 yards from the target, you need a slower aircraft to get and keep your cross hairs on target. 2 Due to it's fighter plane platform it's meant to go in then get out, it's not meant to stay in the air for longer then 2 hours waiting for a call to assist. And 3, I don't know what the F35's survivability is, but the A-10 could lose one of every thing minus the fuselage yet still land safely.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
15 Mar 2019 22:41 - 15 Mar 2019 23:00 #335713 by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic US Universal Healthcare
They were just examples. It''s the same for close air support. Why would you do something down low when you can do it more safely up higher.

The A10 was not designed for close air support as its primary role, rather battlefield air interdiction against Soviet armored columns at low levels. In the absence of that is also is a great platform for close air support - but less so in high intensity conflict and future war. Low level is getting too dangerous for manned platforms, and weapons and sensors are good enough now that it is not needed. Close air support is something which is not designed into a ground mission if it can be avoided... things like indirect fire support are much more preferred. And close air support is a really expensive way to get a round on a target! What CAS is meant to be is a capability which is on call when required, so the F35 can be planned to be on station if no other more suitable asset - for if suitability is sensors and weapons, it can be AC130 or even B52's which have longer loiter times. It''s just now that it can be delivered from mid and hi levels because the sensors and weapons (and over all employment) have matured enough. Ya gotta consider the future changes as well, things like directed energy weapons will come online in the near future, which will make low level a no-go zone for manned platforms. Not to mention cheap drones can take down a helicopter these days easily enough.

Anyway, its smart spending which enables funds to go to other areas of the economy.... but it depends on where the priorities are within each area, and a governments commitment to balancing those areas. These decisions are all then made with some measure of effort to predict what will be needed over the next 30-50 years - and things change fast, just not evenly across all areas which can create the sensation of things being stagnant.

Introverted extropian, mechatronic neurothealogizing, technogaian buddhist.
Likes integration, visualization, elucidation and transformation.
Jou ~ Deg ~ Vlo ~ Sem ~ Mod ~ Med ~ Dis
TM: Grand Master Mark Anjuu
Last edit: 15 Mar 2019 23:00 by Adder.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
16 Mar 2019 01:40 #335726 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Adder wrote: Anyway, its smart spending which enables funds to go to other areas of the economy.... but it depends on where the priorities are within each area, and a governments commitment to balancing those areas. These decisions are all then made with some measure of effort to predict what will be needed over the next 30-50 years - and things change fast, just not evenly across all areas which can create the sensation of things being stagnant.


And on that last bit I can agree with you. Now let us go forth in peace and with hope that congress starts working on plans that should have been implemented two decades ago, first and fore most, the green new deal.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
16 Mar 2019 07:22 #335742 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Eugene wrote: Now let us go forth in peace and with hope that congress starts working on plans that should have been implemented two decades ago, first and fore most, the green new deal.


Peacefully is not the way any of this idiotic deal will be implemented.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

More
22 Mar 2019 12:12 - 22 Mar 2019 12:16 #336105 by OB1Shinobi
Replied by OB1Shinobi on topic US Universal Healthcare
I know y’all like to make fun of AOC. Thats cool but i dont care what you say, i like her. She said something really awesome in her SXSW interview which i cant directly quote because im lazy but it went something like this: Keneddy decided to get us to the moon in ten years and no one had any idea how we were going to achieve it. If we’d have waited until we had all the answers we might still be un-moonless. We made the decidion to do it, then we figured out how. UHC isnt newrlt as mysterious: millions and trillions and billions of other countries have universal health care and we could do it too, if we stop bickering over whether or not its possible and just decid that we want to do it.

Billions and trillions of other countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_healthcare#Europe
I mean “billions and trillions” in like, a figurative way

People are complicated.
Last edit: 22 Mar 2019 12:16 by OB1Shinobi.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
22 Mar 2019 14:27 #336110 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

OB1Shinobi wrote: I know y’all like to make fun of AOC. Thats cool but i dont care what you say, i like her. She said something really awesome in her SXSW interview which i cant directly quote because im lazy but it went something like this: Keneddy decided to get us to the moon in ten years and no one had any idea how we were going to achieve it. If we’d have waited until we had all the answers we might still be un-moonless. We made the decidion to do it, then we figured out how. UHC isnt newrlt as mysterious: millions and trillions and billions of other countries have universal health care and we could do it too, if we stop bickering over whether or not its possible and just decid that we want to do it.

Billions and trillions of other countries
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_healthcare#Europe
I mean “billions and trillions” in like, a figurative way


LOL its not that we could not do it in ten years. Its that why would we want to implement any of her plans. All of them are impractical in the greatest degree.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

  • User
  • User
More
22 Mar 2019 15:26 #336112 by
Replied by on topic US Universal Healthcare

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Eugene wrote: I am not saying that we should "ditch" the air force, nor am I saying that we "shouldn't" develop batter defensive system's in which to defend our nation; what I'm saying, is that we can not field an aircraft to take on multiple "specific" roles which it can not handle.

To define what I mean let us look to nature. The peregrine falcon evolved to "dive" at there target clocking in at over 200 mph, the harpy eagle evolved to "dodge" between tree's on it's hunt in the amazon; and then the penguin, evolved to torpedo thru the ocean at over 20 mph.

Each evolved for max efficiency in a specific "way" of hunting, and that is what we should emulate. the F 35/joint strike fighter is thus inefficient for what it's worth, and we can put that money else where.



Are you some sort of expert on this?


...Are YOU?... T_T

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Moderators: MorkanoWrenPhoenixThe CoyoteRiniTaviKhwang