Forums | MacLife

Damn, the man is so on a roll!

Pariah wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Damn, par, when did you get so damn articulate and wise? Not that you were a drooling dunderhead before, but you're in the zone.

I dunno...guess I am going through a lucid faze

I thought you said you were  Lucid... Did you notice that this compliment came from Schnicky? 

Pariah wrote:

the UK and France are pulling off universal health care just fine.

Their systems are, by necessity, substantially different than Canada's.

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Got some numbers? Canada in comparison with other countries?

I'm feeling lazy now...perhaps I'll dig up numbers in the morning.

However, if you Google "ecological footprint" of various countries and look at population v. land mass and make some assumptions about resources/unit area, you can derive this sort of thing on your own.  I'm sure that it's out there to be found already done, though.  But I'm tired, so it'll have to wait until later.

In any case, it should be pretty obvious that Canada has more land per person, thus (all else being equal) more resources per person.  Thus the wealth of the country, per person, is likely close to the highesst, if not the highest, in the world.  Ultimately, it is that wealth that is sold to pay for things like state-sponsored medical coverage

What makes you think resources within borders have that much of an effect on the wealthiness of the citizenry, given international trade?

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Got some numbers? Canada in comparison with other countries?

I'm feeling lazy now...perhaps I'll dig up numbers in the morning.

However, if you Google "ecological footprint" of various countries and look at population v. land mass and make some assumptions about resources/unit area, you can derive this sort of thing on your own.  I'm sure that it's out there to be found already done, though.  But I'm tired, so it'll have to wait until later.

In any case, it should be pretty obvious that Canada has more land per person, thus (all else being equal) more resources per person.  Thus the wealth of the country, per person, is likely close to the highesst, if not the highest, in the world.  Ultimately, it is that wealth that is sold to pay for things like state-sponsored medical coverage

No, it all means that Canadians would have to pay higher taxes to sustain their medical system. Government health care is a losing proposition, because of red tape and long waits.  Not only do workers have to pay taxes for their own health care, but for the health care and retirement of the health care providers.  A great portion of Canada is comprised of non-arable lands, because of permafrost. That's why the Canadian populations are concentrated in a few areas. It's not easy to survive out there in the tundra. Governments are just big cows with lots of tits to suck from, but eventually they go dry.  If there is a chance for economical survival, it has to come from the private sector, not from the government. A government is comprised of a bunch of bureaucrats who make a living from the taxes taken from you the worker. You pay for a service, that's all, and it's no free. That land and resources you talk about, will never be yours.

Ra wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Got some numbers? Canada in comparison with other countries?

I'm feeling lazy now...perhaps I'll dig up numbers in the morning.

However, if you Google "ecological footprint" of various countries and look at population v. land mass and make some assumptions about resources/unit area, you can derive this sort of thing on your own.  I'm sure that it's out there to be found already done, though.  But I'm tired, so it'll have to wait until later.

In any case, it should be pretty obvious that Canada has more land per person, thus (all else being equal) more resources per person.  Thus the wealth of the country, per person, is likely close to the highesst, if not the highest, in the world.  Ultimately, it is that wealth that is sold to pay for things like state-sponsored medical coverage

No, it all means that Canadians would have to pay higher taxes to sustain their medical system. Government health care is a losing proposition, because of red tape and long waits.  Not only do workers have to pay taxes for their own health care, but for the health care and retirement of the health care providers.  A great portion of Canada is comprised of non-arable lands, because of permafrost. That's why the Canadian populations are concentrated in a few areas. It's not easy to survive out there in the tundra. Governments are just big cows with lots of tits to suck from, but eventually they go dry.  If there is a chance for economical survival, it has to come from the private sector, not from the government. A government is comprised of a bunch of bureaucrats who make a living from the taxes taken from you the worker. You pay for a service, that's all, and it's no free. That land and resources you talk about, will never be yours.

Ya, ya, you know, saying the same thing over and over does not make it any more true.
You just want to believe government cant work so you refuse to see the facts. Which is that every western industrialized nation that has a universal healthcare system in place spends MUCH less on healthcare than we do.
Every time this topic comes up its always the case of realists arguing demonstrable facts while conservative thinkers argue back their pie in the sky, fantasy world, "dont confuse me with the facts" theory.
So dead set against the idea of national healthcare that almost 2 decades of real world data demonstrating the effectiveness of it barely even registers.
The facts are firmly on the side of universal healthcare. All the opponents have are theories that have done nothing but deliver us lower quality care at higher prices.
Well, that and lots and lots of rationalizations.

Pariah wrote:

Ra wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

I'm feeling lazy now...perhaps I'll dig up numbers in the morning.

However, if you Google "ecological footprint" of various countries and look at population v. land mass and make some assumptions about resources/unit area, you can derive this sort of thing on your own.  I'm sure that it's out there to be found already done, though.  But I'm tired, so it'll have to wait until later.

In any case, it should be pretty obvious that Canada has more land per person, thus (all else being equal) more resources per person.  Thus the wealth of the country, per person, is likely close to the highesst, if not the highest, in the world.  Ultimately, it is that wealth that is sold to pay for things like state-sponsored medical coverage

No, it all means that Canadians would have to pay higher taxes to sustain their medical system. Government health care is a losing proposition, because of red tape and long waits.  Not only do workers have to pay taxes for their own health care, but for the health care and retirement of the health care providers.  A great portion of Canada is comprised of non-arable lands, because of permafrost. That's why the Canadian populations are concentrated in a few areas. It's not easy to survive out there in the tundra. Governments are just big cows with lots of tits to suck from, but eventually they go dry.  If there is a chance for economical survival, it has to come from the private sector, not from the government. A government is comprised of a bunch of bureaucrats who make a living from the taxes taken from you the worker. You pay for a service, that's all, and it's no free. That land and resources you talk about, will never be yours.

Ya, ya, you know, saying the same thing over and over does not make it any more true.
You just want to believe government cant work so you refuse to see the facts. Which is that every western industrialized nation that has a universal healthcare system in place spends MUCH less on healthcare than we do.
Every time this topic comes up its always the case of realists arguing demonstrable facts while conservative thinkers argue back their pie in the sky, fantasy world, "dont confuse me with the facts" theory.
So dead set against the idea of national healthcare that almost 2 decades of real world data demonstrating the effectiveness of it barely even registers.
The facts are firmly on the side of universal healthcare. All the opponents have are theories that have done nothing but deliver us lower quality care at higher prices.
Well, that and lots and lots of rationalizations.

Each side need to acknowledge that there are problems with BOTH methods of health care funding and quit insulting each other. In each of those touted western countries with single payer systems there are funding problems as well as time problems that seem to be mounting and not decreasing. We would do well to try and figure out a superior system of our own.

Pariah wrote:

Ra wrote:

Hank Rearden wrote:

I'm feeling lazy now...perhaps I'll dig up numbers in the morning.

However, if you Google "ecological footprint" of various countries and look at population v. land mass and make some assumptions about resources/unit area, you can derive this sort of thing on your own.  I'm sure that it's out there to be found already done, though.  But I'm tired, so it'll have to wait until later.

In any case, it should be pretty obvious that Canada has more land per person, thus (all else being equal) more resources per person.  Thus the wealth of the country, per person, is likely close to the highesst, if not the highest, in the world.  Ultimately, it is that wealth that is sold to pay for things like state-sponsored medical coverage

No, it all means that Canadians would have to pay higher taxes to sustain their medical system. Government health care is a losing proposition, because of red tape and long waits.  Not only do workers have to pay taxes for their own health care, but for the health care and retirement of the health care providers.  A great portion of Canada is comprised of non-arable lands, because of permafrost. That's why the Canadian populations are concentrated in a few areas. It's not easy to survive out there in the tundra. Governments are just big cows with lots of tits to suck from, but eventually they go dry.  If there is a chance for economical survival, it has to come from the private sector, not from the government. A government is comprised of a bunch of bureaucrats who make a living from the taxes taken from you the worker. You pay for a service, that's all, and it's no free. That land and resources you talk about, will never be yours.

Ya, ya, you know, saying the same thing over and over does not make it any more true.
You just want to believe government cant work so you refuse to see the facts. Which is that every western industrialized nation that has a universal healthcare system in place spends MUCH less on healthcare than we do.
Every time this topic comes up its always the case of realists arguing demonstrable facts while conservative thinkers argue back their pie in the sky, fantasy world, "dont confuse me with the facts" theory.
So dead set against the idea of national healthcare that almost 2 decades of real world data demonstrating the effectiveness of it barely even registers.
The facts are firmly on the side of universal healthcare. All the opponents have are theories that have done nothing but deliver us lower quality care at higher prices.
Well, that and lots and lots of rationalizations.

Forget about politics, and learn the facts of the Canadian health care from the link I provided. All the answers are there, provided for you by Canada.

Ribtorus wrote:

As far as Canadian doctors practicing in America goes, my doctor went south and made a ton of money. He sent much of it back home and once again practices here.

The fact is, the medical marketplace in America is so lucrative, and people like Ra have convinced themselves that spending more of their wealth on healthcare is better than spending less on healthcare, that foreign doctors are bound to be drawn there. There's no question that following the money means greater opportunity.

But that's the issue. Is that high cost mix of private and public healthcare a net burden or a net growth. And whichever it might be, is it sustainable?

Don't assume to much about what I have said. However, I do believe that government-provided health care eventually turns to extremely high taxes.  The most inefficient organizations are those in the government. The government is very slow to respond to anything, because of the extreme red tape involved.

I believe that the best medical systems is one where both the government and private sector provide health care, where the government takes care of those who can't pay for the service, and the ones who can afford it can choose whoever they want, be it the government-paid hospital, or a private doctor. I already know how socialized health care works,since the government took care of me for over 20 years in the military. But even that has changed nowadays: back in the late '90's, military health care for military dependents became so costly that the Government had to introduce what is called Tri-Care. Now GI's have to pay for the health care of their dependents, and their dependents can receive care from the private sector.

Ra wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

As far as Canadian doctors practicing in America goes, my doctor went south and made a ton of money. He sent much of it back home and once again practices here.

The fact is, the medical marketplace in America is so lucrative, and people like Ra have convinced themselves that spending more of their wealth on healthcare is better than spending less on healthcare, that foreign doctors are bound to be drawn there. There's no question that following the money means greater opportunity.

But that's the issue. Is that high cost mix of private and public healthcare a net burden or a net growth. And whichever it might be, is it sustainable?

Don't assume to much about what I have said. However, I do believe that government-provided health care eventually turns to extremely high taxes.  The most inefficient organizations are those in the government. The government is very slow to respond to anything, because of the extreme red tape involved.

I believe that the best medical systems is one where both the government and private sector provide health care, where the government takes care of those who can't pay for the service, and the ones who can afford it can choose whoever they want, be it the government-paid hospital, or a private doctor. I already know how socialized health care works,since the government took care of me for over 20 years in the military. But even that has changed nowadays: back in the late '90's, military health care for military dependents became so costly that the Government had to introduce what is called Tri-Care. Now GI's have to pay for the health care of their dependents, and their dependents can receive care from the private sector.

But the US already pays far more for its health care than any other industrialized country. You may or may not be paying for that through taxes, but you're most definitely paying for it somehow. Or do you think it magically appears out of mid-air?

Your taxes might go up, yes. And I'm aware of how you guys loathe your taxes. But it's not as though the cost of health care is likely to go up. Indeed it's almost certain to drop.

Ra wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

And the issue of sustainability doesn't exist? The system's fine the way it is? And if not, where does the money come from to keep up?

I don't believe that the US health care is fine as it is, as much as I don't believe that socialized health care is any better. The money to pay for health care in any nation comes from the tax imposed on the workers. All I know is that government health care, like any government service from the DMV to FEMA, is too slow and riddled with red tape. Government health care translates to long waits, and the loss of the best doctors.

Not necessarily. Wait times can be a problem if the system isn't funded enough. But "losing the best doctors?" Nah.

I know a couple of doctors who went to the US because they could make a bundle, but they both wound up coming back because they despised the system so much.

And personally I don't think wait times is nearly as serious a problem has thirty million uninsured citizens.

Ra wrote:

The primary reason for the high cost of health care is because of litigation...

False.

Medical insurance is extremely expensive, and frivolous lawsuits are the norm nowadays. All these add to the cost of health care. Tort reform would take care of some of these problems, but I don't think it will ever happen.

Again, false.

But a six-week study by USA TODAY finds that while some doctors in particularly vulnerable specialties — obstetrics, neurosurgery and some high-risk surgical fields — face severe problems, most physicians are minimally affected. Premiums are rising rapidly, but no more than other health care costs. They represent only a small slice of doctors' expenses. Even for the hardest-hit specialists, the most severe problems are concentrated in a handful of states.

Some states have rapidly rising malpractice premiums, especially in obstetrics, neurology and some surgical fields. But, on average, doctors still spend less on malpractice insurance — 3.2% of their revenue — than on rent.

Large jury awards play a limited role in causing premiums to rise, despite allegations that greedy trial lawyers and frivolous claims are to blame. Less than 2% of malpractice claims result in a winning verdict at trial, according to insurance industry estimates.

Settlement payouts are up, but that has less to do with pain-and-suffering claims than with higher awards for what are called economic damages — the patient's medical bills, lost wages and other expenses.

Insurance companies are boosting rates partly to make up for price wars in the 1990s, when competition kept premiums low, and to counter recent declines in their investment incomes. That investment profit had helped offset losses from malpractice damage awards and the artificially low premiums charged to doctors.

In some states, medical organizations and regulators have failed to weed out bad doctors. That has caused malpractice rates to go up for all.

• How much of a doctor's revenue goes to malpractice insurance? A March 2002 government report by MedPAC, a congressional advisory commission, says doctors, on average, were expected to spend 3.2% of their revenue on malpractice insurance last year. That compares with 12.4% for staff salaries, 11.6% for office expenses and 1.9% for medical equipment. Calculations based on two surveys published by Medical Economics magazine — widely read by physicians — last year show that OB-GYNs paid the most for malpractice insurance, as a percentage of their revenue, 6.7%, and cardiologists paid the least, 1.5%.

• Why are malpractice insurance costs going up? The problem is two-pronged, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. First, insurers are spending more to pay claims — 33% more from 2000 to 2001. Second, falling interest rates for bonds and stock prices have weakened insurers' investment income, their main source of profit. The Physician Insurers Association of America, the lobbying group for doctor-owned insurance firms, says investment income contributed 47% to its companies' revenue in 1995, but only 31% in 2001.

All of this is compounded by the fact that insurers slashed premiums in the 1990s when competition was fierce. Rates were artificially low, subsidized by investment income. Now, insurers have to boost rates to stay solvent.

Link.