Socialized medicine

[zil]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

Um no, I do not want the same people who made the decisions on the Iraq War to be in charge of my healthcare.  

Hate to break it to you, but they'll be the same people - not by name, but by behavior, attitudes, character.  They'll be part of and subject to the same culture that breeds corruption like mushrooms under a log.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Do you find the OECD unbiased and credible?

Missed this earlier.

Everything I can see basically says the same thing that OECD does:

https://www.google.com/search?q=health+care+expenditures+per+capita&oq=hea&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j0l2j69i60l2.1015j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I don't really see any sources that don't confirm that the US doesn't have the highest health care costs in the world.  Can you find any?

 

 

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The National Health Service of the U.K. dispenses “free” health care in that country. It is a big political football. ...

The bold part of your statement  above is among the top reasons why governments, particularly centralized national governments, are very poor instruments for addressing social issues like health care. Things tend to get hyper politicized and become more about getting (re)-elected and amassing power rather than caring for those the governing class pretend to serve.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[askandanswer]

11 hours ago, Scott said:

I just wish that there was an affordable way to get healthcare.

Move to Australia. Become a permanent resident or citizen. Get a medicare card. Problem solved. Increasing numbers of Americans are moving here.

Edited August 1, 2018 by askandanswer

[anatess2]

9 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Move to Australia. Become a permanent resident or citizen. Get a medicare card. Problem solved. Increasing numbers of Americans are moving here.

They need socialized medicine in Australia because everything in Australia can kill you. 

Famous last Australian words:  "Oh look!  What a cute snail that is!" 

[Traveler]

One lesson we should have learned or figured out about our current health care system – the costs are out of control.  Those that think capitalism works should realize that it does not work when it comes to covering the costs of health care in the USA.  There are many problems with the health care cost but I will summarize it by saying that there is not enough competition to drive costs down for health care and in addition, that some (many) are getting health care and not contributing to the cost (not just the poor).  Please note that not enough competition and many not engaged in the costs destroy any efforts to control health care costs with capitalistic means.

What we know is that health care for profit, at least in this country has spun out of control and is failing.   The only possible way to make this worse would be to turn health care professionals into government bureaucrats.   The sad thing about all this is the lack of imagination and insistence within the political community (as well as much of the populist) that these are the only two options or possibilities.

As a side note – the idea of insurance was initially conceived – not to cover normal or usual day to day needs but rather extraordinary and otherwise catastrophic events.  But even the every day mundane and common health care is currently extraordinarily expensive and unaffordable to middle class households that carries all the costs that sustain our health care.

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Traveler said:

One lesson we should have learned or figured out about our current health care system – the costs are out of control.  Those that think capitalism works should realize that it does not work when it comes to covering the costs of health care in the USA.  There are many problems with the health care cost but I will summarize it by saying that there is not enough competition to drive costs down for health care and in addition, that some (many) are getting health care and not contributing to the cost (not just the poor).  Please note that not enough competition and many not engaged in the costs destroy any efforts to control health care costs with capitalistic means.

What we know is that health care for profit, at least in this country has spun out of control and is failing.   The only possible way to make this worse would be to turn health care professionals into government bureaucrats.   The sad thing about all this is the lack of imagination and insistence within the political community (as well as much of the populist) that these are the only two options or possibilities.

As a side note – the idea of insurance was initially conceived – not to cover normal or usual day to day needs but rather extraordinary and otherwise catastrophic events.  But even the every day mundane and common health care is currently extraordinarily expensive and unaffordable to middle class households that carries all the costs that sustain our health care.

 

The Traveler

Capitalism works as I have already detailed in my response above.  Healthcare in the US is not running on capitalism and that's why it is broken.

Edited August 1, 2018 by anatess2

[Traveler]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Capitalism works as I have already detailed in my response above.  Healthcare in the US is not running on capitalism and that's why it is broken.

Supply and demand are elements of capitalism.  If they are out of balance the general idea is that they will self correct but there can be elements outside of what defines capitalism that can effect supply and demand.  For example - natural scarcity of a product like gold can cause its value to increase out of control if there is no means to increase its availability as the demand for the resource increases making the resource unusable (regardless of the demand) by elements and segments of those that can no longer utilize the resource.  This is a failure of capitalism.  This failure is why G-d does not use capitalism (supply and demand) as a means to define his resources and how they are distributed among his Saints.

 

The Traveler 

Edited August 1, 2018 by Traveler

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Supply and demand are elements of capitalism.  If they are out of balance the general idea is that they will self correct but there can be elements outside of what defines capitalism that can effect supply and demand.  For example - natural scarcity of a product like gold can cause its value to increase out of control if there is no means to increase its availability as the demand for the resource increases making the resource unusable (regardless of the demand) by elements and segments of those that can no longer utilize the resource.  This is a failure of capitalism.  This failure is why G-d does not use capitalism (supply and demand) as a means to define his resources and how they are distributed among his Saints.

 

The Traveler 

This is an incorrect assumption.  Things that have an unaffordable value should remain unmined instead of strapping the value to the heads of an entire population without their consent.  Man has conquered impossible barriers because they feel whatever lies ahead is worth their lives - the highest of values.

God does not use capitalism?  That's such a silly thing to say.  It's like saying God will never use an imperfect prophet.  You know, like Moses.  Or Paul.  Or Joseph Smith.  They're all perfect prophets, you see.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is an incorrect assumption.  Things that have an unaffordable value should remain unmined instead of strapping the value to the heads of an entire population without their consent.  Man has conquered impossible barriers because they feel whatever lies ahead is worth their lives - the highest of values.

God does not use capitalism?  That's such a silly thing to say.  It's like saying God will never use an imperfect prophet.  You know, like Moses.  Or Paul.  Or Joseph Smith.  They're all perfect prophets, you see.

 

Dear @anatess2 – it is not so much that I disagree as it is that I think certain elements are missing from certain circumstances.   I have posted in the past at least 3 major reasons that medical costs (not just insurance) has escalated exponentially – far beyond the growth of the economy.  These items in some cases circumvent certain elements of capitalism but are not necessarily exclusive of capitalism.  All of the elements relate to and are elements of capitalism but have become isolated in medical costs and procedures.  The government is not the only institution responsible for what is going on.  I submit that greed (in more than one form or expression) is the single most pronounced problem and that same greed is applauded and encouraged as a basic and necessary element of capitalism.   I also submit that greed, in any form, has no place – ever – in the economy of G-d or his covenant Saints – as an invisible hand or anything else.

I do completely concur that mandated socialized medical care or health care insurance would be a cure worse than the disease (or problem).   I also think you have mischaracterized taxes.  I do not believe that there is a case in history where any individual citizen has been excited and desirous to pay taxes.  They may be willing to assist others and willingly contribute but not to ever be compelled to pay taxes.  If there are to be public funding of any cause it must be mandated by law or deemed not necessary are important for the public good.

I would suggest that many (perhaps even the majority) must be mandated by law to contribute to the public good or they will not contribute.  What I believe we ought to address is to what extent various risks citizens of a society should be expected to bear themselves and what risks any society is willing to assist and under what circumstances.  This mentality includes first responders like the fire department, police and other public elements – not just to uphold the law but to maintain a stable viable society.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 1, 2018 by Traveler

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Supply and demand are elements of capitalism.  If they are out of balance the general idea is that they will self correct but there can be elements outside of what defines capitalism that can effect supply and demand.  For example - natural scarcity of a product like gold can cause its value to increase out of control if there is no means to increase its availability as the demand for the resource increases making the resource unusable (regardless of the demand) by elements and segments of those that can no longer utilize the resource.  This is a failure of capitalism.  This failure is why G-d does not use capitalism (supply and demand) as a means to define his resources and how they are distributed among his Saints.

 

The Traveler 

I am wondering if you have it exactly backwards. Natural scarcity is a condition of our fallen state, as is also the broad diversity of values among humans. Various earthly economic systems have arisen to manage both, though most, including socialism, tend to only adequately manage one at the expense of the other (socialism manages scarcity, but at the expense of diverse values). Capitalism (pricing based on supply and demand),  tends to adequately manage both. In other words, scarcity is the mother that invented capitalism.

However, with God in heaven (or perhaps even Zion society on earth), scarcity is not an issue, as also diversity of values, and so capitalism isn't necessary. All that is needed is the law upon which all blessings and punishments are predicated,   

The problem with capitalism, as with other economic systems or various aspects of life, isn't so much inherent to the system itself, but the nature of the fallen humans using and operating within the system. I have in mind not just the elements of greed and pride and selfishness, but more particularly the Parato Distribution, or as Christ describes it: the Parable of the Talents.. In short, the inequality of individual productivity naturally results in an inequality of distribution. 

This inequality of distribution is not a problem among Christ-like people because they are not governed by greed and envy and pride, but by love and the law of sacrifice and consecration. The world, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter. Fallen or carnal man can become deeply disturbed by inequality, particularly those numbered at the lowest end of the have-nots. This means that the further the inequality of distribution, the greater the risk of revolt.

Interestingly enough, the way the world in general, but capitalistic systems in particular, avoid revolt is through the yin-yen-like tension between capitalism and socialism, political right and left, or the masculine and feminine as it were.. When capitalism begins to produce extreme disparity in wealth, the illusionary attraction of socialism builds. And as socialism produces inequality between the governing and governed classes, and increased equality in poverty, the viable attraction of capitalism builds. It is an organic check and balance, imperfect as it is--we may yet see revolt or a complete collapse of economic systems and governments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited August 1, 2018 by wenglund

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Dear @anatess2 – it is not so much that I disagree as it is that I think certain elements are missing from certain circumstances.   I have posted in the past at least 3 major reasons that medical costs (not just insurance) has escalated exponentially – far beyond the growth of the economy.  These items in some cases circumvent certain elements of capitalism but are not necessarily exclusive of capitalism.  All of the elements relate to and are elements of capitalism but have become isolated in medical costs and procedures.  The government is not the only institution responsible for what is going on.  I submit that greed (in more than one form or expression) is the single most pronounced problem and that same greed is applauded and encouraged as a basic and necessary element of capitalism.   I also submit that greed, in any form, has no place – ever – in the economy of G-d or his covenant Saints – as an invisible hand or anything else.

I do completely concur that mandated socialized medical care or health care insurance would be a cure worse than the disease (or problem).   I also think you have mischaracterized taxes.  I do not believe that there is a case in history where any individual citizen has been excited and desirous to pay taxes.  They may be willing to assist others and willingly contribute but not to ever be compelled to pay taxes.  If there are to be public funding of any cause it must be mandated by law or deemed not necessary are important for the public good.

I would suggest that many (perhaps even the majority) must be mandated by law to contribute to the public good or they will not contribute.  What I believe we ought to address is to what extent various risks citizens of a society should be expected to bear themselves and what risks any society is willing to assist and under what circumstances.  This mentality includes first responders like the fire department, police and other public elements – not just to uphold the law but to maintain a stable viable society.

 

The Traveler

The bolded part is wrong.

Greed is not a basic and necessary element of capitalism.  Just saying this sentence clearly shows you have a flawed understanding of capitalism.

Greed is a basic characteristic of humanity.  Capitalism succeeds over Socialism because Capitalism acknowledges this fact.   Capitalism is designed to give all transacting members the power to escape greed simply by disengaging from the transaction.  Of course, forcing the other party to engage in a transaction is greed - I am sick, you have to cure me - is a product of greed just as much as - I can cure you, you give me your arm and your leg and your first-born child and you can have it. 

Socialism fails everytime it is tried because it requires greed to be forced out of society by controlling agencies before Socialism can work.  And it always happens that the controlling agencies get greedy.

Edited August 1, 2018 by anatess2

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Greed is not a basic and necessary element of capitalism. 

I think @Traveler may be referring to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

I think @Traveler may be referring to Adam Smith's Invisible Hand.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Doesn't change his error.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

The bolded part is wrong.

Greed is not a basic and necessary element of capitalism.  Just saying this sentence clearly shows you have a flawed understanding of capitalism.

Greed is a basic characteristic of humanity.  Capitalism succeeds over Socialism because Capitalism acknowledges this fact.   Capitalism is designed to give all transacting members the power to escape greed simply by disengaging from the transaction.  Of course, forcing the other party to engage in a transaction is greed - I am sick, you have to cure me - is a product of greed just as much as - I can cure you, you give me your arm and your leg and your first-born child and you can have it. 

Socialism fails everytime it is tried because it requires greed to be forced out of society by controlling agencies before Socialism can work.  And it always happens that the controlling agencies get greedy.

In short, and ironically, given the flawed nature of man,  societies and economies and aspects thereof (such as health care) work best when voluntary rather than coerced--which, as an aside, affirms the notion of free agency and the Plan of Progression.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 1, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Capitalism is designed to give all transacting members the power to escape greed simply by disengaging from the transaction. 

Telling you beloved wife or precious child that you are going to escape greed simply by disengaging from the transaction of their health care that would otherwise save them from dying from a fatal malady with necessary treatment is exactly why capitalism (for profit medical care) has a built in failure mechanism.  

Thanks for bringing it up

 

The Traveler

Edited August 1, 2018 by Traveler

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Telling you beloved wife or precious child that you are going to escape greed simply by disengaging from the transaction of their health care that would otherwise save them from dying from a fatal malady with necessary treatment is exactly why capitalism (for profit medical care) has a built in failure mechanism.  

Thanks for bringing it up

 

The Traveler

Hah hah.  Point proven.

You're appealing on emotion to lay on the guilt trip but your statement implies that somebody will HAVE TO engage in your transaction even it means having to force them into it.  That, in itself, employs greed even if your intentions are noble.

Capitalism, when left to its own devices will match the value you put on your need to the value one puts to their product/service to meet your need.  The greed of one wanting his need fulfilled and the one wanting his product/service valued gets washed down by 2 volunteering individuals engaging in the transaction, even if a life is on the line.

So, here's your moral dilemma.  Is the life of your wife and your child worth forcing people into saving them?  Some say yes, some say no.  I don't know what I would do in that situation if forcing others to save my child is the only option.  But, I put more faith in the goodness of men and the will of God to allow them the choice to save children than ripping that choice away from them to guarantee that my child will be saved if we find ourselves in that situation.  After all, the scarcity of resources doesn't guarantee my child's life even when somebody is forced to save him... as is evidenced by the death of that kid in England.

Edited August 1, 2018 by anatess2

[wenglund]

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, here's your moral dilemma.  Is the life of your wife and your child worth forcing people into saving them?  Some say yes, some say no. 

There is an added dimension to that moral dilemma.  Forcing others to pay only works for so long. Eventually, as Margaret Thatcher once pointed out, you run out of other people's money. When that happens, everyone's wives and children are in danger with no one to force to save them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sunday21]

How health care is funded in Europe: different options

https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2011/may/11/european-healthcare-services-belgium-france-germany-sweden

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Europe

[Sunday21]

Pick a few countries with high GDP, then look to see if they have nationalized health care on the list below

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP 

List of countries with national health care

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_universal_health_care

Edited August 2, 2018 by Sunday21

[Jersey Boy]

Does anybody here think it’s a good idea tp put healthcare under the total control of a bunch of politicians and distant administrators who think the slaughter of over 60 million unborn babies (since 1973) and the destruction of hundreds of viable late-term unborn babies is morally acceptable, especially in a profession that pledges to “first do no harm?”

Edited August 2, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

How health care is funded in Europe: different options

Health care is funded in Europe by making the USA pay for their defense and fleecing the USA on trade.

And that's the truth.

[Traveler]

I have many examples of failures in both nationalized health care and for profit health care.  If one looks down the list of health care in Europe provided by Sunday21 they will find Norway at the top or in the top 3 best.  Many rate Norway as the best system in the world.  What these lists and ranking fail to provide is that though the access is the best – the care itself is not.  Just this year I was traveling with my brother that developed kidney stones while in Norway.  We were told not to worry, Norway has the best health care system in Europe (if not the world).  My brother leans Democrat  and is (or was) a strong proponent of Obama Care.   I will provide (below) a short list of my brother’s concerns.

#1. My brother was diagnosed without seeing a doctor – I realize this is often the case in many systems but it was interesting that a doctor never looked at or examined my brother for the purpose of determining care.

#2. All treatment, medications, procedures and planning for my brother was done by a committee that never saw or talked to my brother and no one on staff that interfaced directly with my brother had any power to modify anything the committee determined concerning his care.  Any updates were referred back to the committee – we were never sure how often this committee actually met, who was involved or if they were even local and even if and when we wanted we were not allowed to interface with anyone on that committee.

#3.  There is no such thing as a second opinion nor is there any other option for any other care.  Once the process was started we were told where my brother must be taken for his care (this changed 4 times during his care) and we were not allowed to modify or have any input.  I would say again that during this time not only was there no choice in what doctor – there was not even a choice to be seen by a doctor.

#4. Not really sure but we were under the impression that if there was an attempt to deviate from the procedures of the care – we could be charged with a criminal offense.

#5. There are no private rooms in the hospital where my brother ended up.  During his first night a patient in his room was suffering great pain and crying out for help.  The call buttons either did not function or there was no one to respond.  In pain my brother got up, dragged his IV and went looking for help.  There was no nursing station on his floor and he was unable to find a nurse on his floor (it was a large hospital).  Over the next (at least 2 hours) he searched other floors unable to find any health care personal.  He finally found what he thought was a security person or perhaps a janitor that was able to contact a health care person.  The individual was checked but nothing changed and the guy continued to cry the rest of the night.

#6. On more than one occasion my brother’s IV ran out and started drawing blood back into the IV bag.

#7. My brother was scheduled for surgery (first thing of the day) the second day of his care.  No one showed up on the day of surgery until about 2:00 pm.  In the meantime my brother had determined to urinate and was successful – but he was still taken to surgery.  There for the first time he saw a doctor that did not speak English very well and because my brother had urinated it was decided by the doctor not to operate but to discharge my brother.  My brother was concerned that there may have been more than one kidney stone but was glad to get out of the system

My brother’s political views have changed a little.  Two things he told me at the conclusion of all this is 1. Anyone purporting government controlled health care has never experienced critical care for themselves or someone they love from such health care.  And 2. Regardless of how bad any health care system is – turning health care professionals into government bureaucrats will only make it worse.

Sorry but I did forget to add that my brother was never charged or asked for any payment.

 

The Traveler

Edited August 2, 2018 by Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

On 7/31/2018 at 10:22 AM, Scott said:

Agreed.

Supposedly it is organized ourselves or at least by businesses.   How else do you organize it? 

As for me, I think insurance and healthcare should be affordable.  If I pay for insurance, I want to be assured that it can be used when the time comes.

I will share my own experience.   

I make a good wage and have worked all my life.  I left home at age 16, joined the military on my 17th birthday and then came came home briefly before getting married just after my 19th birthday.  I have never been on public assistance, nor have I ever been unemployed.   I have been paying my insurance premiums for decades without using much of it.   We have been very charitable towards others, even to the point of sharing our own house and vehicles free of charge to those who need them.  We have done a lot of Church work and over the years have contributed six figures to tithing.

Now that my 16 year old son is having health problems, he is in a treatment center.   We have the choice of letting him die or losing everything (except his life).   We're probably going to lose our house, all of our retirement, all of our savings, etc.  

How is it agency having to choose between your son's life or everything that you own?   Under our supposed free-market, the insurance companies have complete control over what they  pay for and how much and they don't care how long you have been paying your premiums.   How is this agency? 

My son went to the treatment center in April.   Here are our out of pocket expenses since April:

We are only 1/3 of the way through his treatment and have 8 more months to go.   We have been fighting the insurance company the entire time. 

How is this agency?   Our only choices are to lose everything or to lose our son.   Is that really agency?
 

Healthcare works in other countries  for a much lower cost and for better care.  Why couldn't it work here?   There has to be a way, though I don't have a solution.

Obviously having the for profit insurance companies run everything isn't working that well either.

What is your solution?   I admit that I don't know of a good one, but our healthcare system now is broken.

Yes.   Have you ever tried to come up with more than half a million dollars in one year in order to save a family member?

People who think healthcare should be affordable are ridiculed as wanting handouts or said to be lazy.   The truth is that a lot of them are hard working good people who think that don't want something for free, but after paying premiums do want healthcare to be affordable enough that you don't have to choose between saving a family members life or losing everything.  

Scott, you need to talk to a bankruptcy lawyer now.  I practiced consumer bankruptcy law for a couple of years.  If you plan properly, you shouldn’t lose either your (reasonable, middle class) house or your ERISA-qualified retirement savings plan in a bankruptcy.

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

....  Just this year I was traveling with my brother that developed kidney stones while in Norway....

I hope your brother is better now.