CCCToad on 28/8/2009 at 13:02
That said, the main problem with the current bill isn't that it sets up an alternate plan, but that it attempts to use force of law to give itself a competitive edge. As mentioned before, there is an additonal 2.5% income tax on those who don't have approved health care, and employer insurance is required to be audited.
DDL on 28/8/2009 at 13:24
SubJeff: the way I always look at it is, well: even though you're paying more (proportionally) to support proles who've gimped themselves with drugs and booze, you STILL HAVE MORE.
And moreover, you're not gimped on drugs and booze.
You're lucky enough to be in a position where you're fairly healthy, aware of how to remain that way, reasonably well-off and likely to remain that way. You are doing pretty well for yourself: the least you can do is pay a little more to stop people who are doing pretty badly from doing EVEN WORSE.
Or at least, that's how I see it. And you know, if everything in my life suddenly went tits up, I'd like to think people who were still doing ok would continue happily supporting me in my new found fucked-up life. :p
Thief13x on 28/8/2009 at 14:33
Quote Posted by DDL
You're lucky enough to be in a position where you're fairly healthy, aware of how to remain that way, reasonably well-off and likely to remain that way. You are doing pretty well for yourself: the least you can do is pay a little more to stop people who are doing pretty badly from doing EVEN WORSE.
Assuming it was luck (as opposed to me busting my ass and sacrificing years of my life and upwards of 100k for a good education) I might consider agreeing with you that it's the
least I can do. However, if you are somehow trying to insinuate that I should be forced to pay more because of my "luck," then you have completely lost me. Like I've always said...ask nicely and I might give ya a fry because this is my happy meal from my paycheck damnit:)
Quote Posted by BEAR
We don't expect any of that stuff to run without a hitch, and some industries DO work well as for-profit. But when you are talking about healthcare, where service costs money, its not really that hard to put together.
Run without a hitch or run without bankruptcy while completely failing to deliver?
Are you saying service industries should be run by the federal government? Look at what happened when the airlines were deregulated in 78...the industry took off, quite literally, service area exploded, and prices plummeted. It sounds like a copout but tort reform and deregulation is exactly what needs to happen, and is ALL that needs to happen. Competition drives prices down...there's no debating that
Quote Posted by SD
Apparently they've had some success in helping retards use the Internet.
In 2009 the US Government will start shipping retards away. I started cryin when I thought of you. Be strong, wear your helmet, and run!
SD on 28/8/2009 at 14:41
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
What I am saying is that because people here think the NHS is a right they have a blase attitude to it, and a lot of people have the same ideas about their hea[l]th. Because they know that no matter what they will be treated the same as anyone else I think that people take less care. You'll find obese lifelong heavy smokers with a strong family history of diabetes and high blood pressure unhappy that they cannot have treatment x because it won't help them unless they make some effort. I doubt you have the same issues in the US
What you are talking about is
moral hazard, and it's a problem anywhere that you have pooled risk.
That said, I think you massively overstate the scale of the problem in the NHS, and you even undermine your own argument by pointing out that treatment can be refused if the patient doesn't modify their hazardous behaviour.
I imagine the US has problems with it; if your proverbial obese smoker is over 65, they're automatically covered by Medicare anyway and their healthcare is paid for by the state. If they're not, well then, the hazard is passed on to other insurance holders in the form of higher premiums. Either that, or they're screwed for not having adequate insurance.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
On my few trips to Taiwan I saw a very interesting alternative. I guess it's like Canada. Everyone pays a yearly subscription and gets a health care card. Treatment up to a certain point is free and then gets progressively more expensive. However, sufferers of chronic illness get discounted/free treatment (like the free prescriptions for diabetics here). But people know that if they abuse themselves and become frequent fliers because of it they will end up footing the bill. The downside is, of course, that some people stay away to avoid paying.
I don't like the idea of access to healthcare being restricted by worries over payment. And you know, if people want to piss about and make themselves ill in the process, that's their business; call me a "big statist" but I think government should be an enabler for people to fulfill their desires.
Starrfall on 28/8/2009 at 14:55
Quote Posted by Thief13x
Assuming it was luck (as opposed to me busting my ass and sacrificing years of my life and upwards of 100k for a good education) I might consider agreeing with you that it's the
least I can do. However, if you are somehow trying to insinuate that I should be forced to pay more because of my "luck," then you have completely lost me. Like I've always said...ask nicely and I might give ya a fry because this is my happy meal from my paycheck damnit:)
Inline Image:
http://imgur.com/0NSHV.gifThief13x on 28/8/2009 at 15:03
come on man!!
DDL on 28/8/2009 at 15:11
I guess the question is: if, given the chance, you could swap a "well-paid position that you've worked hard to obtain, where you still get free healthcare (albeit paid for via yours and other peoples' taxes)", for a "shitty dead-beat jobless existence where horrible cheap booze and drugs are pretty much the only highlight of your day, but you still get free healthcare (paid for by other peoples' taxes)"...
...would you do it?
Thief13x on 28/8/2009 at 15:22
clearly not...I've worked 4 miserable jobs as cook, dishwasher, waiter, stockboy, etc all thru highschool and I actually enjoyed college to some extent, but that doesn't mean it was any less work, especially considering I'm going to be paying on it for the better part of the next decade.
SubJeff on 28/8/2009 at 15:55
Quote Posted by SD
What you are talking about is
moral hazard, and it's a problem anywhere that you have pooled risk.
That said, I think you massively overstate the scale of the problem in the NHS, and you even undermine your own argument by pointing out that treatment can be refused if the patient doesn't modify their hazardous behaviour.
Only certain things can be refused and only because, for example, we can say that an obese person who has put on rather than lost weight in the run up to their stomach stapling is not really motivated. Failure of motivation means that the treatment is unlikely to benefit them and given the downside (anaesthetic risk, which is high in the obese, and the cost, time and potential complications) they will have the surgery refused/postponed.
I don't think I'm overstating the problem though. Whilst it may not be a
huge drain on the NHS if these people modified their behaviour it would make a big difference.
Quote:
And you know, if people want to piss about and make themselves ill in the process, that's their business; call me a "big statist" but I think government should be an enabler for people to fulfill their desires.
You know, I kind of agree with you on the "enabler" issue. Heck, I really agree with that. But people who mistreat themselves end up tangentially affecting those that don't by consuming healthcare resources. Lets put it this way - expensive anti-cancer treatments become restricted because of the cost-benefit calculations (which, if you see them, will make you a bit sick because the NICE people really do put value on life - I was pretty shocked to see some of the "nah, it'll cost too much to treat that group of people" lines drawn). If you ease the financial burden in other areas you may be able to afford this stuff. And many cancers are de novo so you can't lay "blame".
I bet this particular issue will be seized on by the anti-team in the US at some point, if it already hasn't.
DDL on 28/8/2009 at 16:37
You could of course also weigh up the fact that fat fat OMG FAT people are more likely to die younger, and thus free up resources they otherwise would've used when they were old old OMG OLD, which in fact might end up costing more (oldness is expensive, though I guess you probably know that better than I).
I seem to recall someone worked out the cost/benefit ratio of smoking, in terms of "money obtained via taxes on cigs" vs "money consumed via cancer treatment etc", and it actually worked out in favour of keeping 'em smoking. [citation needed] ;)
But I accept it's a minefield of epic proportions. Still happy to pay for it, though.
