This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Most of a decade is more than one year. With my limited math skills I'd say it would have to be at least six years. I know you don't care to read posts from other people but could you at least read your own sources.

^ Aham.

Yes, but that is not the argument I am making.

I have made the argument that the large private bureaucracies have been created by government regulation.


Why is it everyone is caught in this dichotomy?

Ohh, thats right, propaganda and platitudes substituted for thought.

You are in error, sir.

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.



I child can see the fallacy.

You are in error, sir.

Are you unaware that if the State cares for the children the fathers are free of responsibility?

The State is de facto promoting the devaluation of the family structure. This in turn produces a dependency on the State and the power of the State over the people is extended.

You are in error, sir.

(Gee, I like saying that). The correct answer is no, it's a safety net.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

^ Aham.



You are in error, sir.

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

I am in error in stating what my argument is? I don't know what my argument is?

O.K., you tell me my argument then you we have talk and I will be your counter point. It will be like taking to a ventriloquist's dummy.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Please explain how this wouldn't be a dichotomy and I will pay atention to you. Maybe.

I am saying that it is a false dichotomy. I am not saying that it could not be a dichotomy.

 

[VKX]

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.

 

[Fitter]

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.

By that reasoning is it safe to assume that you think it is okay for paramedics to let someone bleed to death if they were involved in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt and were also uninsured?

 

[Kestrel]

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.

Have the governments of Canada, France, the UK and other countries with government paid health care banned smoking?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Have the governments of Canada, France, the UK and other countries with government paid health care banned smoking?

No, but they just can't get health-care.

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused

 

[SezMe]

Very interesting link, JDG. I wonder if you actually read it.

Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand.


Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking.

The ruling, authorised by Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, comes after medical research conclusively showed smokers take longer to recover from surgery.

So your link title could hardly be more misleading. The NHS has issued a ruling about smoking for 4 weeks before an operation based on medical research. Sounds like good policy making based on good science. The NHS has NOT, in spite of your misleading sentence, told smokers to quit the habit.

As Fitter said, it might help if you would read your links before citing them.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So your link title could hardly be more misleading.

The link title was the article title. So, how exactly was I misleading?


ETA: Were smokers told to quit to receive their health-care or not?

 

[jimbob]

Yes, but that is not the argument I am making.

I have made the argument that the large private bureaucracies have been created by government regulation.


Why is it everyone is caught in this dichotomy?

Ohh, thats right, propaganda and platitudes substituted for thought.

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

You are starting with the premise that the current cost of health-care is correct. This premise is wrong. Competition and deregulation would decrease the costs thus making your other questions invalid.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by jimbob
... but the government spending less yet supplying universal healthcare is such a bad idea.

Can you not see from whence your ideas are coming?

You are being promised more for less.



I child can see the fallacy.

The NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer.

It also does a pretty reasonable job of providing medical care for the entire population.

Does the poorest quartile in the US have better or worse healthcare provision than the poorest quartile in the UK? Does it cost the UK less?

Did you ever answer as to how that would work if the father wasn't interested in looking after his offspring?

Are you unaware that if the State cares for the children the fathers are free of responsibility?

The State is de facto promoting the devaluation of the family structure. This in turn produces a dependency on the State and the power of the State over the people is extended.

So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.

I am a father; my children have the right to an education, because the voting population insists on this right. Does the fact that I send my children to school mean that I take no responsibility for their education? No. It does however mean that if I neglected my children's education, the state would provide some protection for the children from the consequences of this neglect.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of your view: how do you get it to work, when similar schemes have failed abysmally?

 

[quixotecoyote]

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

The free market!

 

[jimbob]

You are starting with the premise that the current cost of health-care is correct. This premise is wrong. Competition and deregulation would decrease the costs thus making your other questions invalid.

What size of hospital is needed to economically run a first-rate intensive care unit?

How many employees would be needed?

You need economies of scale. A google search on "Philips MRI scanner cost" suggests that the capital cost is about 2million GBP. This is a standalone piece of equipment, that needs a large unit to be economically viable.

How do you reduce the cost, without economies of scale, and attendant large organisations, and consequent bureaucracy?

 

[volatile]

The end-all argument for me has always been that if the government pays your medical bills, they can tell you you HAVE to wear a seatbelt or stop smoking. They instantly have a reason to smash personal liberties - after all, if you hurt yourself, they have to pay for it.

OMG! The draconian UK government has taken away my right not to wear a seatbelt! My inalienable right! How can I ever truly live in freedom when I am not free to plunge headfirst through my own windshield, or into the cranium of the person sitting in front of me?! Where will the madness end! :-O

In other words: Jeepers. You lot are all barmy, I swear.

 

[gc051360]

OMG! The draconian UK government has taken away my right not to wear a seatbelt! My inalienable right! How can I ever truly live in freedom when I am not free to plunge headfirst through my own windshield, or into the cranium of the person sitting in front of me?! Where will the madness end! :-O

In other words: Jeepers. You lot are all barmy, I swear.

I have kind of a problem with that line of thought. Despite whether it is considered a good thing or not, I should be free to do as I please. If I don't feel like wearing a seat belt, I shouldn't have to. There need be no law telling me I have to.

About the health care OP. I don't think a single incident makes an entire argument. You can point to individual problems in any system, I don't think that should be the focus of the debate. Who can come up with the bigger, isolated, horror stories.

 

[Fitter]

About the health care OP. I don't think a single incident makes an entire argument. You can point to individual problems in any system, I don't think that should be the focus of the debate. Who can come up with the bigger, isolated, horror stories.

Agreed. I (and I'd be willing to bet the majority of the posters to this thread) think that neither system is wholly perfect. Each has its flaws and strengths.

 

[Rolfe]

I have kind of a problem with that line of thought. Despite whether it is considered a good thing or not, I should be free to do as I please. If I don't feel like wearing a seat belt, I shouldn't have to. There need be no law telling me I have to.

You know, I thought that before the law came in. I don't any more.

I realised that the law was, weirdly enough, liberating. Before, when I was driving, I was reluctant to belt up because it seemed somehow an admission that I might have an accident. And of course I wasn't! And when I was a passenger, I was reluctant to belt up in case the driver might take it as a vote of no confidence.

After the law came in I just fastened that belt, because the simple reason I was doing it was that I didn't want my licence endorsed. No subliminal reservations, no grandstanding, no bravado.

Same with wearing motorcycle helmets. Which are by definition horrible and take half the fun out of riding the bike. But just might save your life you know.

Of couse there is a terrible consequence for the Health Service. There are far fewer organs available for transplant.

Volatile's right. You lot are weirder than a barrelful of monkeys.

By the way, I was watching last week's Ashes to Ashes. In 1981 that macho cop (Hunt?) snapped to the time-travelling detective, "take off that seatbelt, you're a cop, not a vicar!" Was the seatbelt law not much earlier than 1981? Were macho cops still not obeying the law as late as that?

Rolfe.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What size of hospital is needed to economically run a first-rate intensive care unit?

How many employees would be needed?

You need economies of scale. A google search on "Philips MRI scanner cost" suggests that the capital cost is about 2million GBP. This is a standalone piece of equipment, that needs a large unit to be economically viable.

How do you reduce the cost, without economies of scale, and attendant large organisations, and consequent bureaucracy?

You are attempting to example the inefficiency of a government regulated system and you seem to believe that it is the free market. Why is that?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The NHS costs the UK taxpayer less than medicaid costs the US taxpayer.

SPAM costs less than roast beef. What is your point?

Does the poorest quartile in the US have better or worse healthcare provision than the poorest quartile in the UK? Does it cost the UK less?

I know that I would rather go to the doctor in America than in the UK.

So, if the father is neglectful, should a child, almost literally, "pay for the sins of the father"?

I'd disagree, that might be your view, but I consider it barbarous.

Ahh, it is barbarism to accept responsibility for ones family.

I am a father; my children have the right to an education, because the voting population insists on this right. Does the fact that I send my children to school mean that I take no responsibility for their education? No. It does however mean that if I neglected my children's education, the state would provide some protection for the children from the consequences of this neglect.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of your view: how do you get it to work, when similar schemes have failed abysmally?

Your children do not have a right to education. If this is so than all children in the world also have a RIGHT to education.

Shall your country; by force, require that all children have an education. Who determines the proper amount of education for all the children of the world?