Health care - administrative incompetence

[TFian]

Are you suggesting that our UHC system does that?

No, I'm saying Medicare (USA) does this.

There is also a huge difference between your £300k figure and your statements previously which imply that any expensive treatment should be witheld - how do you feel about, say , £10k? £25k? £50k? Where does your cutoff point lie?

My cut off point is how much the elderly individual (or family thereof) can afford. I'm not sure why we should subsidize a privilege (life) for someone who's no longer productive (invalid).

But you agree that UHC systems are producing at least comparable results for a fraction of the cost? Is your objection political rather than practical?

Define "practical". Comparable results to what? I'm not sure how you're defining political. My experience with UHC in the past though probably influences my judgment more than it should. (I come from a nation with UHC)

 

[Architect]

Sorry, TF, I'm going to call you on this one.

1. Provide substantive evidence that the majority - or a sizeable minority - of Canadians wish to dispense with their current healthcare system and adopt (say) the American model. Be clear; I'm not interested in them griping about flaws in their current system, inasmuch as that simply demonstrates there are areas they might think require further attention, but rather show that this has reached the extent where the support its dismantling.

2. Daniel Hannan, who tends to the right wing of the Tory Party, is known for some unorthodox views. If you believe that he is representative of a much wider school of support amongst the British public or political establishment then please post links and evidence. Do not seek to suggest, however, that one swallow a summer makes.

Come on, TF, let's be having it.

 

[TFian]

Come on, TF, let's be having it.

But I never said Canadians want to adopt a US style system. I wouldn't want to adopt a US style system!

Also, where did I say Daniel Hannan's views were "mainstream"?

 

[Architect]

My cut off point is how much the elderly individual (or family thereof) can afford. I'm not sure why we should subsidize a privilege (life) for someone who's no longer productive (invalid).

So the £300k figure you mentioned earlier was a red herring? In fact, you object to anyone (barring the patient and their family) paying anything on the basis that they are "no longer productive"?

Is your objection that they no longer are income generators, in which case why restrict it to jsut the elderly? Why not any sector of the community? In fact, why not simply do a cost vs future earnings potential against everyone and then decide whether they merit treatment?

Of course the last point is ludicrous, but to claim that treatment should be withheld solely on grounds of age is just as daft.

It also overlooks whether said individuals might have contributed "more" than their fair share during their working life.

Define "practical". Comparable results to what? I'm not sure how you're defining political. My experience with UHC in the past though probably influences my judgment more than it should. (I come from a nation with UHC)

Comparable results to the current US system for about half to two thirds the cost.

And what UHC system are you familiar with?

 

[Architect]

But I never said Canadians want to adopt a US style system. I wouldn't want to adopt a US style system!

Also, where did I say Daniel Hannan's views were "mainstream"?

Implicit in both your statements. If you feel you're being misrepresented then clarify what you say at the time rather than make vague comments.

 

[TFian]

So the £300k figure you mentioned earlier was a red herring?

No red herring, this often happens in Medicare (And I was counting US bank notes, not British sterling).

In fact, you object to anyone (barring the patient and their family) paying anything on the basis that they are "no longer productive"?

Not at all. If they saved enough to pay for treatment, if their family wants to pay for it, or they still have a source of income to pay for it, by all means they should be allowed to access such treatment.

Of course the last point is ludicrous, but to claim that treatment should be withheld solely on grounds of age is just as daft.

Of course I never said that.

Comparable results to the current US system for about half to two thirds the cost.

Which "results" are you referring to? Results of what?

And what UHC system are you familiar with?

http://www.minister-health.kerala.gov.in/

 

[TFian]

Implicit in both your statements. If you feel you're being misrepresented then clarify what you say at the time rather than make vague comments.

Fair enough.

 

[Architect]

Not at all. If they saved enough to pay for treatment, if their family wants to pay for it, or they still have a source of income to pay for it, by all means they should be allowed to access such treatment.

That's what I said: you object to anyone (barring the patient and their family) paying anything on the basis that they are "no longer productive"?

Of course I never said that.

Actually, you have quite specifically said that you object to public funds being used to treat the elderly. You've repeated it several times.

Which "results" are you referring to? Results of what?

Key clinical indicators. Infant mortality, life expectancy.

http://www.minister-health.kerala.gov.in/

I'm sorry, but is your experience of UHC limited to India? Just India? You judge the Canadian, UK, French, German, Spanish, NZ, etc. systems by the standards of a developing country? Are you sure?

 

[TFian]

That's what I said: you object to anyone (barring the patient and their family) paying anything on the basis that they are "no longer productive"?

I object to being forced to pay for people who can't pay themselves, yes. There are some exceptions I'd make to this, however it most certainly would not be for the elderly.

Actually, you have quite specifically said that you object to public funds being used to treat the elderly. You've repeated it several times.

Absolutely, that doesn't stop them however from paying themselves.

Key clinical indicators. Infant mortality, life expectancy.

That matters little to me. I'm more concerned with long term viability, stability, whether it's based on theft (taxation), and if the deserving get access to treatment, over the undeserving.

I'm sorry, but is your experience of UHC limited to India? Just India?

Well it's where I come from

You judge the Canadian, UK, French, German, Spanish, NZ, etc. systems by the standards of a developing country? Are you sure?

To a degree yes.

 

[Architect]

I object to being forced to pay for people who can't pay themselves, yes. There are some exceptions I'd make to this, however it most certainly would not be for the elderly.

And those exceptions would be?

Absolutely, that doesn't stop them however from paying themselves.

Look, I appreciate that English probably isn't your first language but it isn't mine either so you're not getting any slack. I suggest you reread what you're saying, or rather what you think you're saying.

That matters little to me. I'm more concerned with long term viability, stability, whether it's based on theft (taxation), and if the deserving get access to treatment, over the undeserving.

Aha, the undeserving poor. Tell me, how do you define "deserving"?

Well it's where I come from

Then it might surprise you how helpful it is to examine the systems in place in other countries, rather than assuming you can simply apply your local model to those in place in other countries. It would, I suggest, be like me trying to comment in detail on your system without having looked at it on the basis that my father was born and lived there as a child (this is true, incidentally).

To a degree yes.

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? What do you think about the Indian system carries over into the aforementioned UHC systems?

 

[TFian]

And those exceptions would be?

Military personal, students with high scholastic ability, some select industries.

Look, I appreciate that English probably isn't your first language but it isn't mine either so you're not getting any slack. I suggest you reread what you're saying, or rather what you think you're saying.

What's the confusion? I said I'm against being forced to pay for the elderly health care costs. This does not mean I would stop the elderly from purchasing healthcare, like everyone else. If they can't pay for it though, not my problem.

Aha, the undeserving poor. Tell me, how do you define "deserving"?

Individuals with sufficient intelligence and physical capability to produce tangible benefits to society at large?

Then it might surprise you how helpful it is to examine the systems in place in other countries, rather than assuming you can simply apply your local model to those in place in other countries.

Sure.

And how do you arrive at this conclusion? What do you think about the Indian system carries over into the aforementioned UHC systems?

Actually, it's the Kerala system, not the Indian system (it's very much decentralized). I think the idea of taxation, costs, social attitudes of entitlement transfer around any nation with UHC.

 

[Wildy]

What's the confusion? I said I'm against being forced to pay for the elderly health care costs. This does not mean I would stop the elderly from purchasing healthcare, like everyone else. If they can't pay for it though, not my problem.

Have you started saving money for when you reach that age to pay for the inevitable medical costs?

 

[TFian]

Have you started saving money for when you reach that age to pay for the inevitable medical costs?

Yes, I have.

 

[Galteeth]

No problem, they just plan to make us work till we drop.

You joke, but i see this as a serious source of conflict in the future. The boomers are the majority, so they will have the political clout, but the taxes will be payed by the younger (and increasingly, at least in America, the notion of "adult" has moved steadily upward, i think not coincidentally with the aging of the boomers.)

 

[Architect]

Yes, I have.

And how much do you plan to save?

 

[TFian]

And how much do you plan to save?

As much as I can index out of my wages.

 

[Architect]

I had been going to ask how much you expect to save; how much you anticipate serious medical treatment might cost; how you were going to cover the costs not just of yourself but of your immediate family.

But there's no point.

You have stated, unequivocally, that you object to "your" money - by which one assumes you must mean both government and insurance funds, inasmuch as the latter is based on a contributory pool - on anyone who is unproductive due to age. By implication, one might assume this extends to younger people with conditions which will limit their future earning potential.

In short, you place any money - not a reasonble capped amount balanced against life expectancy, but ANY money - above the value of human life. That's a very, very sad thing. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone who holds a position so dearly, notwithstanding a self-avowed failure to investigate or understand the basic issues or alternative systems, is likely to be swayed by sensible debate or reasoned argument.

Goodbye, TF. There's no point in debating this with you.

 

[Tatyana]

Shame. I'd rather let the elderly just die. They had their time.

I'm so glad to be American

You mean a country which provides holiday and sick leave entitlement far below that of other comparable Western democracies?

How peculiar.

As an aside, TFian, are you in full time employment?

How much annual leave do you get?

How much time did you have off last year (not sick leave), but actual time off?

Not at all. I would never support a measure that wouldn't let the elderly procure healthcare, I just don't think everyone should pay for the elderly to get healthcare.

I'm not sure why that is. We simply have a difference of opinion on how long the benefit of living should be extended at large to the elderly. Why spend 300,000 dollars just so some dementia case can live another 6 months?

Well, I agree our current system sucks, but I really don't want to see a universal health system. That being said, I feel the battle will probably be waged in the states, with some going the way of Alaska, or Vermont. We'll see who wins I suppose.

You mean the elderly who worked their entire lives contributing to the country? Those that may have been in direct service of their country?

There is an issue that people are living longer, right now there is an issue with quality of life.

I personally think it is a transition phase, humans as a whole will soon be living longer lives with fewer years lived in sickness.

I also think we need to have some sort of ethical euthanasia implemented for those who are so unwell or terminally ill that they have the option of ending their lives.

 

[TFian]

You have stated, unequivocally, that you object to "your" money - by which one assumes you must mean both government and insurance funds, inasmuch as the latter is based on a contributory pool - on anyone who is unproductive due to age. By implication, one might assume this extends to younger people with conditions which will limit their future earning potential.

Not quite. I actually said I'm against being forced to pay *my* money to pay for elderly health costs. I'm ok if it's an entirely voluntary transfer.

In short, you place any money - not a reasonble capped amount balanced against life expectancy, but ANY money - above the value of human life.

Well money kind of makes the world go around I personally believe greed is very good.

Goodbye, TF. There's no point in debating this with you.

Goodbye Mr. (Miss?) Architect

 

[TFian]

As an aside, TFian, are you in full time employment?

Define "full"? Do you mean 40 hrs/week?

How much annual leave do you get?

None.

How much time did you have off last year (not sick leave), but actual time off?

None.

You mean the elderly who worked their entire lives contributing to the country? Those that may have been in direct service of their country?

But why should we pay to support them for possibly 40 years?

I personally think it is a transition phase, humans as a whole will soon be living longer lives with fewer years lived in sickness.

That is what really worries me. Once they start living to 100 on a regular basis, that's 30 or 40 years of support we have to give them. Big drain on productive society.

I also think we need to have some sort of ethical euthanasia implemented for those who are so unwell or terminally ill that they have the option of ending their lives.

I agree. It should also be readily available for the retarded and the desperate poor, and perhaps mandatory for much of the elderly.