Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Socialized Communist Healthcare (Canadians, Brits, et al)

124678

Posts

  • ZzuluZzulu Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    swedish system seems to work very well

    to be honest I haven't researched it in any way, and can only go after my own experiences

    t5qfc9.jpg
  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    takyris wrote: »
    I've heard that Canada is a great place to get into a car accident and a lousy place to get cancer.

    I feel pretty safe in saying, as someone who had a family member go through cancer care in Canada for 13 years that the latter part is nonsense, or at best a gross generalization.

    However, Canadian cancer care will vary by province. If you live in BC you have better odds than if you live in some other places.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Corvus wrote: »
    takyris wrote: »
    I've heard that Canada is a great place to get into a car accident and a lousy place to get cancer.

    I feel pretty safe in saying, as someone who had a family member go through cancer care in Canada for 13 years that the latter part is nonsense, or at best a gross generalization.

    However, Canadian cancer care will vary by province. If you live in BC you have better odds than if you live in some other places.

    Living in the province which likely has the worst cancer care in the country, I'm happy to say that a number of my family members who have been afflicted have received exceptional and fast care. My family owes a great debt to the cancer centre here, who quickly and effectively treated my mother.

    So yeah, fuck what you've heard... it's bullshit.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    You know, I think the only people who get the shaft here in Canada are the special needs people... the care available to them is so variable across the country. My sister lives in the UK and has a special needs child, and the quality and cost of care there is fantastic. There is no comparable support system here, and it's a huge determining factor in her not returning to live in Canada.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Person A earns £235k a year, pays around £70k in tax on income tax alone.

    Person B earns £20k a year, pays around £4k in tax on income alone.

    Both get the exact same services from the NHS, throw in the idea that Person A is healthy and Person B smokes 20 fags a day. Is that fair, in my eyes its not.
    In my eyes it is fair.

    See, this is where we differ, I think that its unfair for one person to pay £70k thing for the same thing someone else has to pay £4k for....
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    Someone quoted the great Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, 'there is
    no such thing as society'. Just posting simply this is taking it way out of context and is kind of a cheap shot very similar to the abysmal attack ad's McCain is running against Obama at the moment , post the whole thing, even if you disagree with it.
    I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

    No, that seems like exactly the context I think it would be in.

    What a dumbass statement.

    Care to explain why its dumb?


    Because this part right there? That is the definition of society. Looking out for our fellow citizens in their time of need. Because they would do the same for us. Our neighbours do not encompass the people living in our close proximity, but also people we have never met. In effect every person in the UK is your neighbour and you should be ready to help them out if they need it. You should also get help from the same people.

    What is more effective? 1 person(you) trying to do everything, 5 people(your actual neighbours) cooperating or 40 million people(the UK) working in agregate? Wich is going to be able to give you adequate healthcare in any circumstances?

    Pretty sure Thatcher was using the word "neighbour" in the wider sense, there; not literally the people who live next door. There's still no "obligation" one has to meet in order to receive healthcare, of course. (also, there's 60 million people in the UK!)

    Really though, Willeh.. there's a reason people riot over poll taxes. They're just not fair.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Corvus wrote: »

    The irony of that report is that US has better breast cancer survival rates overall (I'm aware of the internal disparities). It's hardly a ring of confidence for the Canadian system. The US system is an inefficient, bloated disaster, but the Canadian system is not without its problems.

    Both the Canadian and American constituents seem to suffer from a peculiar form of psychosis when it comes to health care. The Americans are worried about the federal Government coming in, and making everything suck. The Canadians are worried about allowing private practice, because that will degrade the healthcare of everyone else. Canadians call it 'two-tiered' healthcare, and its become a bad word in Canadian politics, much like "socialized medicine" is in the States.

    Both of these ideas are clear examples of FUD, and nothing else. There is absolutely no truth to either claim.

    For the Americans, things could hardly get worse. Americans spend more than anyone else in the world, in absolute terms and per capita. The system is inefficient, and current health insurance suffers from a problem of adverse selection. There is little evidence that a Federal system would be any worse, and every single other nation in the OCED has some form of standard coverage.

    The Canadians believe that allowing doctors to practice privately will hurt the standard of care. This is manifestly untrue. Keeping the pay uniform in Canada does not retain talent, as skilled doctors in Canada are drawn to private practice in the United States. Every other nation with a higher health services ranking allows for private practice, including every European state. Canada and Cuba are the only nations where single-payer healthcare is the hard and fast rule.

    Sorry for the rant.

    Spoiler:
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Note that in the US, the breast cancer survival rate is partly due to an extremely active, vocal and aggressive preventive care movement that doesn't exist for other cancers. Basically, breast cancer got publicity. Defenders of the American system often go, "Breast cancer! MRI machines!" because they know the system as a whole is producing an inferior outcome- they go to the isolated instances of superior performance and rest their case based on that rather than the totality of the issue.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Person A earns £235k a year, pays around £70k in tax on income tax alone.

    Person B earns £20k a year, pays around £4k in tax on income alone.

    Both get the exact same services from the NHS, throw in the idea that Person A is healthy and Person B smokes 20 fags a day. Is that fair, in my eyes its not.
    In my eyes it is fair.

    See, this is where we differ, I think that its unfair for one person to pay £70k thing for the same thing someone else has to pay £4k for....
    JebusUD wrote: »
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    Someone quoted the great Prime minister Margaret Thatcher, 'there is
    no such thing as society'. Just posting simply this is taking it way out of context and is kind of a cheap shot very similar to the abysmal attack ad's McCain is running against Obama at the moment , post the whole thing, even if you disagree with it.
    I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.

    No, that seems like exactly the context I think it would be in.

    What a dumbass statement.

    Care to explain why its dumb?


    Because this part right there? That is the definition of society. Looking out for our fellow citizens in their time of need. Because they would do the same for us. Our neighbours do not encompass the people living in our close proximity, but also people we have never met. In effect every person in the UK is your neighbour and you should be ready to help them out if they need it. You should also get help from the same people.

    What is more effective? 1 person(you) trying to do everything, 5 people(your actual neighbours) cooperating or 40 million people(the UK) working in agregate? Wich is going to be able to give you adequate healthcare in any circumstances?

    Pretty sure Thatcher was using the word "neighbour" in the wider sense, there; not literally the people who live next door. There's still no "obligation" one has to meet in order to receive healthcare, of course. (also, there's 60 million people in the UK!)

    Really though, Willeh.. there's a reason people riot over poll taxes. They're just not fair.

    Thatcher is actually being perfectly rational. She is stating that first you meet your obligations to society, then you can expect society to help you out. If you are poor, you may only have limited obligations but they do still exist. You must try to get a job, not commit crimes, not vandalize property and so forth. Once you fulfill your part of the social contract, then society will do it's part. She is saying that there is nothing special about society that you wouldn't apply to a normal business or personal transaction, except for the fact society tolerates an imbalance of payments. Society however does demand to be paid in advance that amount that you do owe it.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • theclamtheclam Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Wikipedia wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
    Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other nation in the world.[1] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations.[1] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[2] In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.[3]

    According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[4] In the United States, around 84.7% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (59.3%), purchased individually (8.9%), or provided by government programs (27.8%; there is some overlap in these figures).[5] Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[6]

    Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2007 totaled about 15.3% of the population, or 45.7 million people.[5] Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[7]

    The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[8][9] The WHO study has been criticized both for its methodology and for a lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[10][11]

    Here's some data for you. We pay more than everyone else in the world to get some of the worst care among first world nations.

    The government should provide health care. Health care is an inelastic good. If we let the market (i.e. private corporations) control access to health care and set prices, then the price will be far above what many people can afford.

    rez_guy.png
  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    theclam wrote: »
    Wikipedia wrote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
    Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. The U.S. spends more on health care per capita than any other nation in the world.[1] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15.2% of GDP, second only to the tiny Marshall Islands among all United Nations member nations.[1] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[2] In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.[3]

    According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[4] In the United States, around 84.7% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (59.3%), purchased individually (8.9%), or provided by government programs (27.8%; there is some overlap in these figures).[5] Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[6]

    Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2007 totaled about 15.3% of the population, or 45.7 million people.[5] Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[7]

    The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[8][9] The WHO study has been criticized both for its methodology and for a lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[10][11]

    Here's some data for you. We pay more than everyone else in the world to get some of the worst care among first world nations.

    The government should provide health care. Health care is an inelastic good. If we let the market (i.e. private corporations) control access to health care and set prices, then the price will be far above what many people can afford.

    The problem with health insurance is not that it is inelastic, but rather that it suffers from adverse selection. It is simply not economical to provide health insurance as it currently stands, as only those who believe that they are going to be sick at some time in the near future buy it voluntarily. Think of it like car insurance - if it was not required, only bad drivers would get it and car insurance would not exist (and we would pay out of pocket whenever someone hit our car).

    Spoiler:
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder why in these discussions it's only the Canadian or British systems that get raised as potential alternatives to the American system.

    That's a damn good question.

    France, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia all have interesting ideas.

    I'd still like to hear from somebody in one of those countries.

    A few people have talked about their countries in this thread from the above countries, inc. other EU states, and I've also talked about my country, also not on the list. Everytime this thread comes up (this is at least the 2nd one of the same kind in the last couple of months) we get a good response, but end of the day it seems most people are from US/Canada and UK on these boards so the discussion always reverts to that.

    Anyway - yes, there are some very cool ideas out there that relate to healthcare. Like in New Zealand there is no personal injury litigation whatsoever - it is banned by law and instead a state run corporation compensates all victims of accidents regardless of cause. You get an injury caused by accident then you make a claim and it gets sorted out straight away - healthcare costs and compensation for loss of earnings. It isn't perfect but it seems to work

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • ecco the dolphinecco the dolphin Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder why in these discussions it's only the Canadian or British systems that get raised as potential alternatives to the American system.

    That's a damn good question.

    France, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia all have interesting ideas.

    I'd still like to hear from somebody in one of those countries.

    A few people have talked about their countries in this thread from the above countries, inc. other EU states, and I've also talked about my country, also not on the list. Everytime this thread comes up (this is at least the 2nd one of the same kind in the last couple of months) we get a good response, but end of the day it seems most people are from US/Canada and UK on these boards so the discussion always reverts to that.

    Anyway - yes, there are some very cool ideas out there that relate to healthcare. Like in New Zealand there is no personal injury litigation whatsoever - it is banned by law and instead a state run corporation compensates all victims of accidents regardless of cause. You get an injury caused by accident then you make a claim and it gets sorted out straight away - healthcare costs and compensation for loss of earnings. It isn't perfect but it seems to work

    Hi 5 on the ACC! It is so awesome, so very awesome if you get covered by it. The ambulance ride, doctors' time, hospital visits, checkups - all potentially paid for. There are fringe cases which makes the news on how certain people aren't covered by it, though. We do pay for it through everything we do - ACC is part of our taxes and levies, but all in all, it seems to work okay.

    Fun factoid: ACC will also potentially cover foreign visitors who have an injury while in New Zealand!

    Penny Arcade Developers at PADev.net.
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited October 2008

    The government should provide health care. Health care is an inelastic good. If we let the market (i.e. private corporations) control access to health care and set prices, then the price will be far above what many people can afford.

    The price for health-care or the price for top of the line health-care? One major hurdle is that health-care is considered all or nothing and "bargain health care" isn't allowed to exist. There would always be a market for inexpensive health-care in a real free market. The problem is the heavy regulatory standards on who can actually practice and prescribe drugs erodes competition, locks out inexpensive health care options and basically increases prices by decreasing choice.

    Note I'm not suggesting that people who read about medicine on the internet should be everybody's primary care physician I'm just illustrating one of the major flaws of any health care system. Another major flaw is that we consider systems where nobody actually has to actually pay for anything as a quality system. People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.

    I have a number of concerns about nationalized health care, one of them being is that it just gives the government yet another excuse to tell me what I can or cannot eat or drink and what high risk behavior I can or cannot engage in.

    I'm one of those people who lives in the United States and has fantastic health care and it costs me nothing. I can see a physician whenever I want with less than 24 hours notice. I can call up a specialist and see them immediately. If I am hospitalized I have access to the best medicine and doctors in the world who have free reign to perform just any treatment that science has to offer. It will cost me a small deductible.
    theclam wrote: »
    The problem with health insurance is not that it is inelastic, but rather that it suffers from adverse selection. It is simply not economical to provide health insurance as it currently stands, as only those who believe that they are going to be sick at some time in the near future buy it voluntarily. Think of it like car insurance - if it was not required, only bad drivers would get it and car insurance would not exist (and we would pay out of pocket whenever someone hit our car).

    I'd prefer to insure my car and shield myself from a major law suit in the event I hit anybody. I would gladly buy health care to protect myself and my family. If I run up a major hospital bill, I want my insurance to pay for it and not ruin my finances for the rest of my life.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder why in these discussions it's only the Canadian or British systems that get raised as potential alternatives to the American system.

    That's a damn good question.

    France, Germany, Switzerland, and Australia all have interesting ideas.

    I'd still like to hear from somebody in one of those countries.

    A few people have talked about their countries in this thread from the above countries, inc. other EU states, and I've also talked about my country, also not on the list. Everytime this thread comes up (this is at least the 2nd one of the same kind in the last couple of months) we get a good response, but end of the day it seems most people are from US/Canada and UK on these boards so the discussion always reverts to that.

    Anyway - yes, there are some very cool ideas out there that relate to healthcare. Like in New Zealand there is no personal injury litigation whatsoever - it is banned by law and instead a state run corporation compensates all victims of accidents regardless of cause. You get an injury caused by accident then you make a claim and it gets sorted out straight away - healthcare costs and compensation for loss of earnings. It isn't perfect but it seems to work

    Hi 5 on the ACC! It is so awesome, so very awesome if you get covered by it. The ambulance ride, doctors' time, hospital visits, checkups - all potentially paid for. There are fringe cases which makes the news on how certain people aren't covered by it, though. We do pay for it through everything we do - ACC is part of our taxes and levies, but all in all, it seems to work okay.

    Fun factoid: ACC will also potentially cover foreign visitors who have an injury while in New Zealand!

    We clearly rock. I was reading the regular audit of the ACC the other week as a friend wanted more information on it and it still blows my socks away that the government of the day took such a bold step. I wonder if it would be worth having a thread about it and the alternatives - full personal injury or some sort of mixture. The audit document has quite a good break down of this which I'm sure some people would be interested in here.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • KartanKartan Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »

    I have a number of concerns about nationalized health care, one of them being is that it just gives the government yet another excuse to tell me what I can or cannot eat or drink and what high risk behavior I can or cannot engage in.

    does not compute


    Not to sure about the US goverment, but all the german goverment does is saying "Don't smoke, its bad for you" and thats it. You don't get thrown into jail or are denied treatment if you do smoke.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Kartan wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »

    I have a number of concerns about nationalized health care, one of them being is that it just gives the government yet another excuse to tell me what I can or cannot eat or drink and what high risk behavior I can or cannot engage in.

    does not compute


    Not to sure about the US goverment, but all the german goverment does is saying "Don't smoke, its bad for you" and thats it. You don't get thrown into jail or are denied treatment if you do smoke.
    Seriously. KN, you live in a country where insurance companies regularly deny coverage to people with chronic health problems or 'high risk' patients (fatties, etc) and are floating ideas about screening out customers based on their DNA (risk factors for disease) and you feel safer there? I don't think you realise how lucky you are compared to the vast majority of your fellow citizens.

    tmsig.jpg
  • GrimReaperGrimReaper Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    See, this is where we differ, I think that its unfair for one person to pay £70k thing for the same thing someone else has to pay £4k for...

    Do you feel that way about the fire department, too? Or police protection?

    He referred to Thatcher as "the great Prime minister". I think that's all we need to know really.

    Thatcher and the conservatives are well known for their hate for the NHS, hell.. during Thatchers years the conservatives took an axe to the budget of the NHS.

    Today the NHS has an annual budget of about £100 billion (in the region of $200 billion) for a population of 60 million people.

    Whenever I have been to a hospital or seen my local gp it has always been fast and I've gotten the care I needed.

    Simple fact is some things work best socialised, police, fire service, health service etc. Could you imagine that for example your house is burning down and after the fire brigade have put the fire out they then charge you for services rendered? Of course not, so why should it be any different for something that's for your health rather than your personal property?

    PSN | Steam
    ---
    I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
  • Willeh DeeWilleh Dee Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Echo wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    See, this is where we differ, I think that its unfair for one person to pay £70k thing for the same thing someone else has to pay £4k for....
    The same thing is true for roads, police forces, and education.

    I had this great quote that someone (sadly, I forgot to note who) wrote in one of the Ron Paul threads maybe six months back. Mildly off topic, so here's a spoiler.
    Spoiler:

    At no point did I advocate a flat poll tax, or say taxes were wrong, I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes. But then I guess if people are going to riot to get there way over a poll tax then I'm not going to feel bad swindling the tax man should I see fit.

    Wevs wrote:
    My man Willeh Willeh Willeh Dee
    Taggin up SE with a fat marker
    And this is what's on today's charter
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    At no point did I advocate a flat poll tax, or say taxes were wrong, I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes. But then I guess if people are going to riot to get there way over a poll tax then I'm not going to feel bad swindling the tax man should I see fit.

    Sorry, are you saying someone who earns £235,000 pounds a year is middle class?

    I have a thoughful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/
    I made a game, it has penguins in it. WANG gets you money off.
    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    At no point did I advocate a flat poll tax, or say taxes were wrong, I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes. But then I guess if people are going to riot to get there way over a poll tax then I'm not going to feel bad swindling the tax man should I see fit.
    Willeh Dee wrote:
    How about, everyone pays a flat rate for the services everyone uses on a day to day basis, similar to a Poll tax. Give a small tax break to the very poor, and tax earnings on anything above, around £60K a year. I'm no economical expert, but this seems allot fairer. It provides for the poor, gives necesary room for incentive to better ones self, rewards those adequately who have done well for themselves whilst taxing people who earn more than enough to live a well off life.

    This way, everyone pays for what they use themselves, as an individual, which seems fair. There is an element of the rich paying for the poor, which of course is beneficial in many ways for society in general, but it isn't eliminating the middle class and punishing those who work hard and do well in life.

    To be fair however, you did then undercut your point by then suggesting progressive taxation before complaining that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, so I'm not going to knock you for being inconsistent.
    Willeh Dee wrote:
    I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes.

    How would a flat tax solve any of these problems better than simply closing the loopholes which allow the super-rich to exempt their earnings?

    steam_sig.png
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    PSN: allenquid
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The "obligations" to your society comes in the form of taxes. Am I wrong for assuming that?

    Also, taxes for schools and public services usually (mostly) comes from property tax/school tax that's. Aren't property taxes equitable/proportionate to size of the property? More property means more tax, but doesn't go up exponentially because "Hey you're rich, pay more in property taxes." I may be wrong for that.
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    They do that in the US system too. It's not a NHS issue at all.

  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    The "obligations" to your society comes in the form of taxes. Am I wrong for assuming that?

    Also, taxes for schools and public services usually (mostly) comes from property tax/school tax that's. Aren't property taxes equitable/proportionate to size of the property? More property means more tax, but doesn't go up exponentially because "Hey you're rich, pay more in property taxes." I may be wrong for that.
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    They do that in the US system too. It's not a NHS issue at all.

    You can argue that in a system where someone is paying for the service, they will feel more justified in demanding what they think they need, rather than whats needed. And that first assumption wrongfully assumes that a Doctor would prescribe anything that wasn't needed.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    I think Kevin has a rather distorted view of how a socialized medical system actually works. For one thing, we actually have to pay for our prescriptions, unless they are administered while in the hospital. Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries, largely because it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to be on the take from one of the large pharma's.

  • SzechuanosaurusSzechuanosaurus Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »

    And who uses private healthcare in the UK? Rich people?

    From what I have experienced, pretty much, you would have to be.


    Pfff.

    I've got BUPA insurance for something like £35 a month. That's about the same amount I pay for National Insurance (Which is basically the mandatory health insurance levied against wage earners to pay for national health care, with the added bonus that unemployed people are still covered). It's hardly a crazy sum of money, most people my age in the UK probably spend more than that on alcohol. Per week.

    Plus there's basically a price list for operations, so if you needed something done and didn't want to wait but aren't paying for private health insurance, if you have the money in savings then you can just pay for the treatment. Of course, the cost can vary from a few hundred pounds to thousands of pounds.

    I would literally fight on the streets to keep our national health care system, but private health care isn't exactley the sole preserve of 40 year old investment bankers (haha, not that that expression has much weight now). A lot of companies also provide various health packages as part of their benefits packages. I think ours has a certain allowance for things like Dentists and Opticians which aren't necessarily covered by the NHS, for example, and some employers will go the whole hog and pay private health insurance too.

    A healthy work force is a productive workforce. This expression justifies both companies paying for private healthcare and the populace contributing to a national health care system available to all.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Fallingman wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    They do that in the US system too. It's not a NHS issue at all.

    You can argue that in a system where someone is paying for the service, they will feel more justified in demanding what they think they need, rather than whats needed. And that first assumption wrongfully assumes that a Doctor would prescribe anything that wasn't needed.
    Unfortunately this has been a large problem recently in the US. Doctors are/were prescribing antibiotics for everything because the patients were asking for them. If you had the flu? Here have some penicillin. Oh no, you've got a cold? Here's some Ceclor to hold you over. Which causes a huge problem and things like MRSA or VRE appear.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    I think Kevin has a rather distorted view of how a socialized medical system actually works. For one thing, we actually have to pay for our prescriptions, unless they are administered while in the hospital. Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries, largely because it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to be on the take from one of the large pharma's.
    That's universal. The problem with the US system is the greater ability to doctor-shop, particularly through ERs, and the direct marketing of pharma products to the general populace, creating an artificial demand among the paranoid (and seriously, those ads are designed to make you paranoid).

    tmsig.jpg
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    bowen wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    They do that in the US system too. It's not a NHS issue at all.

    You can argue that in a system where someone is paying for the service, they will feel more justified in demanding what they think they need, rather than whats needed. And that first assumption wrongfully assumes that a Doctor would prescribe anything that wasn't needed.
    Unfortunately this has been a large problem recently in the US. Doctors are/were prescribing antibiotics for everything because the patients were asking for them. If you had the flu? Here have some penicillin. Oh no, you've got a cold? Here's some Ceclor to hold you over. Which causes a huge problem and things like MRSA or VRE appear.
    Also a global problem, but I went to the GP yesterday for a checkup and she has a very prominent display of leaflets entitled 'common colds need common sense, not antibiotics', and this is not that new an approach. Also, most of the resistant infections are coming out of hospitals, thanks to a concentration of ill people and lax hygiene, as well as intensive animal agriculture operations. GPs aren't really the core problem.

    tmsig.jpg
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    They do that in the US system too. It's not a NHS issue at all.

    You can argue that in a system where someone is paying for the service, they will feel more justified in demanding what they think they need, rather than whats needed. And that first assumption wrongfully assumes that a Doctor would prescribe anything that wasn't needed.
    Unfortunately this has been a large problem recently in the US. Doctors are/were prescribing antibiotics for everything because the patients were asking for them. If you had the flu? Here have some penicillin. Oh no, you've got a cold? Here's some Ceclor to hold you over. Which causes a huge problem and things like MRSA or VRE appear.
    Also a global problem, but I went to the GP yesterday for a checkup and she has a very prominent display of leaflets entitled 'common colds need common sense, not antibiotics', and this is not that new an approach. Also, most of the resistant infections are coming out of hospitals, thanks to a concentration of ill people and lax hygiene, as well as intensive animal agriculture operations. GPs aren't really the core problem.

    Yeah the resistant bacteria are originating from hospitals, but as a whole, supplying antibiotics for a viral infection is exacerbating the problem.

    For instance VRE, where enterrococci are common in the intestines, would arise from an overuse of antibiotics. Supposedly VRE originated in sewage water. However, agriculturally they are more often found in stock animals used in food consumption. So you're right, bad sewage treatment and agriculture tend to be the origins of the disease, but I'd think (I can't find any proof of this right this moment) that using antibiotics while not sick would end up destroying the natural flora if your body and allowing these other things to take hold. A compound effect of sorts.

    Did hospitals just give patients antibiotics when they came in for surgery, or anything, just in case? I seem to remember reading that somewhere.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2008
    Not sure, but the last op i had was wisdom teeth removal and they put me on a short course of amoxy then. Fair enough, with oral surgery. I'd say they've gone a long way towards tailoring dosages, but you can't really afford to not dose people before surgery. The risk of gastric infections is rather smaller than 'normal' post-op infections, so I don't consider that a problem in the way that GP's handing out pills is.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Yeah from what I've heard post-op infections are basically one of the more terrible things which can happen to you no matter what the actual pathogen is.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    I think that in any system you are going to run into dosage problems, yet I have not had an incident where I have felt that I have improperly prescribed medication. Hell, when I returned from Korea I went to my parents doctor in order to see about the options available to me to help quit smoking. I mentioned that I had limited success with the patch, and he flatly refused to give me any other option and told me I should reevaluate why I want to quit and then just stop. When I started back at my own doctor she told me that should I feel I need it, there are drugs that can suppress cravings, yet she didn't really recommend it. There was no push to put me on medication, even though I had inquired about it.

    In any case, its been four weeks now of cold turkey. Though I switched from my parents doctor because he was a tad on the cold side, his advice to reevaluate my reasoning was just the push I need.

    But, this is anecdotal. Has anyone seen any studies concerning over-dosage?

  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Hey, there, folks living in a country with national medicine

    How do you feel about your system?

    Good, overall. The Canadian system has numerous flaws, buts its a good idea.
    Would you trade it for the current US system of private insurance?

    Fuck no.
    What do you like about your system?

    Paid for by tax dollars, which for someone like myself means its essentially free. They treat everyone, which is awesome. Quality of care is overall very good. Per capita people pay significantly less for health care than in the US.
    What do you hate about it?

    Money has been sucked out of the system over the past 20 years or so. Then people start to wonder why waiting lists are so long, and why hospital beds are so hard to come by. Socialized healthcare is good, but it needs to be properly funded and managed. Europe does this part much better than Canada I believe.
    I have heard criticisms of the Dreaded Socialized Medicine where things are bandied about like, "Everyone gets the same treatment no matter how much care they need" and "Do you want to wait to see a doctor?"

    That first sentance doesn't even make sense as far as I can tell. People get individual treatment in order to cure what ails them. The treatment for a broken bone and cancer are obviously going to be different, I dont really understand what you're getting at. Waiting times can be bad here, especially in emergency rooms. I've personally never had to wait for a doctor.
    I've also heard that there are sometimes not enough specialists to go around or that doctors don't make a fair wage under these systems.

    Here its a lack of nurses, I've never heard of a lack of specialists. As far as I know doctors get paid quite well here, I've never heard differently.

    ragesig.jpg

  • Mithrandir86Mithrandir86 Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    I think Kevin has a rather distorted view of how a socialized medical system actually works. For one thing, we actually have to pay for our prescriptions, unless they are administered while in the hospital. Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries, largely because it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to be on the take from one of the large pharma's.

    That is certainly not true. You would invariably go to jail. Higher prescription drug use is caused by direct marketing to people. If you ever watch CNN, you get those really funny ads for drugs with side-effects that far-and-away outstrip the meager benefits. You have restless-leg syndrome? Take this, but it has been known to cause death in rare cases.

    Prescription drugs should not be allowed to be advertised to the general public.

    Spoiler:
  • L*2*G*XL*2*G*X Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    tbloxham wrote: »
    You need a combined system, where emergency care and actually curing diseases is the realm of the private company, offering this sort of thing at reasonable rates to everyone


    Died fucking laughing, had to post without reading the rest of the thread. Companies give reasonable rates on stuff?
    REASONABLE?

    edit:

    Dislike the system here since our minsiter of health took a lesson in New Labour, but they didn't completely dismantle it yet.

    Biggest issue is our mental health care, handicapped care, rare afflictions, etc. where they could cut easily without the general populace seeing the results.

    Would vote for anyone proposing more socialism economicaly, with outsourced quality control.

  • CorvusCorvus Caw? VancouverRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    oldmanken wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    People who don't pay for things often exploit the fact it is free. Recurring prescriptions of drugs they don't need is an example of this.
    Why on earth would this happen? Since when did socialized health care = Doctors handing out prescriptions to anyone that asks?

    I think Kevin has a rather distorted view of how a socialized medical system actually works. For one thing, we actually have to pay for our prescriptions, unless they are administered while in the hospital. Actually, I would bet money that the incidence of prescription drug use in the US is higher than what it is in most other western countries, largely because it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to be on the take from one of the large pharma's.

    Well, lets be honest here, Canadian doctors aren't above getting free trips to "conferences" given to them by pharma companies either.

  • oldmankenoldmanken Registered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Yeah, I think I may have jumped the gun on my comment largely due to the absurd declaration by Kevin. I defer to the corrections that have been made, as they are far more accurate and well thought out.

  • Willeh DeeWilleh Dee Registered User
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    At no point did I advocate a flat poll tax, or say taxes were wrong, I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes. But then I guess if people are going to riot to get there way over a poll tax then I'm not going to feel bad swindling the tax man should I see fit.

    Sorry, are you saying someone who earns £235,000 pounds a year is middle class?

    No, intact if you read back in my very simplistic and drug educed quick thought out tax plan I advocated that £60k would be the limit at which a higher tax bracket would take effect.
    To be fair however, you did then undercut your point by then suggesting progressive taxation before complaining that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, so I'm not going to knock you for being inconsistent.
    Willeh Dee wrote:
    I merely think that the middle class are taxed disproportionately, allowing know room or incentive to excel whilst the truly upper class pay no taxes.

    How would a flat tax solve any of these problems better than simply closing the loopholes which allow the super-rich to exempt their earnings?

    If you read all of what I said without taking anything out of context, you can see that a flat tax rate is what one would start off with, it was far from flat after taking into account the tax credit for the poor and taxing income above £60k.

    A flatter tax with more room for the middle class to earn money they have rightfully earned without being punished for there success would provide incentive and growth in that area for those people, it would also be more fair in my view. I would also make sure I would close the tax holes that many people currently use to avoid paying any taxes what so ever, however that bit is probably impossible.

    (still on allot of drugs right here holla at me dawg

    Wevs wrote:
    My man Willeh Willeh Willeh Dee
    Taggin up SE with a fat marker
    And this is what's on today's charter
  • Alistair HuttonAlistair Hutton Dr EdinburghRegistered User regular
    edited October 2008
    Willeh Dee wrote: »
    If you read all of what I said without taking anything out of context, you can see that a flat tax rate is what one would start off with, it was far from flat after taking into account the tax credit for the poor and taxing income above £60k.

    A flatter tax with more room for the middle class to earn money they have rightfully earned without being punished for there success would provide incentive and growth in that area for those people, it would also be more fair in my view. I would also make sure I would close the tax holes that many people currently use to avoid paying any taxes what so ever, however that bit is probably impossible.

    (still on allot of drugs right here holla at me dawg

    If you flatten the tax then the poor pay (proportionally) more and the rich pay (proportionally) less. If you then give the poor tax credits and have additional tax for the rich then you have unflattened it and are back to a progressive taxation scheme.

    I have a thoughful and infrequently updated blog about games http://whatithinkaboutwhenithinkaboutgames.wordpress.com/
    I made a game, it has penguins in it. WANG gets you money off.
    Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.