This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

GeekNights 090820 - Health Care

edited August 2009 in GeekNights
Tonight on GeekNights we have a brief discussion about health care. In the news, Jet Blue sold out of all you can jet passes and the US life expectancy has peaked.

Rym's Thing - Buzz Aldrining
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 100m
Scott's Thing - Usain Bolt 200m
«13

Comments

  • So, the only solution I can come up with (and I haven't thought it the entire way through so I'm sure there are issues), is to run the health care system like a business.

    The government uses the best way currently possible (and I don't know how accurate it will be, just go with me on this) to determine the age at which every citizen will die. They use this information, factor in everything else about you (employment, education, etc.) and come up with a monetary value. This value would mainly be what you will end up paying in taxes to the government by the time you are your predicted dying age. Now, of course there are limits, but you would be free to spend up to that value (or a percentage of that value, like %80 or something) on your health care needs.

    This system is full of problems, but I think it's a step in the right direction. It sounds cruel to the old people, but always remember there is a private option if you want to spend some of your own cash, and I suspect that it wouldn't be anywhere near the current costs because private health care demand will lower by a large number if there is a public option in place.
  • edited August 2009
    I don't know why so few people want there taxes to go to anything but them. I know I sound like the crazy socialist here, but surley universial health care would be better for all of you.

    Let me now state my reasons

    1. It will be cheaper for insureance holders; For a start, listen to anyone vaugely involved with logistivs and they will tell you that the CPH (cost per head) is almost universially lower when ypu have more people. Also you wont have the insureance companies taking a cut of said medicare tax for profit.

    2. Banks will have to deal with less banrupcies; It is commonly known (sorry I be typing this on my phone so I can't hotlink a relivant artical, will do when I get to a PC) that the most common form of personal bankrupcy is medical bankrupcy. With universial medicare this would be reduced to nil.

    3. America would be more ecnomically able; Now this is the one that will cause the most dispute, however think howmany more doctors and nurses would have to be employed to service such an industry, not to mention the expansions to hospitals and GP's offices.

    4. Also people, in general will be healthyer. Because of regular health checks for all the population there will be a greater chance of spotting health problems earlyer.

    I now leave the post to have all the flaws in it pointed out........
    Post edited by ElJoe0 on
  • About half the billboards around Berlin have been advertising the atheletics world champlionships, and Usain Bolt has been featured prominently. It seems the adverts paid off, as the stadium was packed, and Bolt delivered big time!
  • edited August 2009
    Since you guys brought it up again, have you ever found the map with the Messier line again? Or is there at least a somewhat accurate description where it goes?
    At least Thomas Vanek disproves at least to some degree your theories of where great hockey players are born :P
    Luca Sbisa, a prospect for the Anaheim Ducks also has great potential and he was born on an island in the Mediterranean Sea.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • edited August 2009
    I asked my fiscally conservative friend about the whole health insurance things and he had a good incite that I will share.

    "Until America cares about its health I don't want to pay for it."
    Post edited by George Patches on
  • edited August 2009
    I just have a point about the use of both socialism and Nazism/fascism to describe the "public option" and "single-payer" side of the health care debate. While Rym and Scott are correct that on a traditional single-axis political spectrum socialism and communism end up on the left and Nazism/fascism ends up on the right, describing them as "polar opposites" is not really accurate. For the most part, the left/right axis is a pretty poor visual representation because it makes it look like the two extremes have nothing in common. In practice, however, the extremes end up in very similar places.

    I personally like something more akin to the Hans Slomp projection with two axes, which places communism and fascism at the bottom (albeit on opposite ends of the traditional left/right axis) and shows how close they are. Another method was suggested by one of my professors at college: he just took the traditional left-right axis and bent it like a horseshoe. In this way, communism and fascism actually end up closer together, which is more like reality than the "polar opposite" viewpoint.
    Post edited by starflyer3000 on
  • I just finished listening to the whole episode, and I think that Rym and Scott's major point is very good. There are definitely some major issues that we need to work out before we decide something this big.

    I think a big part of the problem is that all of the discussion takes the current system of health insurance for granted: even the public-option and single-payer plans still work from that assumption rather than examining the current system in-depth and finding out why it works for some people and doesn't work for others.

    Since a lot of the problem with the system is cost, I think that's a great place to start. As y'all mentioned, certain costs are inevitable: research and development is always going to be expensive (whether it's privately or publicly funded) and those resources have to be recouped before more r&d can be done. Good doctors are also expensive; people often forget that education is always a net loss financially while someone's in school. Doctors (and anyone getting an education) forgo money they could earn now for the chance to earn even more money later.

    Where I think the most costs could be cut is in the insurance model itself. One other reason health care is expensive is that many people are not fully aware of the costs,and there is a preponderance of middle-men that inevitably drive up prices.
  • edited August 2009
    I just have a point about the use of both socialism and Nazism/fascism to describe the "public option" and "single-payer" side of the health care debate. While Rym and Scott are correct that on a traditional single-axis political spectrum socialism and communism end up on the left and Nazism/fascism ends up on the right, describing them as "polar opposites" is not really accurate. For the most part, the left/right axis is a pretty poor visual representation because it makes it look like the two extremes have nothing in common. In practice, however, the extremes end up in very similar places.

    I personally like something more akin to theHans Slompprojection with two axes, which places communism and fascism at the bottom (albeit on opposite ends of the traditional left/right axis) and shows how close they are. Another method was suggested by one of my professors at college: he just took the traditional left-right axis and bent it like a horseshoe. In this way, communism and fascism actually end up closer together, which is more like reality than the "polar opposite" viewpoint.
    I drew a rhombus, and I put the communism dot next to the fascist dot, therefore they are similar! Give me a break.

    On paper, communism is all about the people. The rise up of the people working for the people. Everyone gets everything the same, and everyone is working for everyone. It's not top down or bottom up. It's bottom bottom. Everything is flat.

    Fascism is all about the state. Everything is top down. You do what the state says. The state gets everything. The state runs everything.

    It doesn't get much more opposite than that.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • The problem is that there has never been a true communist state. The reason why you think the communism dot should be near the fascist dot is that most communist states are run in a fascist manner with a sheen is communism on top to keep the masses happy. However this does not mean that the political theories of the two are even closely related.
  • edited August 2009
    The problem is that there has never been a true communist state. The reason why you think the communism dot should be near the fascist dot is that most communist states are run in a fascist manner with a sheen is communism on top to keep the masses happy. However this does not mean that the political theories of the two are even closely related.
    True, both were run in practice as top-down totalitarian schemes. A true communist society wouldn't require top-down control.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • Would then a total Communism be like that of an ant colony? Were total thought of self is taken away and actions are only done for the whole?
  • Would then a total Communism be like that of an ant colony? Were total thought of self is taken away and actions are only done for the whole?
    Very much so.
  • edited August 2009
    Would then a total Communism be like that of an ant colony? Were total thought of self is taken away and actions are only done for the whole?
    I think of it more like a family. When you were a kid, did you have to go out, get a job, and fend for yourself? If your mom or your dad needed money, were they on their own, or did they have a joint bank account? If Granny was too old and ill to work, was she thrown out in the cold or was she invited to live with you?

    I don't know about your family, but mine has always been pretty similar to a Russian Mir. Money goes into a pot, and everyone contributes according to their ability, and takes out according to their need. Questions affecting one member affect the whole, so the whole makes decisions for the individual. Of course, the individual contributes to the decision, but if the individual were to obstinately presever in a course of action that would damage the whole, there's be trouble. This never happens, because the individual normally sees his way clear to falling in line with the whole.

    In practice, this usually means me giving up space for my action figures so that my wife has more room for her horse trophies, or me not watching From Dusk til Dawn so that my wife can watch Project: Runway. You get the picture.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • See, now if you were cool, you would use the example of the Borg instead of an ant colony.
  • See, now if you were cool, you would use the example of the Borg instead of an ant colony.
    I loves me some Borg.
  • I think of it more like a family. When you were a kid, did you have to go out, get a job, and fend for yourself? If your mom or your dad needed money, were they on their own, or did they have a joint bank account? If Granny was too old and ill to work, was she thrown out in the cold or was she invited to live with you?

    I don't know about your family, but mine has always been pretty similar to a Russian Mir. Money goes into a pot, and everyone contributes according to their ability, and takes out according to their need.
    The problem with this kind of situation is that autocracy emerges. The tragedy of the commons always rears its ugly head. Those who put more into the pot start making demands, and threaten to hold back from the pot.

    To use your example of the family. Think about the parents who threaten to not pay for college unless the kids do, X, Y, and Z.

    Here's a government example. Let's say you live in a perfect communist state, as described. You want to protest something. You go to the government-owned printing press and ask them to print 5000 anti-government flyers. If they say no, you've got no alternative. It's not like you can make your own either. Who's going to sell you a printing press, paper, or ink?

    Without economic liberty, you can't maintain personal liberty. The shared pot is nice, but it will cost you your freedom.
  • edited August 2009
    The problem with this kind of situation is that autocracy emerges. The tragedy of the commons always rears its ugly head. Those who put more into the pot start making demands, and threaten to hold back from the pot.

    To use your example of the family. Think about the parents who threaten to not pay for college unless the kids do, X, Y, and Z.

    Here's a government example. Let's say you live in a perfect communist state, as described. You want to protest something. You go to the government-owned printing press and ask them to print 5000 anti-government flyers. If they say no, you've got no alternative. It's not like you can make your own either. Who's going to sell you a printing press, paper, or ink?

    Without economic liberty, you can't maintain personal liberty. The shared pot is nice, but it will cost you your freedom.
    What freedom? Freedom to be eaten by wolves as you starve in the snow? I'll stick with the mir, comrade. Is going to be loooong winter.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • The problem with this kind of situation is that autocracy emerges. The tragedy of the commons always rears its ugly head. Those who put more into the pot start making demands, and threaten to hold back from the pot.

    To use your example of the family. Think about the parents who threaten to not pay for college unless the kids do, X, Y, and Z.

    Here's a government example. Let's say you live in a perfect communist state, as described. You want to protest something. You go to the government-owned printing press and ask them to print 5000 anti-government flyers. If they say no, you've got no alternative. It's not like you can make your own either. Who's going to sell you a printing press, paper, or ink?

    Without economic liberty, you can't maintain personal liberty. The shared pot is nice, but it will cost you your freedom.
    Technically this is not a tragedy of the commons problem. An example of tragedy of the commons would be everyone paying for their kid's college education even though the pool of money is not sufficient to supply them all with money.
  • Technically this is not a tragedy of the commons problem. An example of tragedy of the commons would be everyone paying for their kid's college education even though the pool of money is not sufficient to supply them all with money.
    This is true. However, it's still a tragedy because of the commons.
  • I find it interesting that the tragedy of the commons is almost always associated with communism when in fact it is more accurately a "limited resource" proposition.

    In fact when you look at the ideal, communism is free of the tragedy of the commons because there is no self interest present. Whereas the ideology of fascism is almost directly based upon the tragedy of the commons, or rather in response to it.

    In the real world of course the tragedy of the commons is independent of political systems and can (and does) occur everywhere there are limited resources and insufficient regulation. Think about what e.g. laissez faire capitalism would do the natural environment.
  • I drew a rhombus, and I put the communism dot next to the fascist dot, therefore they are similar! Give me a break.

    On paper, communism is all about the people. The rise up of the people working for the people. Everyone gets everything the same, and everyone is working for everyone. It's not top down or bottom up. It's bottom bottom. Everything is flat.

    Fascism is all about the state. Everything is top down. You do what the state says. The state gets everything. The state runs everything.

    It doesn't get much more opposite than that.
    Way to go with the totally missing the point.

    If your rhombus works so that the reality of the situation is represented, then that's great. If it doesn't, then scrap the model. The left-right axis works as far as it goes, but then it fails for exactly the reason that you state later when you said, "The problem with this kind of situation is that autocracy emerges."

    In practice (which is what my post was about) communism and fascism end up in similar places. We can talk about the "intentions" all day long, but the practical reality is that despite some philosophical differences, they have more in common with each other than either has with the center.

    By the way, if we take your definition of fascism, i.e. it's all about the state (which works), that sounds like government-run health care to me. Maybe those making the fascist connection are more right than many are willing to admit. I still think carrying around a sign with a swastika on it is generally not a good idea, regardless of the point.
  • By the way, if we take your definition of fascism, i.e. it's all about the state (which works), that sounds like government-run health care to me.
    That would only be true if national health care were designed in some way to directly strengthen the state. If the new system killed the elderly or feeble, then you'd have a point. Facism is top-heavy control for the sake of the state itself. Socialism is top-heavy control for the sake of the citizens within the state, even if that is to the detriment of the organs of the state proper. Communism as an ideology may well be impossible at a large scale, for probably the same reasons that Libertarianism is so.
    If your rhombus works so that therealityof the situation is represented, then that's great. If it doesn't, then scrap the model.
    Or, you clearly define whether or not you're talking about ideologies or specific governments. The word "communism" means something specific, and it's different depending on which perspective you are arguing from.
  • Or, you clearly define whether or not you're talking about ideologies or specific governments.
    In practice, however, the extremes end up in very similar places.
    Hmmm... I thought that was pretty clear. Now, if y'all were talking about anarcho-communism (the mythical end of Marx's dialectic), then that's fine. I've been talking about this from a purely practical standpoint.
    That would only be true if national health care were designed in some way to directly strengthen the state. If the new system killed the elderly or feeble, then you'd have a point. Facism is top-heavy control for the sake of the state itself. Socialism is top-heavy control for the sake of the citizens within the state, even if that is to the detriment of the organs of the state proper.
    I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, but I've got a few points. First, I can see a lot of ways that national health-care would strengthen the state, but none where it doesn't. Pres. Obama has said that a big part of this is about "controlling costs." In practice, that is going to mean increasing the government's control over people.

    Second, this isn't just about whether or not the elderly and feeble (or the poor, for that matter) are affected. I'm personally all for helping those who can't do it on their own. I just want to make sure that we don't steamroll over everyone else in the process.

    Third, "top-heavy control" tends to be "top-heavy control," regardless of the intentions. It doesn't matter if I'm talking politics, economics, religion, or whatever. In practice, all government is force and control and increasing it always limits freedom. We may agree that some of those limits are necessary and even good, but the more the government does, the less free we are.
  • I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your premise, but I've got a few points. First, I can see a lot of ways that national health-care would strengthen the state, but none where it doesn't. Pres. Obama has said that a big part of this is about "controlling costs." In practice, that is going to mean increasing the government's control over people.
    Just a note, the Public Option (I.E. Government controlled option) is just that a option, you can still go to private insurance. I don't see how we are limiting freedom if we give people who don't have options.... Options.
  • Just a note, the Public Option (I.E. Government controlled option) is just that a option, you can still go to private insurance. I don't see how we are limiting freedom if we give people who don't have options.... Options
    I don't know the specifics about this particular public option, because I haven't researched it enough. However, many public options involve putting extra taxes/fees/fines on people who choose to opt-out of any insurance whatsoever. In other words, they don't actually give you a real choice. You have to choose between public insurance, private insurance, pay a bunch of money for nothing, or be charged with tax evasion.

    Regardless of all other factors in health insurance, I think that opting out needs to be an available decision. Obviously people would be opted-in by default, and have to fill out lots of papers to completely opt-out. However, someone should be able to pay nothing and get nothing if they so choose.

    There is one problem with this, though. People who opt-in pay into the system their whole lives. They typically reap the benefits when they are old. It just wouldn't seem right to for someone who opted out to stay opted out, if they wanted to opt back in. However, such a person would probably opt back in only when they needed the payout, but they have contributed unequally since they have not been paying for their entire lives like other people have.

    One solution to this problem, I think, is to not allow someone who has opted out to opt back into the public option, and only opt back into private options. Another solution is that someone who chooses to opt back in will not be covered for pre-existing conditions. Or maybe just have some sort of waiting period. Once you opt out, you have to pay into the system for X period of time before receiving X level of treatment.
  • @ Apreche: It is a fairly big assumption that a public health care option would make people opting in a default. It seems highly unlikely that it would be introduced in such a way. It seems pretty clear that if a public option were available, it would simply be available - not forced upon anyone.
  • Australia has had a public health care scheme for a great while as has the UK. I can only talk from the perspective of living in both countries.

    In Australia basically everybody has access to medical service, however if you don't want to pay all up front and don't have private medical insurance you have to visit a "Bulk Biller" practice basically a practice that accepts the "public option".
    Some practices won't take any Medicare clients.

    As someone young yes you don't need it, I've only needed to use it once in the last 10 years, also once since I started being taxed, it was for a 5 minute consult so I could get a doc to give me a prescription of antibiotics I wanted / needed.

    I don't pay for this I just submit to the government online (or by prepaid post if you want to use snail mail) that I visited this doctor for reason X - thus the Doctor gets paid by the Government.

    I have to pay for this by a Medicare Levy Fee when paying for taxes. I can avoid or minimise my levy by having a private medical insurance, which I do and the one I use is very bare because I don't need it. However my brother gets one with lots of extras for younger patients for alternative therapies massage, physio, eye glasses etc.

    It's even cheaper in the UK and they even take non citizens in with little paperwork. (In Australia you tend to carry around your Medicare card like you would a driver's license).

    I'm not sure where my either of these Commonwealth governments become evil for this public service. Obama is actually helping the country from the base but is being Buzz Aldrined by stupid people.

    I have the choice of either having Private or Public, but I cannot have neither and I think that's where everyone thinks the US Government is being an evil mastermind. It's similar to education, you can choose public or private.
  • edited August 2009
    Obama is actually helping the country from the base but is being Buzz Aldrined by stupid people.
    You are using it wrong. The rational person is the one who does the Buzz Aldrining. The crazy conspiracy theorists are the ones who should get Buzz Aldrined. It would be like Obama laying the verbal smack down on the people who call him a Nazi.
    Post edited by gomidog on
  • Obama is actually helping the country from the base but is being Buzz Aldrined by stupid people.
    You are using it wrong. The rational person is the one who does the Buzz Aldrining. The crazy conspiracy theorists are the ones who should get Buzz Aldrined. It would be like Obama laying the verbal smack down on the people who call him a Nazi.
    Sorry that was my first try. :(
  • Just a note, the Public Option (I.E. Government controlled option) is just that a option, you can still go to private insurance. I don't see how we are limiting freedom if we give people who don't have options.... Options.
    I know that's how it's being sold, but we all know that politicians use words however they want. I think there are some fundamental issues with the way our health care currently works (especially employer-based health insurance) that could push people toward the public option, and might work something like this:

    1) People are required to have health insurance.
    2) Employers must provide health insurance or pay an 8% tax.
    3) Many employers already pay more than that for their current insurance. Thus, there could be a financial incentive for employers to drop private insurance and just pay the tax, and the employees end up on the public plan.

    Will this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But the incentives are there, in HR 3200. From a practical standpoint, the Senate is now more important. We'll have to see now that Senator Kennedy is gone how things go there.

    I do agree that competition is a necessary component of any health care reform. However, competition with the government is rarely competition. The government doesn't have to make a profit, while a private company does; the government plan won't go out of business, while a private company can.
Sign In or Register to comment.