[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | | Home]

A Genuine Question

This is a blue board which means that it's for everybody (Safe For Work content only). If you see any adult content, please report it.

Thread replies: 36
Thread images: 4

File: 1.png (239KB, 434x409px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
1.png
239KB, 434x409px
This is probably the worst place on the internet to ask this, but what are the fiscal reasons to not adopt universal healthcare in the United States? I'm conservative but sympathize with the poor and homeless, it would be nice if they could have a free base level healthcare system. I'm also realistic so of course I'm not going to go gung ho for this without weighing the very real possible consequences.

Further, I would personally trade most of social welfare (if not all) for universal healthcare because the primary worry of the poor is their health and if it is going to ruin their finances and lives if they break a leg or something.

Why would it be (or why is it) better if the system was (is) done privately versus publicly?
>>
Whites (ie tax payers) don't like paying for spics and dindus.

Our government has also made it clear that they cannot create a socialized program without it becoming a rim job for mega corporations.

Socialized health care would be widely accepted in the US if you fixed these two issues.

That is a very /pol/ answer, but the /pol/ answer is the /biz/ answer
>>
>>982766
Man is it really that simple? Thats bogus bullshit if the dindus/hoolios thing is true. My buddy said that too, I didnt buy it then but now I dont know.

Good point about the mega corps.

Huh. Is that all it takes? I'm totally down for universal healthcare. Could this replace welfare? I'm against welfare by principle but am willing to hear arguments in support of it or that it doesn't make people lazy.

Don't worry about being too /pol/, that actually didn't seem very /pol/ because it seems in touch with reality and wasn't about Jews.
>>
> Peter Hitchens on two separate posts on the frontpage

Hmmmmm.....
>>
>>982771
Lol he is? I didnt even know. That other anon is based
>>
Compulsory health services are not the end all and be all.
In all budgets in the developed world, Health spending is still a problem.

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

The single largest problem in the US healthcare market is that it inflated prices through legislation (employer plans are subsidized over private plans).
>>
>>983081
The most irritating, contemptible shit socialists have been peddling about this is using words like "single payer" and "universal" health care.
There is an argument for security, for a compulsory system - but these rats talk about "freedom" even when they deny it, and even when it has nothing to do with freedom, but COMPULSION and SECURITY.
>>
Look at the American K-12 education system to get an idea of how well socialized medicine would work in the US. Despite their constant whining about funding, US schools are actually very well funded on a per student basis; only a few small European nations spend more per student than we do. Yet we get very piss-poor results from that system. I strongly suspect the same thing would happen with any sort of government ran healthcare system.
>>
Another factor to consider is that one reason various other first world countries can keep their healthcare cost relatively low (compared to the US) is that their governments engage in hefty price fixing for drugs & medical equipment. They can basically tell the drug companies sell at x price or we will say screw the patent laws, and let some other company make it as a generic. (Hence all the whining about people wanting to import Canadian medicine).

This leads to those companies making almost all their profits in the US; if the US engaged in the same sort of price fixing other first world companies do, said drug companies would make very little profit, and that would massively stifle the number of new drugs & eqiupment they can continue research on.
>>
>>983152
other first world countries* not companies
>>
>>983152

I don't think this is true for Australia, it's my understanding that the government picks up the slack for most people and those not eligible pay full price.
>>
>>982758
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHVDN3M_hc8

OP its one thing to be efficient. Its another thing to be effective.
You can be exceedingly efficient at doing ineffective things. The government is very good at establishing fully staffed fully state of the art operations that do fuck all.

Some things have happened the past few decades that have hurt medicine. Doctors no longer work for patients. Doctors work for insurance companies, because of the proliferation of Medical insurance. Because of the increased liability rewards, they are doubly forced to pay into huge liability insurance. Hospital policies have reacted to this by reducing maximum hours worked by practitioners to 16/day. But disease doesn't work like that. Creating massive homework for doctors to inform and be informed about patients just to keep track cutting effective hours and creating redundant hours, with very marginal improvements to patient care and outcome. There was significant improvement to personal mistakes, but a significant increase in nebulous "team" mistakes.

The insurance companies use actuarial tables for the population at large. while certain doctors often see specific sample groups. Creating inefficiency of pricing of care.

The government is full of jobbers that are tasked with coming in and making some changes, to make their mark and move up to bigger and better things.

Misallocation of authority and incentives. occurs in government. Lowest pay highest authority. gives the least competent people power over the most competent. Creating huge barriers to progress in an industry that is still 20 years behind, and will likely push it into the innovation backlogs like construction or plumbing.
This is a breeding ground for corruption. Because of the nature of healthcare, directors are given tremendous authority to name costs, so you're going to get a lot of dark inventory and 20k toilet scenario where hidden budgets are shifted onto pet projects
>>
tl;dr
you've got doctors working for bean counter insurance companies now.
Do you want to give them another boss who's just a plain idiot as well.
>>
>>982758
>Further, I would personally trade most of social welfare (if not all) for universal healthcare because the primary worry of the poor is their health and if it is going to ruin their finances and lives if they break a leg or something.
Yeah your country's healthcare is a joke. Free market ftw right?
>>
File: curly hair.jpg (569KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
curly hair.jpg
569KB, 1280x1920px
>>982758

I really need to make a post about this on my blog. I will try to summarize:

In theory a government funded healthcare plan is a good thing. Every civilized country is more than able to offer up some extra tax money toward healthcare.

What SHOULD have happened in the USA, was that the top 5% of earners in this country would pay a little more tax money into a fund that would subsidize health care for the bottom 1/3rd of the country. So poor people living hand to mouth could have healthcare for themselves and their family.

Instead what happened was the government simply mandated that all US citizens had to have healthcare, made the current insurance/medicalmanagementgroups even more powerful than they already were, and then levied a tax from all citizens to pay for it (both rich and poor). The model that got pushed through is totally fucked. And here is why:

1) there is no cost containment or reduction. Absolutely none. Those $45 Aspirin, and $200 IV drips are the same as ever. The fat cats at the top of insurance companies and medical management groups are gonna keep getting insanely rich, profiting off misery

2) There is no differentiation between preexisting conditions. So joe fatty who weighs 500lbs and inhales 50 cigarretes a day is gonna pay the same as Bob healthy who is a vegan and runs 3 miles a day. Its total fucking bullshit.

3) You HAVE to have healthcare, you cant not have it, or you pay a large tax penalty at the end of the year.

4) Americans are unhealthy as shit. 2/3 or every medical dollar spent goes towards a fat person or a smoker. I am neither and dont want to pay for them.

My biggest problem is #1.

What SHOULD have happened was the govt opened their own health insurance company that was dirt cheap and available to the poor. And it was mostly funded by top earners in this country. And they should have worked to stop the excess of insurance companies, med management companies, and pharma.
>>
>>982758
Basically insurance companies can jack up prices because there's no competition or disagreeing with them, and they also increase premiums because "hurr durr everyone needs coverage now".

It's just really dumb overall and for a country of 300million+ it's completely unaffordable.

Important thing to remember is that healthcare costs go up EXPONENTIALLY, not linearly. So some might say "B-b-but le scandanavian countries have FREE healthcare and it's successful!". Sure that's true, but they have a tiny fraction of the population. They're all under 10 million citizens, the US is over 300 million. - To put that into prospective... The US has a lot more illegal immigrants than the population of several of these "Scandinavian countries".
>>
The answer to the healthcare question is mandatory savings.

but nobody could sell it politically.
>>
>>983998

Pretty much. Norway has a smaller population than Colorado and is one of the worlds biggest oil exporters. Any comparison between America and Norway is completely goofy.
>>
>>983998
>Important thing to remember is that healthcare costs go up EXPONENTIALLY, not linearly. So some might say "B-b-but le scandanavian countries have FREE healthcare and it's successful!". Sure that's true, but they have a tiny fraction of the population. They're all under 10 million citizens, the US is over 300 million. - To put that into prospective... The US has a lot more illegal immigrants than the population of several of these "Scandinavian countries".
I don't see why this can't be remedied by using per capita figures.
See:
>>983919
You fags spend ~5x more on healthcare than south korea per person and yet have lower life expectancy.
>>
>>984008
>You fags spend ~5x more on healthcare than south korea per person and yet have lower life expectancy

I know you're going to say "go back to /pol/ faggot". But our life expectancy is probably related to niggers and illegal Mexicans. - Our statistics overall would be MUCH better if we happened to get rid of all blacks.

Also we have over 6x as many people as South Korea. Like I said, healthcare costs grow exponentially. We also have WAY higher obesity rates, Korea(as most Asian countries) is nearly non-existent for obesity. Another driving factor of such spending. - A few years ago Obesity over took smoking in healthcare costs. Which is ridiculous.
>>
>>984010
>Like I said, healthcare costs grow exponentially.
You did say that, but provided no evidence to support it. All the other countries fall on the trend-line and they have wildly different populations. Also your obesity rate isn't that extraordinary compared to say mexico and the UK; as for korea asians respond worse to abdominal fat so you can't use the same obesity classification. Based on the lowered figures Japan for instance has comparable obesity rates to the US.

>But our life expectancy is probably related to niggers and illegal Mexicans.
Well there's no way you have more, or a higher proportion, of mexicans than Mexico, which falls on the trendline. There's no escaping this, America overspends for the healthcare it receives.
>>
>>984013
>Based on the lowered figures Japan for instance has comparable obesity rates to the US.

Look at this my good pal.

>Only 3.6 percent of Japanese have a body mass index (BMI) over 30, which is the international standard for obesity, whereas 32.0 percent of Americans do. A total of 66.5 percent of Americans have a BMI over 25, making them overweight, but only 24.7 percent of Japanese.

We have almost 10x as many clinically obese people as Japan in percentage of course(not population).

>You did say that, but provided no evidence to support it

The more people you have, the more hospitals, doctors, emergency services and nurses you need.

Whereas in something like Finland maybe ~25 nationwide hospitals could serve all the patients(Idk exact number I'm guesstimating but try to understand what I mean), you would need 250 hospitals, and sub-sequentially similar increase of staff, doctors, buildings etc. This is much more expensive than you would imagine.
>>
>>984015
>you would need 250 hospitals, and sub-sequentially similar increase of staff, doctors, buildings etc

For America, I mean. Forgot to add that in.
>>
>>984015
>>Based on the lowered figures Japan for instance has comparable obesity rates to the US.
>Look at this my good pal.
>>Only 3.6 percent of Japanese have a body mass index (BMI) over 30, which is the international standard for obesity, whereas 32.0 percent of Americans do. A total of 66.5 percent of Americans have a BMI over 25, making them overweight, but only 24.7 percent of Japanese.

>However, as Asian populations are particularly susceptible to the health risks of excess adipose tissue the Japanese have redefined obesity as any BMI greater than 25.[23] Using this cut off value the prevalence of obesity in Japan would be 20%, a threefold increase from 1962 to 2002.[24] A 2008 report stated that 28.6% of men and 20.6% of women in Japan were considered to be obese.
So your obesity rates are 32% and 24.7%. Not a huge difference.

>The more people you have, the more hospitals, doctors, emergency services and nurses you need.
And the more taxpayers you have, more doctors you can train, more builders to make hospitals etc. It balances out.
>>
>>984021
>And the more taxpayers you have, more doctors you can train, more builders to make hospitals etc. It balances out

Like I said it's not linear, it's still a lot more.

Healthcare costs for a population of 30 million is not the same as that times 10 and there that's how much you need for the US.
>>
>>984025
>Like I said it's not linear,
[citation needed]
>>
>>983139
>we get very piss poor results

Maybe it's the retarded/ghetto students

Not the teachers?
>>
>>984021
>using body mass index to measure fat mass
>>
>>982758
Cause it robs from the rich ( private health companies ) to give to the poor ( government run health insurance ) and whenever one person loses money someone else gains money do it's good for one but bad for the other
>>
>>985114
It's not an indicator, but a measure of.

Also having a high muscle mass is pretty bad for you as well. All those centenarians are skinny fucks who don't eat much and do some light cardio.
>>
>>985129
Err, not a measure of, but an indicator*
>>
>>985129
>Also having a high muscle mass is pretty bad for you as well

>citation needed

Unless you're a roided out freak (which brings a myriad of other health issues) having above average amounts of muscle mass is NOT a health hazard. I'm not even sure in what regard being muscular could be unhealthy. Unhealthy is such an umbrella term.
>>
>>985211
>>citation needed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18693224
>BMR was nonlinearly associated with mortality. The lowest mortality rate was found in the BMR range 31.3-33.9 kcal/m(2)/h. Participants with BMR in the range 33.9-36.4 kcal/m(2)/h and above the threshold of 36.4 kcal/m(2)/h experienced 28% (hazard ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.61) and 53% (hazard ratio: 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.96) higher mortality risk compared to participants with BMR 31.3-33.9 kcal/m(2)/h.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16280423
>RESULTS:
>Only 2% of the observed variability in BMR was attributable to within-subject effects, of which 0.5% was analytic error. Of the remaining variance, which reflected between-subject effects, 63% was explained by FFM (fat free mass).
>>
>>984005

under-rated post. The Singapore model has things that could appeal to both Conservative and Liberal camps.

Too many special interests to push it through without some sort of crisis tho.

Obamacare was almost the worst possible outcome. Literally better to do nothing.
>>
>>982758
My cousin spent her early 20s opening her legs and cramming dicks up her pussy.

I spent my early 20s opening text books and cramming for exams.

I have a great job now. She works an entry level job in retail.

I pay $350/month for health insurance. She pays next to nothing and receives other government handouts like Medicaid.

The responsible do not like picking up the tab for the irresponsible. It's human evolution. I'm all for poor people having free basic health care, but not on my dime.

I also hit the gym 4 days a week, don't do drugs, and generally about 90-95% of my diet are healthy choices. I don't want to pay the medical bill for a lazy person who eats McDonalds every day, smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and sits on the couch doing nothing.
>>
>>982758
The idea is good. The implementation gets totally fucked up. I'm in Canada and there are tonnes of abuses of the public system. By the government and the users. METRIC TONNES.
Thread posts: 36
Thread images: 4


[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / bant / biz / c / can / cgl / ck / cm / co / cock / d / diy / e / fa / fap / fit / fitlit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mlpol / mo / mtv / mu / n / news / o / out / outsoc / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / spa / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vint / vip / vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y] [Search | Top | Home]
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5
If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.