1. #11101
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    And your risk pool is divided by all your citizens.
    That's a completely separate issue. And it's also a very simplistic way of looking at it, because you also suffer from higher moral hazard.

  2. #11102
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    That's a completely separate issue. And it's also a very simplistic way of looking at it, because you also suffer from higher moral hazard.
    Healthcare costs in Europe are cheaper than in the US because of the reality that younger people will have less check-ups, higher chance of preventative healthcare, and not use the service, yet still will have to pay the tax that comes with it. The vast majority of healthcare costs in the US come from the last three months of a patients' life. A pretty shitty ROI. We are too liberal in the US in terms of giving families and the elderly choices in the twilight of their lives, especially when it is all paid by medicare and medicaid.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  3. #11103
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    The vast majority of healthcare costs in the US come from the last three months of a patients' life. A pretty shitty ROI. We are too liberal in the US in terms of giving families and the elderly choices in the twilight of their lives, especially when it is all paid by medicare and medicaid.
    I could not agree more, and I'm glad to see someone other than me making this point.

  4. #11104
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    I could not agree more, and I'm glad to see someone other than me making this point.
    it is a logical point... but the implied solutions are pretty cold dont you think?

  5. #11105
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Healthcare costs in Europe are cheaper than in the US because of the reality that younger people will have less check-ups, higher chance of preventative healthcare, and not use the service, yet still will have to pay the tax that comes with it. The vast majority of healthcare costs in the US come from the last three months of a patients' life. A pretty shitty ROI. We are too liberal in the US in terms of giving families and the elderly choices in the twilight of their lives, especially when it is all paid by medicare and medicaid.
    Need a scooter? That's fine. The taxpayers will pay for it!

    ---------- Post added 2012-10-26 at 09:24 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
    it is a logical point... but the implied solutions are pretty cold dont you think?
    There's quite a difference between giving grandma her morphine so her death isn't as unpleasant, and giving grandpa a penis pump, all paid for by Medicare.

  6. #11106
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
    it is a logical point... but the implied solutions are pretty cold dont you think?
    No colder than mandating preventative healthcare measures in your 30's and 40's as to decrease your chances of having a catastrophic ailment later on in life, which will in turn lower this final cost.

    Everyone dies, and if they will use funds from the government to pay for them (the vast majority of Americans), I think there needs to be some kind of conversation.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  7. #11107
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    We are too liberal in the US in terms of giving families and the elderly choices in the twilight of their lives, especially when it is all paid by medicare and medicaid.
    You mean older people should not recieve super expensive healthcare with low chances to improve their life in form of medicare? I would agree. Public healthcare money should be primarily spent on people who can't afford basic healthcare.

  8. #11108
    Quote Originally Posted by smelltheglove View Post
    it is a logical point... but the implied solutions are pretty cold dont you think?
    Well, yes, but that's what fiscal decisions are. People like to gloss over them, but the reality is that many necessary budget cuts will result in some quantifiable number of deaths.

  9. #11109
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You mean older people should not recieve super expensive healthcare with low chances to improve their life in form of medicare? I would agree. Public healthcare money should be primarily spent on people who can't afford basic healthcare.
    But not those that choose to not buy insurance. You choose to not buy insurance (when you could have afforded it) you deserve to go bankrupt with the medical bills.

  10. #11110
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You mean older people should not recieve super expensive healthcare with low chances to improve their life in form of medicare? I would agree. Public healthcare money should be primarily spent on people who can't afford basic healthcare.
    Yes, means test the shit out of medicare. Make sure the wealthy are not attributing the vast majority of their medical costs to medicare. Medicare should also rigorously push preventative healthcare instead of end of life care.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  11. #11111
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Well, yes, but that's what fiscal decisions are. People like to gloss over them, but the reality is that many necessary budget cuts will result in some quantifiable number of deaths.
    yeah. i know the conversation must at some point be had, im just not looking forward to it. the amount of rhetoric involved will be astronomical, and some will steer it into some truly nasty territory

  12. #11112
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,390
    Quote Originally Posted by Dakia View Post
    The FDA considering self diagnosis kiosks for prescriptions that can literally kill you if you don't properly understand drug interactions.
    Bzzzzt. Not quite. The FDA is considering making some medication OTC (like they did with some allergy medications) and the kiosks would dispense those. They are not (at least not according to what I read about it) going to have self diagnosis for prescriptions.

    And Aspirin can kill you if you don't understand drug interactions, so let's not get too hysterical...
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  13. #11113
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    In Finland unless your life depends on it you're not going to get the surgery in any reasonable (under 1 year) time. They're also (obviously) much more reluctant to give you any service at all compared to private healthcare services here.

    How is it that public healthcare in Finland has much much lower quality than private healthcare here? How is it that all the experienced and good doctors work in the private sector and all the beginners and less skilled doctors work in the public sector (apart from the administration ofcourse)? How is it that there are massive queues for public care but very short ones for private? And Finnish private care isn't *that* expensive. It's cheaper than care in the US.

    The fact is that public healthcare is best designed to take care of people who are too poor to afford basic healthcare themselves. Those who can afford to pay for it themselves should do so. Capitalism in the healthcare industry is absolutely vital to keep costs down, cut unnecessary overhead and to see good progress in healthcare innovation. Right now, the scewed US system produces only one of those, and that's healthcare innovation for the world. Roughly 80% of all biotech R&D spending in the world happens in the US. The rest of the world is getting a free ride on the back of the american patient's wallet.
    Because they have to when they finish medicine?

  14. #11114
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    And Aspirin can kill you if you don't understand drug interactions, so let's not get too hysterical...
    This one time, I took Benedryl with alcohol....

  15. #11115
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Yes, means test the shit out of medicare. Make sure the wealthy are not attributing the vast majority of their medical costs to medicare. Medicare should also rigorously push preventative healthcare instead of end of life care.
    It's not just the wealthy. The middle class (depending on how you define it) can also afford healthcare quite well. The problem is the poor (again, depending a bit how you define poor). With a couple changes you could make healthcare even more affordable to everyone, but there will always be those who just can't afford it, and public healthcare should be aimed at them. But again, there has to be a limit. You can't just blow millions upon millions per patient just because there's a theoretical chance you might survive or it improves your health marginally. You need cost control when it comes to public healthcare.

    The way I've understood the current medicare, it's not very good.
    Last edited by mmoc43ae88f2b9; 2012-10-26 at 04:27 PM.

  16. #11116
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenonis View Post
    Bzzzzt. Not quite. The FDA is considering making some medication OTC (like they did with some allergy medications) and the kiosks would dispense those. They are not (at least not according to what I read about it) going to have self diagnosis for prescriptions.

    And Aspirin can kill you if you don't understand drug interactions, so let's not get too hysterical...
    I've had to manage pharmacists, and while I don't have any real understanding of pharmacy.. I can tell you that 95% of the time the pharmacist does nothing but count pills like a cashier counts change.

    So eliminating the need for that on some medications can only be a savings for people.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  17. #11117
    Quote Originally Posted by Chonogo View Post
    Yeah but the other 5% of that time is pretty damn helpful. Like finding out if one medication I'm taking could kill me if I take another one.
    No doubt, not saying let's eliminate pharmacists. Just that the bulk of their time is spent counting pills that no knowledge, training or education is really required for.

    Much better to move stuff to an automated way and leave the pharmacists more time to do what they went to school for.
    The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities.

  18. #11118
    Whether you think Obama has a record or not, I thought this was kind of funny:
    MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__

  19. #11119
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Symphonic View Post
    Whether you think Obama has a record or not, I thought this was kind of funny:
    That's essentially what has been going on the last couple months. Both Romney and Obama have mostly focused on ripping the other guy, but not focused on their own solutions, except for some vague rhetoric "I'll create jobs lol".

  20. #11120
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    That's essentially what has been going on the last couple months. Both Romney and Obama have mostly focused on ripping the other guy, but not focused on their own solutions, except for some vague rhetoric "I'll create jobs lol".
    Except that one of them has four years of standing programs and policies to stand on, things that he doesn't just hypothesize about but things he has actually implemented, while the other is the contender and therefore has to actually bring forward what his plans are. Attempting to establish an equivalency between a lack of information (which even then is pretty far fetched, if you examine the two candidates' presentations on a critical level) just doesn't match in a situation where one of them is the presidential incumbent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •