Page 12 of 25 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
22
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilfrier View Post
    I agree with that. People want to call the corporations evil, but never truly challenge them. When I determined that I didn't like the direction EA was taking, I completely cut myself off from buying from them. I want to play several of their games, but I don't because I do not like the stance they take with their Online Pass system (punish the consumers for the actions of GameStop). I do the same to Apple, whom I dislike for their willingness to charge excessive prices for branding while offer what I feel is inferior products with little-to-no innovation or improvements to what they sell.

    No, the phones and computers and games I buy are not the biggest problems in the world I can solve. However, if those who felt that way about things took real stands against corporations, this never would have happened in the first place. That goes for both private businesses and the horrendous joke of a government we have now. If the government wasn't run by lifelong politicians more concerned with benefitting themselves and their party (and even the opposing party, at times) than doing right by the people who gave them their power, we'd be much better-off in the long run. We let politicians sweet-talk us into the problems we are in, saying they will fix them, rather than simply telling them to get out and letting common sense and simple logic run the country.

    However, I still do not support the social welfare of this country. I firmly believe that such things should function on the kindness of people. If you want to fix the problems of the world, make a donation to a non-profit organization. I'd bet such organizations would make a LOT more money to help the homeless, the abused, and the generally helpless if so much of our money wasn't funneled into the "safety net" programs that are so poorly-run by big government. There is the risk that personal greed can cause major problems in that system, but that is where you start to raise a morally-conscious society, not one obsessed with TV and the Internet.

    That's sort of the main issue I have with the left--they think that the concept of a utopian society comes from government, not the people. Instead of saying tax corporations (and note: those taxes on the rich WILL make it back to the little people, they always do), say screw corporations and work with other people to get places. I've read enough posts and blogs and general things on the Internet to know that America has plenty of smart, capable people that it doesn't need AT&T or Congress to function properly if it wants. Instead, people want to coast and let these crazy things like smartphones and welfare rule our lives, and it's pretty sad to think about.
    Then I think we can agree that things aren't all black and white.


    It is hard for those without power or money to organize, especially when the nation is turned against them and they are constantly shown in the news and in politics as "leeches" and "lazy".

    Which country is "this country"? I'm not from the US.

    But socialized healtchare -is- the kindness of the people, that's my entire point. Equal contribution, equal chances. Those are the ideals.

    Ofcourse, an ineffective government will always waste money. I think there are many hospitals in the US that function on donation, no?
    Though that would mean that treatment is uneven. If one region has more people that can donate more money, their hospital will work better than the region that has less people with lower income. That's why socialized healthcare tries to distribute the money evenly. That's done with different effectiveness ofcourse.

    The idea is that the government should be the people. With Socialisticly inspired politics (not real socialism) you have a lot of that.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Twotonsteak View Post
    Accept that it happens. It's reality. And saying "he is the problem" doesn't change that there are a lot of people like him, gaming the system every way they can. And now they have a new system to game and I'm stuck holding the bill.
    Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault. Might aswell close down the judicial system for good because we can't catch absolutely 100% of criminals.
    Last edited by zorkuus; 2013-01-21 at 06:05 AM.

  3. #223
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    887
    Insurance and health care is each others opposites. Insurance companies will make a profit as it's primary and only goal and it will be at the expense of your health.

    The concept about health insuance is utterly retarded and proved not to work.

  4. #224
    My friend smashed his hand at 3am in Italy, they took him to a doctor that saw him in about 10 mins, the doctor called the pharmacy after he was done giving him a cast, they drove to the pharmacy that was opened just to get him his pain meds. (the pharmacist has to live near the pharmacy and be on call) He gave them all his billing info he had to pay just under $25 for this and he was a tourist.

  5. #225
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault.
    It is being paid 'under the table' or 'off the books' in the US. Not sure if other english speaking countries have other phrases for it.

  6. #226
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vineland, Cumberland, NJ, USA
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    Who isn't paying in and to what aren't they paying in?

    Such groups are wrong in their "beliefs". Because you are a country and you do things as a country. Right?

    What? Who should do economics then?

    What's more important than keeping people alive?

    No, that is not even remotely true. That pharmaceutical companies have a hard time afloat is a funny thing to say. You'd have to prove to me that they have such problems.
    Government is involved in medical research and grants for such research.
    I may just be thinking of US universal healthcare when I mentioned those points. However in the US if you do not have a high enough income then you do not have to pay into the government healthcare. I suppose that you could say that in other socialized systems that low income individuals or families do not pay as much as those with higher incomes.

    Who are you, or the goverment, for that matter to say that someone is "wrong in their beleifs." I'm sorry but in the US we have a Constitutional right to believe and act how we see fight (granted that another's rights aren't affected).

    Leave economics to the free market. Like it always should be. Government controlled economics is a disaster and history shows this.

    Private healthcare isn't a bad thing. The only reason the US has had problems with it is because the government got involved and set regulations on policy.

    And where does the government get the money to fund research? What happens when suppliers find out that the government is giving money to the companies that buy their materials? They raise the prices. Then when government decides they cannot give the researchers money they are left in a bind financially.

  7. #227
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Twotonsteak View Post
    New philosophy here. It's called "free will."

    1. Instead of creating a socialist-style healthcare system why not create jobs so people can buy their own health insurance?
    2. No ONE person, or even a group of people, has the right to tell someone else their belief's are wrong. We're supposed to be a country of tolerance and FREEDOM.
    3. The market should be a FREE one. Why? Well other than the fact that I like the concept of FREEDOM there is that little part where the Federal Government screws up everything it gets involved in.

    People who want a big, centralized, Government controlling every aspect of their life don't believe in life. They don't want to LIVE. They want to exist and nothing more. They don't want to think for themselves or do things for themselves. They want someone else to do it for them, and for everyone else.

    I'm sorry but this whole concept, socialized medicine, falls under "personal responsibility." And it is not my responsibility to pay for someone else's healthcare. Would it be nice if I did? Yes. But it's not a responsibility and it shouldn't be legislated as such.
    I agree with you, jobs need to be created and those without them need to be motivated to work. More chances for more people.

    I can tell someone that they are wrong, but I can't tell them they aren't allowed to think what they think. If you don't want to contribute to society or be part of it, then you should have none of the benefits of it either, so if these special groups don't want to pay for a system they don't "believe in", then they should have none of the benefits it can offer.

    I disagree. The market needs to be regulated and transparent. We've all seen what some big companies and a few banks are capable of doing.

    I believe very much in life. If I'm successfull in life, I get great opportunities. That doesn't change.
    Big government isn't a problem if the people are the ones with the power and invest their time in it. What I feel that the US is doing wrong, is that everyone wants to ignore the government as much as possible, but as they do so, they lose all influence and power to control their lives.
    Though I think your description of government is a big Orwellian.

    How does responsability come into it? You do not choose to be sick. If someone is down on their luck, like me, should I be punished just because life has handed me all the bad cards?

  8. #228
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vineland, Cumberland, NJ, USA
    Posts
    2,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    1. Do you consider that the "others" lack the means to pay in?

    2. Should jehovah's witnesses be allowed to kill their children by withholding necessary blood transfusions? I say they can take their obsolete beliefs and fuck off.

    3. Why?

    4. Good idea. A single-payer healthcare system would be a good way to free up taxes to go to those important things.

    5.1. Care to explain how Texas' tort reform has been a resounding failure at reducing medical costs, despite sending malpractice premiums down substantially?

    6. Yeah, how will they ever keep afloat without at least a 20% profit margin and marketing budgets that are multiples of their R&D budgets?
    1. I'm sure that could be the case. But if you were given a service at no cost would you want to ever have to pay in?
    2. It's a shame, but that's what they believe. You can't just say "you're wrong!" and re-educate them. You have the right to believe what they believe is wrong. But then who is the bad guy?
    3. Every field that the government sinks their teeth into always becomes a disaster, here i'll list some: War on Drugs, Mail, healthcare, public education, private education, mortgages, etc. All these fields are plagued with government regulation and they just cant seem to figure out why.
    4. Not sure what you mean by "single-payer," however private healthcare has worked in the past.
    5.1 State intervention might not help a system plagued from the federal level.
    6. I was in fact thinking about a story I was reading in the UK where the drug company was having problems keep the manufacturing cost of a certain drug below what the government wanted. It's just a mess. The only way to fix the problem was to give more money to the company to cover the costs, however who pays for that in end? The individual taxpayer.

  9. #229
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    I may just be thinking of US universal healthcare when I mentioned those points. However in the US if you do not have a high enough income then you do not have to pay into the government healthcare. I suppose that you could say that in other socialized systems that low income individuals or families do not pay as much as those with higher incomes.

    Who are you, or the goverment, for that matter to say that someone is "wrong in their beleifs." I'm sorry but in the US we have a Constitutional right to believe and act how we see fight (granted that another's rights aren't affected).

    Leave economics to the free market. Like it always should be. Government controlled economics is a disaster and history shows this.

    Private healthcare isn't a bad thing. The only reason the US has had problems with it is because the government got involved and set regulations on policy.

    And where does the government get the money to fund research? What happens when suppliers find out that the government is giving money to the companies that buy their materials? They raise the prices. Then when government decides they cannot give the researchers money they are left in a bind financially.
    I don't really know much about US healthcare, I'm more about arguing for the value of human life and equality. I try not to make too many judgements.
    Here, there is an income limit. If you earn above X amount of money, you pay a percentage of it in tax and that amount is the same for everyone unless you have ABOVE a certain income, at which point you'll be paying tax for having a lot of money

    I know, I'm not Stalin, nor dumb.

    We have both universal and private healthcare here in Sweden. Those that wish to make a different choice and have the money to do so, do so.

    People who think that taking medicines that save lives are wrong, it's that simple. They can be wrong if they want to, denying yourself health and life is fine if that's what someone wants to willingly do. I'm not challenging Christians or anything, just a few strange groups that have really crooked views on medical science.


    Here? From taxes and other incomes.
    You have yet to support your statement that pharmaceutical companies suffer in any way or have financial troubles because of government regulation. I can't just take your word for it.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 07:16 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    Unless people like him are a majority (they aren't) then it isn't an issue anymore than people getting paid in the dark (I don't know what the actual phrase is in english but it's avoiding taxes on paycheck). They are doing something illegal and you are complaining that the system is at fault. Might aswell close down the judicial system for good because we can't catch absolutely 100% of criminals.
    You're correct.

    Why pay for anything at all, for anyone ever, if a Twotonsteak argues, there are a few people that might cheat and scam? I mean, we could just dissolve society as a whole. That's the impression I get from a lot of people, that they are 100% for complete anarchy.

  10. #230
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I didn't mean to give that impression; US health care workers abide by the same professional oaths as Canadian ones, and they WILL treat you in the ER. ERs mostly run the same way. It's outpatient care where you'll get bumped around and not get an appointment for months if your insurance isn't willing to push for better treatment. It's worse in the US for people who're wealthy enough to get BAD insurance, than people who are uninsured, from what I've read; they have enough insurance to not qualify for government support, but not enough money to afford the fees; these are the people who get hit with a $50,000 bill their insurance company won't pay and who lose their house as a result. These aren't the people on welfare, they're the people struggling with a lower-middle-class job.




    I was under the impression that a better insurance package would get you generally faster appointment times, however, which was what I was referencing. Not in a bribery sense, just a "we're willing to pay a premium if you can fit us in sooner" way.

    I'm not trying to take a directly opposite position and claim the US is all crap and such. It's a bad system at its heart, and the issues are in the insurance companies and the hospital admin staff/boards, not the doctors and medical staff. My issue is mostly that it's an inefficient system, and purposely so, as insurance companies and hospitals both profit if prices are kept high, at the cost of the consumer through inflated tax burdens and insurance premiums, which you can see reflected in the higher costs Americans pay for health care. And that the quality of health care on average isn't any better for that increased cost.
    Unless things are drastically different than the area I work in (Twin Cities area in Minnesota), patients don't get bumped around due to insurance. Appointment times are made on a first come first serve basis, with emergency cases getting fit in throughout the day. Any type of insurance schedule shifting is because of the insurance carrier itself. Like your insurance not wanting to cover a procedure, etc. Completely private practices might do the whole, your insurance is better so we'll get you in, but private practices are becoming a thing of the past.

    Here in the Twin Cities, you are typically tied to Allina, HealthPartners, Mayo, or HealthEast medical systems. They own all of the major hospitals in the state, have a good portion of the clinics and community owned hospitals (like mine) are then usually affiliated with one of the major medical systems. They really don't care what type of insurance you have as long as A) you're actually covered, B) they are allowed to bill to the carrier. Otherwise we're all just the masses.

    Oh and I agree. The system we have here in the States is really inefficient, and that's because our system allows the insurance companies to dictate way too much of what goes on in our facilities. People need insurance to afford healthcare, but insurance is becoming increasingly expensive (especially for families). Insurance companies help drive up costs, so they can leech more from the people, and then between the people in general and the hospitals, they are left to pay for whatever is left.

    God forbid you grow old in America too. Don't even get me on how ridiculous it is to get into an Assisted Living or Nursing Home...and they are typically cheaper than private care. Most can't afford to die with dignity.

    I would be fine with Canadian Socialized medicine. The crap we're getting in the States isn't going to solve anything though :/

  11. #231
    Elemental Lord Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    1. I'm sure that could be the case. But if you were given a service at no cost would you want to ever have to pay in?
    2. It's a shame, but that's what they believe. You can't just say "you're wrong!" and re-educate them. You have the right to believe what they believe is wrong. But then who is the bad guy?
    3. Every field that the government sinks their teeth into always becomes a disaster, here i'll list some: War on Drugs, Mail, healthcare, public education, private education, mortgages, etc. All these fields are plagued with government regulation and they just cant seem to figure out why.
    4. Not sure what you mean by "single-payer," however private healthcare has worked in the past.
    5.1 State intervention might not help a system plagued from the federal level.
    6. I was in fact thinking about a story I was reading in the UK where the drug company was having problems keep the manufacturing cost of a certain drug below what the government wanted. It's just a mess. The only way to fix the problem was to give more money to the company to cover the costs, however who pays for that in end? The individual taxpayer.
    1. I am not seeing what point you're trying to make.

    2. They are perfectly free to reject blood transfusions for themselves. They are not free to prohibit them to their children or demand that blood transfusions not be provided/paid for by the health care system.

    3. What exactly is a "disaster" about the USPS, beyond the sabotage from Congress? Canada post appears to be doing just fine. The mortgages is a case of incomplete regulation. Don't know what you're on about with education.

    4. As in like Canada's healthcare system. You know, the one that spends about half as much and gets generally better results.

    5. Federal has nothing to do with malpractice suits. The simple fact is that malpractice suit numbers have plummeted, the malpractice premiums have plummeted, but prices haven't dropped or even slowed in their growth. Malpractice suit payouts simply aren't a relevant cost to go after for cuts.

  12. #232
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaneth View Post
    Unless things are drastically different than the area I work in (Twin Cities area in Minnesota), patients don't get bumped around due to insurance. Appointment times are made on a first come first serve basis, with emergency cases getting fit in throughout the day. Any type of insurance schedule shifting is because of the insurance carrier itself. Like your insurance not wanting to cover a procedure, etc. Completely private practices might do the whole, your insurance is better so we'll get you in, but private practices are becoming a thing of the past.

    Here in the Twin Cities, you are typically tied to Allina, HealthPartners, Mayo, or HealthEast medical systems. They own all of the major hospitals in the state, have a good portion of the clinics and community owned hospitals (like mine) are then usually affiliated with one of the major medical systems. They really don't care what type of insurance you have as long as A) you're actually covered, B) they are allowed to bill to the carrier. Otherwise we're all just the masses.

    Oh and I agree. The system we have here in the States is really inefficient, and that's because our system allows the insurance companies to dictate way too much of what goes on in our facilities. People need insurance to afford healthcare, but insurance is becoming increasingly expensive (especially for families). Insurance companies help drive up costs, so they can leech more from the people, and then between the people in general and the hospitals, they are left to pay for whatever is left.

    God forbid you grow old in America too. Don't even get me on how ridiculous it is to get into an Assisted Living or Nursing Home...and they are typically cheaper than private care. Most can't afford to die with dignity.

    I would be fine with Canadian Socialized medicine. The crap we're getting in the States isn't going to solve anything though :/
    The part about the elderly is the same here in Sweden as well, and it's a hot topic in politics. There have been way too many cases of very very badly treated elderly, getting bedsores, being locked up alone for days and so on. It's been done by mostly private companies as well, because they need to make a profit so they cut funds.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    You're correct.

    Why pay for anything at all, for anyone ever, if a Twotonsteak argues, there are a few people that might cheat and scam? I mean, we could just dissolve society as a whole. That's the impression I get from a lot of people, that they are 100% for complete anarchy.
    They aren't for anarchy, they just want an utopian society where the government plays the role of big government only in select "few" areas they personally happen to agree with. They like to tell us they don't want big government, but they do, just not in the areas that they dislike.

  14. #234
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by zorkuus View Post
    They aren't for anarchy, they just want an utopian society where the government plays the role of big government only in select "few" areas they personally happen to agree with. They like to tell us they don't want big government, but they do, just not in the areas that they dislike.
    I notice that contradiction in their arguments as well. It's also slightly amusing that they think that their government isn't already holding their balls in a vice. There is no government with more power and influence than that of the US. The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If you need life support, you'll get it. That means you're at a high priority, because without treatment, you die.
    That is not triage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    You completely misunderstand the entire point and concept of triage systems, as a whole. Your own quote directly contradicts your later claim. Someone on life support has a very high severity to their condition; that's why they need life support.

    It would help if you even bothered to read the stuff you're citing, since it proves you wrong.
    I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The ONLY time you'd get into a case of determining whether to cut life support due to triage, is if you have a sudden influx of patients and cannot sustain them all with the available equipment, and are forced to pick those with the best chance of recovery. Short of a massive epidemic or such, that's simply not going to happen, and if it does, it has nothing to do with whether the health care system is socialized or not.
    Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

    Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!
    Thats like saying, your dad's my boss so he holds my life in his hands. That must mean your life is in his hands as well, since you're his son.
    Last edited by yurano; 2013-01-21 at 06:55 AM.

  16. #236
    Brewmaster Wiyld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Secret Underground Lair
    Posts
    1,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    Socialized medicine works just fine. "But someone had to pay for that $6000 surgery!" Bullshit, that didn't cost $6000. It only costs that much here because prices on everything are artificially inflated. Scorpion anti-venom that costs a more than 50k here was produced for only a few thousand bucks.

    In Taiwan they have national healthcare, and while it does have some funding issues, it's not like the sky is falling. While on my month long vacation, I received care that was just as good as what we have in the U.S., and even without insurance it cost me a fraction of what it does here.


    Having lived in Taiwan for years I can tell you that is flat out wrong. The medical care there is fucking terrible. The locals know that if you get hurt or sick you don't bother calling 911, you flag down a taxi. It will get you to the hospital faster and safer then any ambulance ever will.

    I can't tell you how many stupid news stories I read while we were there about people dying because the hospital gave them the wrong blood type or something equally ridiculous.

    Yes they can handle routine issues that have had treatments for 100 years. No, they cannot deal with much anything new or that requires advanced treatments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillern View Post
    "IM LOOKING AT A THING I DONT LIKE, I HAVE THE OPTION TO GO AWAY FROM IT BUT I WILL LOOK MORE AND COMPLAIN ABOUT THE THING I DONT LIKE BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT, NO ONE IS FORCING ME TO SEARCH FOR THIS THING OR LOOK AT THIS THING OR REMAIN LOOKING AT THIS THING BUT I AM ANYWAY, ITS OFFENDS ME! ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!"
    Troof

  17. #237
    Quote Originally Posted by Wiyld View Post
    Having lived in Taiwan for years I can tell you that is flat out wrong. The medical care there is fucking terrible. The locals know that if you get hurt or sick you don't bother calling 911, you flag down a taxi. It will get you to the hospital faster and safer then any ambulance ever will.

    I can't tell you how many stupid news stories I read while we were there about people dying because the hospital gave them the wrong blood type or something equally ridiculous.

    Yes they can handle routine issues that have had treatments for 100 years. No, they cannot deal with much anything new or that requires advanced treatments.
    Plus, its hard to find a doctor because most of them have switched into more profitable specialties like plastic surgery (plastic surgery isn't covered under national health care).

  18. #238
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,036
    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.
    Try the sentence you quoted.

    If you need life support to survive, you're a high-severity patient at the top of the triage pyramid. Because if they stop treatment, you die.

    Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

    Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.
    Triage isn't based on costs. It's based on resources. They aren't the same.

    Nor does providing life support mean we need to "tax more". We're already funding it. It's already in the budget. You're creating a conflict that does not exist. Or are you seriously arguing that countries like Canada don't provide life support and/or are unplugging patients against their family's wishes despite there still being a chance of recovery? Cause if that's your claim, provide evidence of it. Otherwise, you're just making things up. And I'd rather discuss reality, not whatever fantasyland you're imagining.
    Last edited by Endus; 2013-01-21 at 07:00 AM.

  19. #239
    Elemental Lord Noomz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    In my head, where crazy happens.
    Posts
    8,147
    Quote Originally Posted by yurano View Post
    That is not triage.



    I don't care enough to read the entire article, but you're going to need to quote the article where it contradicts with my point instead of just hand wave.



    Money is a resource. Insurance policies work around financial budgets. Socialized medicine is no different. You can't spend more than you tax in socialized medicine.

    Life support is exceptionally expensive so unless you tax more, you can't provide it. This is why most insurance policies don't foot the entire bill for life support as geewhiz80 has observed.



    Thats like saying, your dad's my boss so he holds my life in his hands. That must mean your life is in his hands as well, since you're his son.
    Your analogy is a bad one. I can get a new job if my dad's boss fires me. If the US economy fails, the entire world fails along with it. The difference in reasons and consequences are staggering.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 08:00 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiyld View Post
    Having lived in Taiwan for years I can tell you that is flat out wrong. The medical care there is fucking terrible. The locals know that if you get hurt or sick you don't bother calling 911, you flag down a taxi. It will get you to the hospital faster and safer then any ambulance ever will.

    I can't tell you how many stupid news stories I read while we were there about people dying because the hospital gave them the wrong blood type or something equally ridiculous.

    Yes they can handle routine issues that have had treatments for 100 years. No, they cannot deal with much anything new or that requires advanced treatments.
    That's probably because, can you imagine, they have a bad, inefficient healthcare system? It being private or socialized has little to do with it being crap. Bad management is not exclussive to anything.

    I don't know much about Taiwan or it's economy, but I don't think it is the best place to live at.

  20. #240
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Try the sentence you quoted.

    If you need life support to survive, you're a high-severity patient at the top of the triage pyramid. Because if they stop treatment, you die.

    Triage is the process of determining the priority of patients' treatments based on the severity of their condition. This rations patient treatment efficiently when resources are insufficient for all to be treated immediately.


    Triage is a form of rationing.

    You're trying to argue the definition of triage with someone who has been trained to to perform triage in an emergency setting.

    Question: when an ambulance with EMTs rolls up on a scene with a pulseless, unconscious patient with no respirations, what is the method of action in a 1) normal setting 2) triage setting?

    Answer:

    Normal setting - CPR with AED until arrival at hospital (there are some reasons to stop CPR but lets not go into those)

    Triage - If you can't restart their pulse by clearing their airway with 15-90s (depending on local protocol), you black tag them and move on

    A patient is going to have a worse outcome when treated under triage conditions. Given sufficient resources (personnel, equipment, etc), the pulseless patient might have been resuscitated in a 'normal' setting. In a mass casualty incident (where triage is invoked), if the EMT cannot restore pulse to the patient quickly, the EMT moves on, leaving the patient to die.

    The above illustrated scenario is at the heart of how triage works. Triage is NOT perform all treatments possible. Triage is meant to save the most people with restricted resources.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Triage isn't based on costs. It's based on resources. They aren't the same.
    Money is a resource. There can be instances where there not enough and thus rationed under 'triage'.

    When you don't have enough money to pay for every procedure under the sun, you pick the ones that have the best 'outcome/cost' ratio. Unless socialized medicine has a bottomless budget, they're going to have to ration their budget and pick the most cost effective treatments. Life support for a low chances of survival are not one of them. In particular, life support for geewiz80's father would not be covered at all since:

    Quote Originally Posted by geewhiz80 View Post
    To be quite blunt, honestly the life support wouldn't have made a difference. My father's heart and kidneys were failing, as well as a massive tumor in his lung.
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Nor does providing life support mean we need to "tax more". We're already funding it. It's already in the budget. You're creating a conflict that does not exist.
    Only rich people insurance policies 'fund' life support. If you're looking to expand life support coverage to cheaper insurance policies, you're going to have to tax more. At the very least, I can argue that geewiz80's parent's insurance policy does not cover life support (full coverage as you have described). If you were to expand socialized medicine to cover geewiz80's parents, the cost of their life support coverage has to come from somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    Your analogy is a bad one. I can get a new job if my dad's boss fires me. If the US economy fails, the entire world fails along with it. The difference in reasons and consequences are staggering.
    Actually, the entire world's economy crashed harder than the American economy. Cough Greece and Italy cough.

    Sure you can find a new job, but you're likely to go through a period of 'recession' while you're unemployed, looking for a job.

    My specific analogy was to object to the following logic "The well-being of world economics depend on the US. And people think they have freedom? Hah!". Just because Americans live under a government that doesn't play nice with other countries doesn't mean the government 'abuses' their citizens. You can treat people different based on whether they're in your 'circle' or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noomz View Post
    That's probably because, can you imagine, they have a bad, inefficient healthcare system? It being private or socialized has little to do with it being crap. Bad management is not exclussive to anything.

    I don't know much about Taiwan or it's economy, but I don't think it is the best place to live at.
    Wiyld's statement was in direct objection to:

    "In Taiwan they have national healthcare, and while it does have some funding issues, it's not like the sky is falling. While on my month long vacation, I received care that was just as good as what we have in the U.S., and even without insurance it cost me a fraction of what it does here."

    He said nothing about socialized medicine.

    People point to other socialized medicine nations as a testament to how socialized medicine 'can't fail' yet Taiwan's nationalized healthcare falls short of what it's supposed to achieve.

    BTW, lol nation bashing.
    Last edited by yurano; 2013-01-21 at 07:33 AM.

Posting Permissions

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