Page 24 of 25 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
LastLast
  1. #461
    The Normal Kasierith's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    18,464
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    You have no idea what the death penalty costs in the US.
    The greater part of the costs comes from the years upon years of appeals to ensure as much as possible that the person convicted is in fact guilty... and while the pragmatic part of me finds this just, if not overzealous, the humanitarian part of me questions why such scrutiny is not applied to high-profile cases not involving the death penalty, as if the supposition is that death penalty cases are the only ones subject to human error.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jackmoves View Post
    OECD.

    Only read swedish sources qouting their studies though.

    Like this one.
    If you present an alternate language on an English-speaking forum (which this is), it's polite to personally translate it in order to maintain its accuracy.

  2. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Draiman View Post
    So.. What I see as a general argument against socialized health care is that people don't want to pay it with their tax money or because they feel that people should pay it by themselves. I see.. Okay I have just one simple question then. Why does the tax money of those who oppose death penalty go to fund it? Two different situations, same argument. I am not saying everyone that is against socialized health care support death penalty, but this is just an example of how this sort of thing already exists
    This is a weird argument that would lead to the conclusion that no one should ever have any opinion about fiscal policies whatsoever.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 09:29 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Velanis View Post
    $15 plus all the money you pay into taxes for socialized medicine. Whereas it would cost me nothing with the money I pay into my private insurance.
    So, the money he pays in taxes count, the money you pay for insurance doesn't.

    I don't get it.

  3. #463
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    On All Things Considered last week, there was a guy being interviewed that commented that before Medicare, Seniors spent approximately 12% of their monthly income/allowance on healthcare, whereas now they spend something like 20% (I don't remember if this number is correct, but it was certainly a lot more than 12%). Also currently, a human who was born today in the age of insurance, if medical costs remained constant their whole life, would spend over a million dollars on healthcare over the course of their life. Because healthcare costs don't remain constant, however, it's closer to two million.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 02:36 PM ----------

    The same guy who was interviewed on All Things Considered for the piece I referenced above also wrote this Atlantic cover article:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...ther/307617/3/

    The average insured American and the average uninsured American spend very similar amounts of their own money on health care each year—$654 and $583, respectively. But they spend wildly different amounts of other people’s money—$3,809 and $1,103, respectively. Sometimes the uninsured do not get highly beneficial treatments because they cannot afford them at today’s prices—something any reform must address. But likewise, insured patients often get only marginally beneficial (or even outright unnecessary) care at mind-boggling cost. If it’s true that the insurance system leads us to focus on only our direct share of costs—rather than the total cost to society—it’s not surprising that insured families and uninsured ones would make similar decisions as to how much of their own money to spend on care, but very different decisions on the total amount to consume.
    Let’s say you’re a 22-year-old single employee at my company today, starting out at a $30,000 annual salary. Let’s assume you’ll get married in six years, support two children for 20 years, retire at 65, and die at 80. Now let’s make a crazy assumption: insurance premiums, Medicare taxes and premiums, and out-of-pocket costs will grow no faster than your earnings—say, 3 percent a year. By the end of your working days, your annual salary will be up to $107,000. And over your lifetime, you and your employer together will have paid $1.77 million for your family’s health care. $1.77 million! And that’s only after assuming the taming of costs! In recent years, health-care costs have actually grown 2 to 3 percent faster than the economy. If that continues, your 22-year-old self is looking at an additional $2 million or so in expenses over your lifetime—roughly $4 million in total.
    Consider the oft-quoted “statistic” that emergency-room care is the most expensive form of treatment. Has anyone who believes this ever actually been to an emergency room? My sister is an emergency-medicine physician; unlike most other specialists, ER docs usually work on scheduled shifts and are paid fixed salaries that place them in the lower ranks of physician compensation. The doctors and other workers are hardly underemployed: typically, ERs are unbelievably crowded. They have access to the facilities and equipment of the entire hospital, but require very few dedicated resources of their own. They benefit from the group buying power of the entire institution. No expensive art decorates the walls, and the waiting rooms resemble train-station waiting areas. So what exactly makes an ER more expensive than other forms of treatment?

    Perhaps it’s the accounting. Since charity care, which is often performed in the ER, is one justification for hospitals’ protected place in law and regulation, it’s in hospitals’ interest to shift costs from overhead and other parts of the hospital to the ER, so that the costs of charity care—the public service that hospitals are providing—will appear to be high. Hospitals certainly lose money on their ERs; after all, many of their customers pay nothing. But to argue that ERs are costly compared with other treatment options, hospitals need to claim expenses well beyond the marginal (or incremental) cost of serving ER patients.
    Last edited by Reeve; 2013-01-22 at 02:40 PM.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  4. #464
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    If you present an alternate language on an English-speaking forum (which this is), it's polite to personally translate it in order to maintain its accuracy.
    Google translate yo!
    Nah I'm sorry. I think Diurdi understand Swedish, but here is a translation.


    While the industry has a high economic value in Sweden it is also of great importance to patients and the development of health services in the country. Approximately 30,000 patients per year are given new drugs through clinical trials. Furthermore, the pharmaceutical industry is investing more than 15 billion on research and development in Sweden, compared to the state that is investing around 7 billion on medical research. According to an OECD study, Sweden and Switzerland are in the top of the world whith about half a percent of the GDP being made up of pharmaceutical research.
    Medicine and pharmaceutical products is the 4th biggest export for Sweden, so it's pretty important for our economy.
    Last edited by Jackmoves; 2013-01-22 at 02:43 PM.
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  5. #465
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Velanis View Post
    I prefer to pick my doctors, though.
    I suspect we are having a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere. Single-payer healthcare in no way prevents you from choosing your own doctor.

  6. #466
    Immortal mistuhbull's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quel'Thalas
    Posts
    7,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    I suspect we are having a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere. Single-payer healthcare in no way prevents you from choosing your own doctor.
    Didn't you hear, socialized medicine means The Party tells you what doctors you are allowed to see (the shitty ones), what hours you can see them at (1am-1:15am every 5th tuesday), and how much they can treat you (give you an asprin and send you home). And if you have a life-threatening condition you'll have to wait 5 years to see a doctor.
    Theron/Bloodwatcher 2013!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alsompr View Post
    Teasing, misdirection. It's the opposite of a spoiler. People expect one thing? BAM! Another thing happens.

    I'm like M. Night fucking Shamylan.

  7. #467
    At the end of the day who would you prefer to give your money to

    The government which is non profit and if we didnt keep electing clowns could do a decent job

    Or some private insurance whos sole reason to exist is to make money off you and they dont make money off you if they have to keep paying up for your treatment

    I know socialised health care isnt perfect no system is but i liked being able to see a doctor without worrying if my insurer will deny my claim cause i didnt look at the small print and worry that i could lose my house cause of costs

    I grew up in England and the NHS saved my sisters life and it didnt cost my dad a thing except the taxes he pays

  8. #468
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Annapolis View Post
    The average effective federal income tax is about 11% it really isn't 20%. Why do you keep linking the base tax rates? nobody pays those rates. And the average is not 20% it is 11%
    We keep linking them for the same reason people link the base tax rates for other nations, to show how much higher they are than the US. Here's a hint; a lot of people in those nations pay no tax, either. Or they reduce their gross income through various tax breaks to get into a lower bracket. Just like the US. You can't say "oh, the average salary in the US puts people in the 25% bracket, but if you average that out with the people paying nothing and factor in tax breaks, we only pay about 11%", not unless you factor in the same reductions for everyone else.

    Plus, the number of people in lower income brackets may be different; if the US has more people making so little they don't pay taxes, that lowers the average based not on tax rates, but on income inequality.

    Canada's tax rates, for instance, are slightly higher than the US, but not egregiously so. Plus, many Americans have to pay on top of this for health care, either via insurance or out of pocket, where Canadians have that covered by that taxation.

    The US isn't some low-tax haven, not across the board. Particularly as you need to bring in enough revenue to pay for that massive military spending.


  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Velanis View Post
    $15 plus all the money you pay into taxes for socialized medicine. Whereas it would cost me nothing with the money I pay into my private insurance.

    In the end, you pay for it either way. I prefer to pick my doctors, though.
    1. The healthcare "moneyjar" can be used to speculate and thus increasing the actual money in the jar.
    2. Because healthcare is bought in bulk you can get bigger discounts on things.
    3. In many places you can choose your doctor and they also do not have a waiting list.

    Like I said in another post already. Look at the Dutch healthcare system. It uses private healthinsurance companies and private hospitals. It is probably the closest to what Americans would like. Yet it is much cheaper the the American system at the moment while the care is very very good. And no waiting lists etc.
    Plus all those bonusses that you see in Sicko with the French lady, we have that here as well. If you Americans don't want that, they you don't have to do that. And here everybody still pays (in part) for their own healthcare, not somebody else.

    I think it is simply cheaper for American citizens to go for a system like this. It has all the benefits without much downsides. The right is happy because they do not pay for others and it is cheaper, the left is happy that everybody is insured and not denied help.

  10. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by Annapolis View Post
    First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your father's health.

    However you must consider that in the United States we can keep people alive who might otherwise have been let go in other countries. Treatments and costs for socialized medicine are dictated by government policy and not by demand. So your father's life support may not have been covered at all in another country because it might be deemed too expensive for the potential outcomes. In the United States much more is available, but it just comes out of pocket when your insurance company decides it wont' cover a treatment fully.

    I'm not trying to say this is directly applicable to your case and I'm sorry about the situation your family has been left in.
    Its comments like this that tell me Americans really have no fucking clue how things are actually run with "socialized" medicine and are just talking out of their ass trying to sound smart. I actually work in a Canadian hospital and I see patients EVERY day in ICU that are waaaay past their expiration date and have been on life support for literally months, even years because their families can't let go. As long as the family wants them around, the hospital will do whatever's in their power to keep them around. Hell I actually think its a bad thing wasting literally millions of dollars to keep someone on life support for years that won't make it back anyway but not covering life support because its too expensive is def not something that actually happens in Canada anyway.

  11. #471
    Immortal mistuhbull's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Quel'Thalas
    Posts
    7,034
    Quote Originally Posted by antelope591 View Post
    Its comments like this that tell me Americans really have no fucking clue how things are actually run with "socialized" medicine and are just talking out of their ass trying to sound smart. I actually work in a Canadian hospital and I see patients EVERY day in ICU that are waaaay past their expiration date and have been on life support for literally months, even years because their families can't let go. As long as the family wants them around, the hospital will do whatever's in their power to keep them around. Hell I actually think its a bad thing wasting literally millions of dollars to keep someone on life support for years that won't make it back anyway but not covering life support because its too expensive is def not something that actually happens in Canada anyway.
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    Theron/Bloodwatcher 2013!

    Quote Originally Posted by Alsompr View Post
    Teasing, misdirection. It's the opposite of a spoiler. People expect one thing? BAM! Another thing happens.

    I'm like M. Night fucking Shamylan.

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    The ironic thing about all this "death panels" BS is that letting insurance companies condemn people for "pre-existing conditions" or some other crap is a lot closer to death panels than any socialized medicine system ever was.
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by mistuhbull View Post
    But...but..Death Panels...and Communists
    I know, I yearn too for the fever-dream of a militant conspiracy theorist.

  14. #474
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by antelope591 View Post
    Its comments like this that tell me Americans really have no fucking clue how things are actually run with "socialized" medicine and are just talking out of their ass trying to sound smart. I actually work in a Canadian hospital and I see patients EVERY day in ICU that are waaaay past their expiration date and have been on life support for literally months, even years because their families can't let go. As long as the family wants them around, the hospital will do whatever's in their power to keep them around. Hell I actually think its a bad thing wasting literally millions of dollars to keep someone on life support for years that won't make it back anyway but not covering life support because its too expensive is def not something that actually happens in Canada anyway.
    Like I said earlier; in Canada today, there's a case going before the Supreme Court, where doctors pushed their medical board to allow them to disconnect a patient. That patient had been diagnosed with a permanent vegetative state, and had been on life support for two years following that diagnosis. They did not think he had any chance of recovery, which is why they pursued that request, and it was granted. The family raised a legal challenge, insisting they needed to consent before life support could be removed.

    Since the original board approval, the patient has begun to recover, and while the original removal of life support hasn't been rescinded, that's mostly bureaucracy; the doctors aren't planning on disconnecting him, and approval to do so does not mean they're required to do so. It's still going to the Supreme Court, because the medical board wishes to have a firm precedent set in law about where the authority to make these decisions truly lies.

    Making it even more of an example; the patient in question is an Iranian immigrant, who immigrated to Canada just five months before he fell ill and was hospitalized. It doesn't matter; he's Canadian, he gets treatment. The ONLY reason we're looking to pursue canceling life support was the original diagnosis that he had no chance of recovery. That this diagnosis was in error is unfortunate, but it happens; the point is that nobody in Canada is denied life support for budgetary reasons. The reasons cited here were that, if he were in a permanent vegetative state, sustaining basic life is more of an indignity to the patient than anything of benefit to anyone, not any budgetary concern.

    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.


  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.
    ... Unless you have a tooth infection, but that's an entirely different discussion.
    The night is dark and full of terrors...

  16. #476
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Like I said earlier; in Canada today, there's a case going before the Supreme Court, where doctors pushed their medical board to allow them to disconnect a patient. That patient had been diagnosed with a permanent vegetative state, and had been on life support for two years following that diagnosis. They did not think he had any chance of recovery, which is why they pursued that request, and it was granted. The family raised a legal challenge, insisting they needed to consent before life support could be removed.

    Since the original board approval, the patient has begun to recover, and while the original removal of life support hasn't been rescinded, that's mostly bureaucracy; the doctors aren't planning on disconnecting him, and approval to do so does not mean they're required to do so. It's still going to the Supreme Court, because the medical board wishes to have a firm precedent set in law about where the authority to make these decisions truly lies.

    Making it even more of an example; the patient in question is an Iranian immigrant, who immigrated to Canada just five months before he fell ill and was hospitalized. It doesn't matter; he's Canadian, he gets treatment. The ONLY reason we're looking to pursue canceling life support was the original diagnosis that he had no chance of recovery. That this diagnosis was in error is unfortunate, but it happens; the point is that nobody in Canada is denied life support for budgetary reasons. The reasons cited here were that, if he were in a permanent vegetative state, sustaining basic life is more of an indignity to the patient than anything of benefit to anyone, not any budgetary concern.

    There's no such thing as "death panels". No Canadian is denied treatment. Period.
    There was a great Radiolab podcast last week that showed that when polled, 90% of doctors would choose NOT to have life-sustaining treatments (feeding tubes, breathing machines, induced paralysis, dialysis, etc) given to them if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. Apparently doctors generally feel that the treatments to sustain life a little longer are expensive, often painful/terrifying, and often don't really give people any additional quality time with their families.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  17. #477
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,895
    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    ... Unless you have a tooth infection, but that's an entirely different discussion.
    Dental's separate, but there's some crossover. If it's an abscess that threatens your life, removal of the tooth and treatment for the infection would be covered. Fillings and such are classed more as cosmetic than necessary. Whether you agree with that or not is a different discussion, though, as you say, and it's no different in the US, where medical and dental insurance are considered separate things.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 11:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Reeve View Post
    There was a great Radiolab podcast last week that showed that when polled, 90% of doctors would choose NOT to have life-sustaining treatments (feeding tubes, breathing machines, induced paralysis, dialysis, etc) given to them if they were diagnosed with a terminal illness. Apparently doctors generally feel that the treatments to sustain life a little longer are expensive, often painful/terrifying, and often don't really give people any additional quality time with their families.
    Which is a fair point. It's often used to give succor to the families, who find it difficult to accept the death of a loved one, especially when they're so clearly alive at that moment, even if sustained by machines. That's why the issue's going to the Supreme Court.

    None of those doctors, though, would likely support not getting life support for illnesses they could recover from.

    And the important point is; nobody is getting denied life support in Canada who needs it to recover. Does not happen, ever.


  18. #478
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Jackmoves View Post
    OECD.

    Only read swedish sources qouting their studies though.

    Like this one.
    You quoting from a swedish book or something?

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-22 at 04:03 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by namelessone View Post
    The ironic thing about all this "death panels" BS is that letting insurance companies condemn people for "pre-existing conditions" or some other crap is a lot closer to death panels than any socialized medicine system ever was.
    Pre-existing conditions as a concept isn't "crap" though. The way they are sometimes handled may be, but if you have a pre-existing condition that is likely to cause you to incur large amounts of medical bills in the near future, you sure as hell shouldn't get insurance at anything near normal prices.

  19. #479
    Merely a Setback Reeve's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX USA
    Posts
    28,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Which is a fair point. It's often used to give succor to the families, who find it difficult to accept the death of a loved one, especially when they're so clearly alive at that moment, even if sustained by machines. That's why the issue's going to the Supreme Court.

    None of those doctors, though, would likely support not getting life support for illnesses they could recover from.
    I didn't hear the stats on that, but I suspect you're right. I can understand why they wouldn't want to be kept alive when they know survival is extremely unlikely. Some of the stuff doctors do to people "we wouldn't even do to terrorists." Like for example, in order to doa breathing machine, you have to paralyze the person's body first, because the human body has its own rhythm, and will fight the machine. So you end up stuck there, possibly conscious, but unable to move or act while a tube is stuck down your throat and a machine rhythmically breathes for you. Sounds hellish to me.

    I'm glad my mother told me at a young age that if we ever found her in a vegetative or unrecoverable state, we should just pull the plug. Means I never have to go through the dilemma of not knowing what she'd prefer when I get to that situation.

    But I guess your point is really that people in Canada aren't denied life extending procedures if they want them.
    'Twas a cutlass swipe or an ounce of lead
    Or a yawing hole in a battered head
    And the scuppers clogged with rotting red
    And there they lay I damn me eyes
    All lookouts clapped on Paradise
    All souls bound just contrarywise, yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!

  20. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You quoting from a swedish book or something?
    No I just used google, there was quite a lot of articles.

    Here is an interesting read from Pfizers website btw

    Google translate btw, so it might cause an headache to read. ;P
    Simon Orchard, Vice President, Pfizer Inc., and responsible for the company's biotechnological production and development throughout Europe, is well familiarized when it comes to corporations perspective on life science.

    - There is not a single issue that is crucial for the life science companies evaluating various possible locations for the manufacture and development of drugs. It's everything from the expertise and production costs to the climate of cooperation with the company's stakeholders. Underestimate certainly not the importance of soft factors such as political leaders, both nationally and regionally, show an interest, respect for the innovative drug companies' opportunities and willingness to provide solutions, says Simon Orchard, Vice President of Pfizer Inc.

    Sweden interesting for biotechnological research and production
    Simon Orchard has until recently been responsible for the 1.5 billions investment Pfizer made ​​in Strängnäs. The deciding factor for this investment were the skills and experience gained through the old facility and the infrastructure for biotechnology in Mälardalen and Sweden. Strangnas won in stiff competition with Singapore and Ireland, says Simon Orchard.

    Detailed evaluation process
    Simon Orchard tells the very detailed evaluation processes carried out in several stages. A number of mandatory criteria must be met for Pfizer's facilities and were a new investment can be made. It matters functioning infrastructure, access to good transportation for both people and products, availability of labor with the right education and expertise and so on. Questions that have a strong impact, for example, an assessment of the overall business climate, proximity to policy makers, social climate and the like. This kind of factors scored and various possible alternative location compared. - Where a new investment sited depends very heavily on all the factors together, usually called the general investment and innovation climate.

    The soft factors are important
    It is a rational basis for the evaluation being done, says Simon Orchard. - At the end of a process like this, you usually have two or three sites that directly compete against each other. They win various sub-branches, but overall, they are parallel. As always the soft factors emerged as decision criteria again. Then there's always the market climate that makes the difference. That is the location that has the best climate for innovation and where patient access to new treatments valued highest, is the winner, says Simon Orchard.

    2011-11-30
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

Posting Permissions

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