(british) healthcare

[Kolar]

So in Africa, where the free market has provided better healthcare than the socialist regimes' failed policies... you don't see a lesson in that? no?

I don't care about Africa, we're talking about Western Heath Care. Again provide some numbers that a private system is A) Better Care, B) Lower Costs. If you can't then in detail describe the system you want and how it would cover A + B.

yeah, i do... mainly, that the healthcare crisis in america virtually parallels rising levels of government regulation.

Great then lets try it this way, provide some evidence that regulations are increasing and how it is aversely effecting the cost of care or quality of care.

obviously you can, because the government took a system that was functioning and destroyed it. kolar, you should really learn to... chill. the fascination with government mirrors the inner human desire for control and power, and people tend to fear the unplanned. it sounds crazy, but if you let people just exist in society, they'll find a way. i believe that's some law of thermodynamics. you don't have to believe in it... but that doesn't mean it's not real and it doesn't affect us.

Yes we've all heard the tape conversation between John Ehrlichman and Nixon, truly disgusting. And I disagree, we can plan for the future and for future threats. If someone (a Government agency, a pharmaceuticals company or health care provider ect..) doesn't understand these issues, of how and where the needs of people are going and how best to provide their services then we won't have any kind of quality in these systems.

A single payer system (through taxation) appears to lower the costs of health care per person in my country compared to private insurance through co-pays in yours. The system in my country also appears to provide the same and in some cases better care (as per the documents I provided in the other thread) to some who are most vulnerable people of our time such as homeless people. This is the kind of argument I want to see on your side, pointing to something directly with some kind of study, some numbers ect... that convinces me towards your side.
I don't think I could afford 30,000 dollars if say I need a transplant operation and neither could most middle class families. Lets say I develop cancer or something, I'm a college kid making close to 20,000 a year with two divorced parents pushing their late 40s. There is no way I could finance the cost of drugs, much less any operations that would be required to save my life. This is the reality for a lot of people. It's one thing to be told no or to get the run around but it's another to absolutely know there is no hope. If you have no hope and nothing to look forward too you might as well be dead already.

[Money]

Itt: Jerome Vs Cops And Kolar

[Cops]

I give up Money, I think most people see that corporations don't give a fuck about us. If you believe that corporations should be unregulated and that allowing corporations to monopolize your healthcare system is a 'good' thing then there's nothing I can say to change your mind.

It's more like Squeezer, Galleleo and Doc speaking truth about corporations and 'free markets' and then you've got Kolar and Epinephrine who will actually question his theories. I refuse to argue about the role of corporations in our society, if you don't understand how corporations function and their purpose then you shouldn't be arguing about them.

cheers.

...and this is all i needed to hear from you. you refuse to acknowledge a system whose merits are solving some of the worst disasters in modern history while calling me heartless for that very acknowledgment.

Way to pull shit out of context. Like I said there is significant differences as far as wealth and markets work in two different parts of the world, just because something worked on a small scale doesn't mean that it would work on a larger scale. I'm done after this point but you need to outline how a free market system would work in America and how it would solve the healthcare issue, saying it worked in Africa doesn't mean it would work here.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I don't care about Africa, we're talking about Western Heath Care.

...and this is all i needed to hear from you. you refuse to acknowledge a system whose merits are solving some of the worst disasters in modern history while calling me heartless for that very acknowledgment.

[Jerome Scuggs]

if you don't understand how corporations function and their purpose then you shouldn't be arguing about them.

their purpose is to make money via the selling of products. you don't understand that. sure some companies might be bad - like walmart - but you then ignore the billions of companies who aren't bad.

way to develop your "truth" about corporations by looking at approximately one corporation. that's science.

[Kolar]

Sorry if I don't see a war ravaged and politically unstable region of the world as being compatible with our Western life style or culture.

You can go now.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Sorry if I don't see a war ravaged and politically unstable region of the world as being compatible with our Western life style or culture.

You can go now.

what the hell? how can you maintain any mask of moral superiority (and for that matter, intelligence) if you're that... ignorant? elitist? unable to grasp the bigger picture?

africans, kolar, are humans... just like us. now i know that you might cringe at that thought, but these africans need health care, just as much as we do, because they are humans... humans who live in WORSE conditions than we do, by your own admission.

now... if there was a system that was so simple that even a "war ravaged" area can turn around, in seven years, to become one of the best places to be in Africa, complete with a very functioning healthcare system... you don't see where i'm getting at here? no?

edit: nevermind, you COULDN'T fathom something like that, because socialized healthcare 'models' aren't that... universal, ironically. britain needs a different model than canada... whereas free-market capitalism is the exact same thing worldwide. there's your TRULY universal healthcare, because it can ACTUALLY work everywhere. it works in africa... now imagine how it'd work in a more civilized, modern country?

edit II: and hell, isn't that also the definition of a 'correct theory', its ability to apply universally? you've pretty much agreed that the market model works for everything except healthcare, and then you conceded it even worked, healthcare-wise, in africa. so capitalism as a theory works everywhere except in canada and britain's medical sectors? if anything, that's just indicative of how f'd up you guys are.

[Kolar]

I actually feel bad for these people.

Somaliland:
Under 5 child mortality: 224/1000 live births

Access to health services: 28%

HIV/AIDS Prevalence: 0.002 % (illegal ethiopians mostly)

Education Literacy rate - total: 17.1%

Literacy rate - male: 22.1%

Literacy rate - female aged 15 and above: 12%

Internally displaced people: 100,000

Refugees in neighbouring countries: 246,400

Life expectancy: 47 years

Maternal mortality: 1600/100,000 live births

Infant mortality: 132/1000 live births

Not to mention this douche bag as a leader who your own Government and even Human Rights Watch has called a criminal for killing civilians.

Edit: If that's a great place to be then I'll stick with my current health care system. I don't think you can compare a politically and economically unstable regions of the world where people are dealing with conflict almost on a daily basis to middle America or even Canada.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Edit: If that's a great place to be then I'll stick with my current health care system. I don't think you can compare a politically and economically unstable regions of the world where people are dealing with conflict almost on a daily basis to middle America or even Canada.

oh my god you're a moron. did you look at your own stats? 0.002% with aids? that's an INCREDIBLY LOW amount - especially for africa. not to mention the "government" you are talking about is some rogue guy who claims some chunk of somalia, yeah. if anything that's an argument in my favor - about how government does nothing but cause misery, so, thanks? the figures only record the GOVERNMENT tallies - not things like private health clinics, which are very alive and well.

somalia is a great place to live relatively. and besides, you're STILL MISSING THE POINT. the point is the unique and consistent application of free-market principles and their continued success. by now you've admitted it is a system that works in everything except canadian health care. perhaps it's the golden exception, regardless, i think with that sort of success rate the case can be made for capitalism.

edit: and this has been bugging me - i'd like you to read those articles from the "Blog" and in your own words either explain what they are saying... or refute them. i'd like to see what you actually have to say about their articles... since you obviously know enough to know that they are wrong and or stupid.

[Kolar]

I never conceded anything. Look at the stats, access to heath care is less then 30%, 22.4% of kids who survive childbirth die, a good chunk of the population is displaced or are refugees in other countries. Most people can't read or write and above all else life life expectancy is 47 years. This is not good, not even third world developing good.

If I'm wrong and those free market principles are changing things then show me it, otherwise you're grasping at straws here.

Edit: Running health care and some services like a business is wrong in my opinion because the point of any business is to be profitable, I understand your point of view that if you give people the option to go with some company which may sell a cheap or ineffective product/procedure, if it doesn't work or it's shit people will move elsewhere and that company will change or die. In the meantime if there are no regulations or agencies keeping that from happening then a lot of people are going to die or develop serious complications. I think in theory that is the best way to provide services for people by giving them a choice but when it means life or death, not what drink you like or what brand of car you like, then safety measures have to be in place. We can't wait 200 years for the market to settle down and lower prices and let companies off the hook by killing and hurting people, it's unethical and morally indefensible.
In your own words to only way to lower prices is to increase supply, if we allow companies to go without any kind of standards and oversight we will have a lot more supply but the quality will drop sharply resulting in a lot of deaths and the overall quality of life to drop.

[Jerome Scuggs]

I never conceded anything. Look at the stats, access to heath care is less then 30%, 22.4% of kids who survive childbirth die, a good chunk of the population is displaced or are refugees in other countries. Most people can't read or write and above all else life life expectancy is 47 years. This is not good, not even third world developing good.

If I'm wrong and those free market principles are changing things then show me it, otherwise you're grasping at straws here.

Well I could either edit the wiki you got those stats from, point out that tracking statistics in a war-ravaged in politically unstable region is virtually impossible, show you (yet, yet again) the article indicating that the people of Somalia are happier than they've ever been without government, or reiterate my point for you to extend the same sort of analysis to my authors as you are asking me to do yours.

Edit: Running health care and some services like a business is wrong in my opinion because the point of any business is to be profitable, I understand your point of view that if you give people the option to go with some company which may sell a cheap or ineffective product/procedure, if it doesn't work or it's shit people will move elsewhere and that company will change or die. In the meantime if there are no regulations or agencies keeping that from happening then a lot of people are going to die or develop serious complications. I think in theory that is the best way to provide services for people by giving them a choice but when it means life or death, not what drink you like or what brand of car you like, then safety measures have to be in place. We can't wait 200 years for the market to settle down and lower prices by killing and hurting people, it's unethical and morally indefensible.

i just... i really don't see where you justify this notion that every business starts out with the intention of ripping off its customers. you seem to forget the dozens of millions of local businesses - this includes local hospitals, doctors, etc. say you have a national corporation with substandard service but low price - well, you can still shop local, so to speak.

there are definitely more local doctors in my town than "corporate" healthcare businesses. also, have you ever considered the effect government has on corporations? how do you think companies like Halliburton got so big and scary? Blackwater? Can you imagine those two corporations becoming what they were without government and dirty politicians?

not to mention... 200 years? really? 2 to 3. at most. that's history speaking, not my opinion.

[Cops]

LOL SORRY BUT THE PEOPLE IN SOMALIA ARE HAPPY? talk to some of my friends who were able to escape that hole.

Here's where you can't talk, your country doesn't accept nearly enough refugees from different countries. Speaking for personal experience here, Somalians are much more happy in a country that has Universal Healthcare, sustainable jobs and government. I'm sure they miss the dictators and war lords who have raped and controlled their country, they probably also don't want peace and sustainability that comes along with having a government.

[Squeezer]

Africa ain't so bad...

[Cops]

oh no charlie brown it's peaches and fucking creme there.

[Kolar]

Well I could either edit the wiki you got those stats from, point out that tracking statistics in a war-ravaged in politically unstable region is virtually impossible, show you (yet, yet again) the article indicating that the people of Somalia are happier than they've ever been without government, or reiterate my point for you to extend the same sort of analysis to my authors as you are asking me to do yours.

So then provide some of your own stats here if you think they're wrong. How do you know they are happier? if statistical tracking is hard to do in such a region or inaccurate then how do you know for sure.

i just... i really don't see where you justify this notion that every business starts out with the intention of ripping off its customers. you seem to forget the dozens of millions of local businesses - this includes local hospitals, doctors, etc. say you have a national corporation with substandard service but low price - well, you can still shop local, so to speak.

Lowering the quality of their service or having some regulatory body to allow substandard service to be used and practice would increase supply, lowering prices. There's only so much administrative and other cuts that can be made in any system before you move on to the actual cut in primary service. Not every business is out to do that I know but if you have no kind of regulations or standards in place to prevent it you will see a surge in such sub-par care.

there are definitely more local doctors in my town than "corporate" healthcare businesses. also, have you ever considered the effect government has on corporations? how do you think companies like Halliburton got so big and scary? Blackwater? Can you imagine those two corporations becoming what they were without government and dirty politicians?

So then again you're making assumptions just like I am about business, whereas you are about politics. In your perfect world Government intervention wouldn't extend to oversight and regulations of such Corporations so likely they would be doing far dirtier things then now.

How many will die because of tainted blood or poorly manufactured or designed pharmaceuticals? It took Thalidomide 5-6 years to cause 10,000 birth defects in the US alone.