Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:55 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
This 20/20 segment aired in September 2007 and deals with the argument that a privatized system provides MUCH better healthcare than a socialized system, based on the fact that since there would be MUCH more competition in a privatized system, it would not only LOWER prices, generally speaking, but would also give consumers a variety of choices concerning what they would pay for.

I hope you enjoy it...


Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf3MtjMBWx4

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W37NkjplWQ

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XsRzfckneg

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGj4Ei9l0iI

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlNtWy8TX_Y

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6QyTZs__Pw

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Is that why healthcare in the USA is the most expensive in the world?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quilt wrote:
Is that why healthcare in the USA is the most expensive in the world?


Yes.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Is that a good thing?

Or does it represent a profligate use of resources?

Aren't you Canadian or something?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quilt wrote:
Is that a good thing?


Of course not.

Quilt wrote:
Or does it represent a profligate use of resources?


Yes.

Quilt wrote:
Aren't you Canadian or something?


Yes.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
So, are you saying that the healthcare system in the US, which is essentially privatised, expensive, and profligate is a model that should be applauded?
Or, are you saying that the socialised model, that provides good quality healthcare for all, such as the NHS in the UK, is a bad thing?
Or, do you believe something else?

FWIW, I'm English, so the US thing doesn't affect me directly. But I do appreciate having a healthcare system that will look after me when I need it, rather then if I can afford to pay for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Privatized health in the USA is a extremely bad thing. Way too many people have lost too much because of over-inflated medical bills. I know first hand experience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 959
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Privatized health in the USA is a extremely bad thing. Way too many people have lost too much because of over-inflated medical bills. I know first hand experience.



And you speak for everybody ??

My doctor actually charges less if I pay with a check or cash. MUCH less . With 101.87 PER WEEK ( for just myself ) and a 3000.00 deductible work related insurance policy, it's far better to hand the guy 75.00 cash than for him to fill out form after form and try to get the 350.00 he regularly charges. It would take me about 10 trips to see him at his regular fee , just to meet my deduction.

Privatization brings with it competition as well. Don't think so ? One great example is the cost of laser eye correction.

I have to question people who think they are free , but are ready to stand in a government line for the next painful pill to swallow.

After 50+ years on this rock , I'm convinced that because I work and pay taxes , while others don't and live better than I do , that I must be an idiot. :|


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quilt wrote:
So, are you saying that the healthcare system in the US, which is essentially privatised, expensive, and profligate is a model that should be applauded?


You obviously didn't watch the segment. Because US Healthcare is NOWHERE near fully privatized. If it were, there would be a SHITLOAD of competition AND hence the quality of it would be MUCH better and consumer prices would be WAY LOWER.

Quilt wrote:
Or, are you saying that the socialised model, that provides good quality healthcare for all, such as the NHS in the UK, is a bad thing?

FWIW, I'm English, so the US thing doesn't affect me directly. But I do appreciate having a healthcare system that will look after me when I need it, rather then if I can afford to pay for it.


Of course a socialized system is a bad thing. And that's because the vast majority of the time, it doesn't work very well AND is WAY too expensive. Why do you think most UK/European countries are nearing Depression-era levels of unemployment (some already are there) right now?! One of the reasons is because they can't afford it!

Contrary to what many of you silly Socialists would like to believe, there is no free lunch.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
pedro2 wrote:
SPACEBROTHER wrote:
Privatized health in the USA is a extremely bad thing. Way too many people have lost too much because of over-inflated medical bills. I know first hand experience.



And you speak for everybody ??

My doctor actually charges less if I pay with a check or cash. MUCH less . With 101.87 PER WEEK ( for just myself ) and a 3000.00 deductible work related insurance policy, it's far better to hand the guy 75.00 cash than for him to fill out form after form and try to get the 350.00 he regularly charges. It would take me about 10 trips to see him at his regular fee , just to meet my deduction.

Privatization brings with it competition as well. Don't think so ? One great example is the cost of laser eye correction.

I have to question people who think they are free , but are ready to stand in a government line for the next painful pill to swallow.

After 50+ years on this rock , I'm convinced that because I work and pay taxes , while others don't and live better than I do , that I must be an idiot. :|



What happens when you retire? Or lose your job?

My pal who lives in the USA reckons he'll have to work well beyond where he will be good/safe at his job, just to maintain health benefits for himself and his family. That can't be a good thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Disco Boy wrote:
Quilt wrote:
So, are you saying that the healthcare system in the US, which is essentially privatised, expensive, and profligate is a model that should be applauded?


You obviously didn't watch the segment. Because US Healthcare is NOWHERE near fully privatized. If it were, there would be a SHITLOAD of competition AND hence the quality of it would be MUCH better and consumer prices would be WAY LOWER.

Quilt wrote:
Or, are you saying that the socialised model, that provides good quality healthcare for all, such as the NHS in the UK, is a bad thing?

FWIW, I'm English, so the US thing doesn't affect me directly. But I do appreciate having a healthcare system that will look after me when I need it, rather then if I can afford to pay for it.


Of course a socialized system is a bad thing. And that's because the vast majority of the time, it doesn't work very well AND is WAY too expensive. Why do you think most UK/European countries are nearing Depression-era levels of unemployment (some already are there) right now?! One of the reasons is because they can't afford it!

Contrary to what many of you silly Socialists would like to believe, there is no free lunch.



I doubt that there would be a lot of REAL competition, just the illusion of competition. To have genuine competition we would need several FULLY-EQUIPPED hospitals, with a plurality of services, in each geographical area. That is not pragmatically possible.The NHS does work well most of the time! It ain't perfect, but it is a resource the UK is justifiably proud of. No free lunch indeed. It is expensive, but most people who work within the NHS are convinced that heading down the route of US-style system would be a very bad thing. They don't want to work in that kind of system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 5:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:22 am
Posts: 959
Quilt wrote:

What happens when you retire? Or lose your job?

My pal who lives in the USA reckons he'll have to work well beyond where he will be good/safe at his job, just to maintain health benefits for himself and his family. That can't be a good thing.


When i retire or lose my job , I'll collect my meager savings or go on unenjoyment and maybe disability for the rest of my life , like SOME of those 47% you might have heard about. :wink:

I believe you in the UK pay about 45% in income tax which includes 12% or so for health care ? I'm not sure but you'll have to clue me in. You might also have the same problems as here like OVER administration and sky high malpractice insurance. Our corporate hospitals are big and growing bigger here. Health and service care are the hot jobs here. ANYONE can become a bed pan changer and work your way up. :wink:

Over here we have way too many non-jobs . The paper pushers that get paid to well, push paper all day. And the pay is plenty good , too ! You can usually find this type of person in a government job. Don't know about there , but here you have to die to lose a job like the non-jobbers have.

BUT... those jobs create income and with income come taxes :) . They also create a swell voter base too ! :wink:

But aren't you just as tired as we are watching your dollars go to shit ? Hell , The USA could have bought half the world with the money wasted on phony green jobs and a military complex hex out of control. :oops:

Myself , I find it hard to be complacent with too many governments around the world that seem to want this type of serfdom where people allow themselves to be dumb downed via the government controlled schools and dependent on a group of self serving people , to care for them from womb to tomb. But , you get the government you vote for , right ? :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quilt wrote:
I doubt that there would be a lot of REAL competition, just the illusion of competition. To have genuine competition we would need several FULLY-EQUIPPED hospitals, with a plurality of services, in each geographical area. That is not pragmatically possible.


Then I don't think you understand how economies with free market principles work. Because it IS possible and HAS worked well - post-Pinochet Chile is probably best example, because while there is a partially socialized system, Chileans have vast amounts of CHOICE between either that OR a privatized healthcare system. Whereas, while many countries have two-tier healthcare systems as well, the balance of choice is lop-sided because the privatized options, like clinics, usually operate on a much smaller scale...

Quilt wrote:
The NHS does work well most of the time! It ain't perfect, but it is a resource the UK is justifiably proud of. No free lunch indeed. It is expensive, but most people who work within the NHS are convinced that heading down the route of US-style system would be a very bad thing. They don't want to work in that kind of system.


Again, why are you making the UK and the US systems out to be much different? The bulk of each system is not privatized.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Disco Boy wrote:
Quilt wrote:
I doubt that there would be a lot of REAL competition, just the illusion of competition. To have genuine competition we would need several FULLY-EQUIPPED hospitals, with a plurality of services, in each geographical area. That is not pragmatically possible.


Then I don't think you understand how economies with free market principles work. Because it IS possible and HAS worked well - post-Pinochet Chile is probably best example, because while there is a partially socialized system, Chileans have vast amounts of CHOICE between either that OR a privatized healthcare system. Whereas, while many countries have two-tier healthcare systems as well, the balance of choice is lop-sided because the privatized options, like clinics, usually operate on a much smaller scale...

Quilt wrote:
The NHS does work well most of the time! It ain't perfect, but it is a resource the UK is justifiably proud of. No free lunch indeed. It is expensive, but most people who work within the NHS are convinced that heading down the route of US-style system would be a very bad thing. They don't want to work in that kind of system.


Again, why are you making the UK and the US systems out to be much different? The bulk of each system is not privatized.


Hmm. Maybe I was under the impression that the US system is generally privatised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
But then, I rely on sources such as 'wikipedia' for my information :?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 4:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13745
Location: Billy, the mountain...
Quilt wrote:
But then, I rely on sources such as 'wikipedia' for my information :?

Not getting into the merit of what is being discussed (don't even know why I clicked here in the first place), that is obviously a prejudiced statement. Wikipedia is the single largest source of direct information there is today. Only the shortsighted cannot appreciate that. In there, there are different levels of status an article can be, ranging from being only a crude inaccurate sketch, to a complete, hiperlinked, source referenced state-of-the-art revision on some topics. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water :evil:

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 6:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Mr_Green_Genes wrote:
Quilt wrote:
But then, I rely on sources such as 'wikipedia' for my information :?

Not getting into the merit of what is being discussed (don't even know why I clicked here in the first place), that is obviously a prejudiced statement. Wikipedia is the single largest source of direct information there is today. Only the shortsighted cannot appreciate that. In there, there are different levels of status an article can be, ranging from being only a crude inaccurate sketch, to a complete, hiperlinked, source referenced state-of-the-art revision on some topics. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water :evil:


I think you missed the nuanced sarcasm in my post...

I agree with you that wikipedia seems to be a pretty balanced source of info. Hence, if wikipedia describes US healthcare as (paraphrasing a little) 'largely privatised' then that is probably what it is. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
privatization = over-inflated cost


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:19 am
Posts: 4871
Location: in deepest, darkest Germany
Disco Boy wrote:
...post-Pinochet Chile is probably best example, because while there is a partially socialized system, Chileans have vast amounts of CHOICE between either that OR a privatized healthcare system. Whereas, while many countries have two-tier healthcare systems as well, the balance of choice is lop-sided because the privatized options, like clinics, usually operate on a much smaller scale.


I thought that everybody had to pay 7% of their income towards health care in Chile (the exception being the destitute).

Of course, under Pinochet everything was much better.
You just coralled the "sick" in a football stadium and none of them needed any health care afterwards at all.

In Germany, I pay about 10% of my income for me, my wife and two kids. I am privately insured, because I'm a civil servant. Most people are state insured.

_________________
"I have learned from my mistakes, and I am sure I can repeat them exactly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
tweedle-dumb wrote:
privatization = over-inflated cost


No, it means the EXACT opposite.

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
...post-Pinochet Chile is probably best example, because while there is a partially socialized system, Chileans have vast amounts of CHOICE between either that OR a privatized healthcare system. Whereas, while many countries have two-tier healthcare systems as well, the balance of choice is lop-sided because the privatized options, like clinics, usually operate on a much smaller scale.


I thought that everybody had to pay 7% of their income towards health care in Chile (the exception being the destitute).

Of course, under Pinochet everything was much better.
You just coralled the "sick" in a football stadium and none of them needed any health care afterwards at all.

In Germany, I pay about 10% of my income for me, my wife and two kids. I am privately insured, because I'm a civil servant. Most people are state insured.


Image

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:41 am
Posts: 1181
Disco Boy wrote:
tweedle-dumb wrote:
privatization = over-inflated cost


No, it means the EXACT opposite.

Caputh wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
...post-Pinochet Chile is probably best example, because while there is a partially socialized system, Chileans have vast amounts of CHOICE between either that OR a privatized healthcare system. Whereas, while many countries have two-tier healthcare systems as well, the balance of choice is lop-sided because the privatized options, like clinics, usually operate on a much smaller scale.


I thought that everybody had to pay 7% of their income towards health care in Chile (the exception being the destitute).

Of course, under Pinochet everything was much better.
You just coralled the "sick" in a football stadium and none of them needed any health care afterwards at all.

In Germany, I pay about 10% of my income for me, my wife and two kids. I am privately insured, because I'm a civil servant. Most people are state insured.


Image



DB. Is there a country that exists with the ideal healthcare model, in your opinion?

The UK, with the NHS, is regarded my many as having an enviable system, in which healthcare staff are trained to work in a system that provides good quality healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of a patient's ability to pay.

The US has a system in which you may get good quality healthcare if you can afford to pay. If you can't your options are significantly more limited. Not only that, the personal costs of healthcare are enough to force a significant chunk of the population into bankruptcy.

Where would you pitch your tent? The UK, USA, Chile, Canada, where?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:48 pm
Posts: 20705
Location: Somewhere in time
Obama Care in California is already working, due to the States all in attitude, the benifits of the program are kicking in, the Health Exchanges are causing competitive pricing from Insurance Companies. There's no way around a drop, since everyone will show their pricing for the same service, who would you choose... :idea:

:smoke:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 9:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 10:27 pm
Posts: 5773
Location: echoing through the canyons of your mind
Exactly. Privatized health care costs are astronomical, and in most places, it's a monopoly. The cluelessness of Douchebag Chump to believe that the opposite is true proves that the guy is a brainless dimwit and a brainwashed tool.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2002 12:41 pm
Posts: 13745
Location: Billy, the mountain...
Quilt wrote:
Mr_Green_Genes wrote:
Quilt wrote:
But then, I rely on sources such as 'wikipedia' for my information :?

Not getting into the merit of what is being discussed (don't even know why I clicked here in the first place), that is obviously a prejudiced statement. Wikipedia is the single largest source of direct information there is today. Only the shortsighted cannot appreciate that. In there, there are different levels of status an article can be, ranging from being only a crude inaccurate sketch, to a complete, hiperlinked, source referenced state-of-the-art revision on some topics. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water :evil:


I think you missed the nuanced sarcasm in my post...

I agree with you that wikipedia seems to be a pretty balanced source of info. Hence, if wikipedia describes US healthcare as (paraphrasing a little) 'largely privatised' then that is probably what it is. :)

Sorry, bad hair day :lol:

_________________
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true Art and Science. - Albert Einstein

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:11 pm
Posts: 3607
Location: Vancouver, BC
Quilt wrote:
DB. Is there a country that exists with the ideal healthcare model, in your opinion?


Chile is probably a good example, or ANY country that has established a healthcare system that provides adequate CHOICE. Meaning either an entirely privatized system and/or a non-lop-sided socialized/privatized system.

Quilt wrote:
The UK, with the NHS, is regarded my many as having an enviable system, in which healthcare staff are trained to work in a system that provides good quality healthcare, free at the point of delivery, irrespective of a patient's ability to pay.


But it's NOT free. It only creates the ILLUSION it's free. Your debt-ridden tax dollars & public contributions pay for it. Countries that have an entirely or mostly socialized system, don't seem to realize that it costs MORE for a system like this. In fact, because of that ILLUSION, most of them don't even think about the costs and certainly wouldn't know what an MRI, operation x or surgery y costs.

Quilt wrote:
The US has a system in which you may get good quality healthcare if you can afford to pay. If you can't your options are significantly more limited. Not only that, the personal costs of healthcare are enough to force a significant chunk of the population into bankruptcy.

Where would you pitch your tent? The UK, USA, Chile, Canada, where?


Dude, what you're STILL not understanding is that the BULK of the US healthcare system is NOT privatized.

If free market principles were established and the CHOICE of either an entirely privatized system and/or a non-lop-sided socialized/privatized system were provided, it would mean prices would be LOWER. The more competition, the LOWER prices will be (especially the less Government interference involved). Economics 101.

tweedle-dee wrote:
Obama Care in California is already working, due to the States all in attitude, the benifits of the program are kicking in, the Health Exchanges are causing competitive pricing from Insurance Companies. There's no way around a drop, since everyone will show their pricing for the same service, who would you choose... :idea:

:smoke:


Obamacare is one of the reasons why the US economy is in such a mess.

Ron Paul on Obamacare (will cost 3-4 times what Whitehouse says)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiljyT3wOgc

Thomas Sowell on Obamacare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWBY9LBGdS8

tweedle-dumb wrote:
Exactly. Privatized health care costs are astronomical, and in most places, it's a monopoly. The cluelessness of Douchebag Chump to believe that the opposite is true proves that the guy is a brainless dimwit and a brainwashed tool.


STFU. You wouldn't know your ass from a hole in the wall.

_________________
:53 - :57...

"...I'm absolutely a Libertarian on MANY issues..." ~ Frank Zappa, Rochester, NY, March 11, 1988


Last edited by Disco Boy on Sun Jun 23, 2013 8:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 197 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group