- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:00 am to CptRusty
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:00 am to CptRusty
quote:
I'll cut to the chase, either the doctors quit, or the M4A costs go way the frick up.
The real question is how much of government spending should be apportioned to health care. The concept of these systems is mostly irrelevant because they are all unsustainable. So we're at 48% of government outlays currently. What would please the health care is a human right crowd? 75%? 90%?
Then there's the issue of taxes vs. money printing or some blend of both to fund it. And since our mandatory spending is growing at such a high rate and increasing as a percentage of total outlays, what's the point of higher taxes when you have to print regardless? No tax increase will be able to cover these entitlements.
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 11:02 am
1
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:01 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Correct. No “system” can survive unlimited demand for service.
Not without rationing.
The free market rationing tool is price.
The regulated market rationing tool is power and relationships.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:02 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
What do you mean exactly?
If everyone is covered by the same system, the same system is paying. “Getting what you pay for” isn’t some individual one-off. It’s part of the whole system.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:02 am to crazy4lsu
You can downvote reality all you want and run away all you want. Won’t change the reasoning behind reality.
quote:
The vast majority of medical innovation is done right here in America. Not many medical innovations and new drugs coming out of Germany, GB, France, Norway, etc. Wonder what is behind all those new innovations and breakthroughs.
Do you have any idea cpt? Can you help me figure out why on earth these other countries seem to be unable to come up with new medical procedures and drugs?
This post was edited on 2/12/20 at 11:03 am
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:02 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Correct. No “system” can survive unlimited demand for service.
Not without rationing.
The free market rationing tool is price.
The regulated market rationing tool is power and relationships.
absolutely correct and health care is a black hole that will suck in every resource you can throw at it...
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:03 am to wutangfinancial
quote:
wutangfinancial
You gotta diversify yo bonds...
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:04 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Nope. You’re presuming steady demand.
We could have UHC with private insurance right now given what we spend per capita on healthcare.
quote:Why do you hate old and poor people? Why would do you want people to die in the streets?
You would need to reorganize things, cut Medicare, Medicaid, and all other government healthcare programs.
Yes, that’s a complete strawman. But it’s the strawman that will be used to keep those programs around—despite them being “unnecessary” under any type of UHC plan.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:06 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The German solution to this was to make insurance companies non-profit, which had the effect of increasing the number of companies that offer plans, which number around 200. One of the best healthcare providers in the US, Kaiser, is also non-profit with profit making subsidiaries, if I recall.
I do really like Germany's system and believe it would work here because of the heavy privatization aspect.
I would need to look more on what they do to handle the percentage of people who fall outside of the employer-covered plans.
But we already have Medicaid/Medicare and a host of other systems for this number.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:06 am to beerJeep
Which breakthroughs? The surgeon I rotate with uses new techniques developed in Israeli, which has UHC. The first lab-grown human liver was developed in Japan. The first human face transplant was in France. The first HPV vaccine was developed in Australia. What advances are you talking about, and we can talk about the circumstances for each.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:06 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The German solution to this was to make insurance companies non-profit, which had the effect of increasing the number of companies that offer plans,
Nothing attracts capital like the prohibition of profit. Do you have any idea they type of capital it takes to start an insurance company? Any at all?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:07 am to Taxing Authority
Homeboy won’t even admit that profit is what drives innovation in the medical field. I wonder why that is.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:08 am to the808bass
quote:
If everyone is covered by the same system, the same system is paying. “Getting what you pay for” isn’t some individual one-off. It’s part of the whole system.
The Germans have a base model that everyone uses, and then people pay for whatever else they want, which can include things like alternative medicine. I don't remember the number of people who use just the base system, but I think it was less than 10%, with 7% opting out entirely, which means that 83% are paying for what they want.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:09 am to Taxing Authority
could you consider a plan in which profit was capped? specifically thinking about the pharmaceutical companies
I'm extremely pro m4a but with room for caveats to make room for exactly what you're referencing, i.e. innovation and financial rewards for cutting cost and more efficiency
but I fundamentally think it's wrong for companies and executives to make massive fortunes off of sick people.
is there a middle ground here? genuine question.
I'm extremely pro m4a but with room for caveats to make room for exactly what you're referencing, i.e. innovation and financial rewards for cutting cost and more efficiency
but I fundamentally think it's wrong for companies and executives to make massive fortunes off of sick people.
is there a middle ground here? genuine question.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:09 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
with 7% opting out entirely
By 'opting out'...do you mean they have the option to not pay?
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:11 am to DimTigerDontHate
quote:
public libraries
I don't use public libraries
quote:
public schooling
I wouldn't send my kids to a public school
As others have mentioned, everything that's socialized is run like shite. I'd rather if our entire country wasn't run like a sub-par freebie shithole public school
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:12 am to LSUgrad08112
quote:
everything that's socialized is run like shite.
I went to a really good public school in houston and grew up down the street from a great public library. it's bad in some places but not everywhere
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:12 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The surgeon I rotate with uses new techniques developed in Israeli, which has UHC. The first lab-grown human liver was developed in Japan. The first human face transplant was in France. The first HPV vaccine was developed in Australia. What advances are you talking about, and we can talk about the circumstances for each.
notice how I didn’t say ALL medical innovation comes from America. But, hell, since you want to bring up a handful of examples..... quote:
The U.S. is the world leader in producing new medicines. The country’s strong intellectual-property laws, coupled with a comparatively free-market pricing system, encourage firms to research new treatments. Companies wouldn’t take on the enormous cost of developing a new drug without a solid chance of recouping their investment. On average, a new medicine takes 10 years and costs $2.6 billion to develop, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:13 am to DimTigerDontHate
The ignorance of this question in the face of repeated examples and evidence of the failures of socialism dotting the historical landscape.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:14 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Nope. You’re presuming steady demand.
Estimates of moving to a single model generally involve around a 10% increase in usage rates. That is the assumption underlying a couple of papers I read. That was the assumption of the Blahous paper on M4A too.
Posted on 2/12/20 at 11:16 am to HT713
quote:
could you consider a plan in which profit was capped?
Would you consider a plan under which a minimum profit was guaranteed? Or put another way- under which risk was capped?
quote:
I fundamentally think it's wrong for companies and executives to make massive fortunes off of sick people.
Incentive drives behavior. Period. If there isn't a profit motive, then there will be no appetite for risk.
Page 9 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News