Once again, projecting your ideas about what I think over what I actually think.
Printable View
Once again, projecting your ideas about what I think over what I actually think.
Little reason for you to keep posting, then.
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Why can't you pay less for better healthcare instead? Wouldn't that be smarter for you?
Sure, if one thinks it's possible.
Of course it's possible, eliminate the system that ensured that about half of your annual healthcare expenditure was waste a few years ago, and then make sure you guys don't do stupid things like harming old people with healthcare so that they have to use more healthcare. Clearly it's possible, now can I please have the source that proves that government expenditure on healthcare will amount to a dozen trillion over the next decade? I am curious about their reasoningQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Sure, if one thinks large, centralized bureaucracies can actually function in the way you're describing.
We spent almost a trillion last year, with the costs expected to rise sharply over the next few years. Some deeper analysis that focuses on the costs relative to GDP: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8...Text.3.1.shtml
you got ta move it move itQuote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
No I don't. :confused: I think a compassionate, humanitarian, modern civilization - the sort of civilization that we have the potential to be and which I believe would bring out humanity's potential - ought to first and foremost provide a humanitarian minimum to all it's citizens, including health care. Do we have some basic inalienable right to this just by virtue of being human? No. But we don't have a right to anything intrinsically.Quote:
Except whenever these issues come up, you frame them in terms of fundamental rights that others have to pay for. You explicitly compared free universal healthcare to a military and effective criminal justice system.
It IS stupid and pointless. Don't be mad at me about it, be mad at yourself for your infatuation with it. :o. And that's not the only thing I said on the rights topic, just the only thing anyone responded too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Why do you think that, though? Could an advanced version of a Roman or National Socialist society not taken mankind to the stars with all the effort Reagan's humanity has placed into producing devices that produce sing-song voices when rich white men defecate? Whom does it assist that the down-trodden is provided with insulin instead of Happy Meals, or sing-song toilet tissue? Or is it sheer empathy that dictates insulin for the poor is "better" than sing-song toilet tissue? Capitalism thinks the opposite, with the results we see today.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Er at this point I have to ask if you've actually read this document, not least because it spends a few paragraphs discussing those changes that promise to reduce costs and improve results without necessarily leaving people uncovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes. It discusses various ideas that could change those cost projections. But it also discusses the limits of those tactics to impact the projetions within a certain range.
Something you should know about out Congressional Budget Office is it prepares calculations based on specific requests from our members of Congress. This means the reports can often be using loaded assumptions. But the math can be instructive. And none of the ideas in that document will get our old-age medical care costs anywhere below $1 trillion annually over the next decade or so.
Do you not believe me on this or something? It's a pretty solid assumption over here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
You know human beings are hard-wired with survival behaviors. Tribalism is one expression of probably a bunch of these and parts of tribalism are empathy, community, altruism and self-sacrifice for the benefit of the group. Layered on top of these hard wired things is what our frontal lobes concoct. Unfortunately tribal behavior is limited to the group we identify with. Hence racism, classism, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Lewk, for example, identifies himself with the "tribe" of middle and wealthy class and feels none of these tribal cooperative feelings for poor people. This allows his dismissive, and contemptuous, feelings for them and his support for those in his tribe that would cut these other folks off entirely. In effect, he his supporting policy - what our frontal lobes have concocted, in this case capitalism - that he feels will be best for his tribe because this other tribe, the poor, are a threat to his group's survival. What is great about Lewk's ideas is that it is possible for members of this poor tribe to join his tribe! That's right - American capitalism is not exclusive. If you work hard and avoid mistakes, you can move up and join the middle and upper classes. So the truth is, his beliefs and the policy he supports are not all that bad, in theory. However, in practic, that's another story....
I believe people are fundamentally "good" in the sense that we have the capacity for empathy and sacrifice for the benefit of the group. I believe that if we can convince everyone that humanity is a single tribe, then humanity will care for all of its tribe members. And I believe that if we manage to do this, if we manage to stop spending so much resource and effort on the maintenance and defense of our many many tribes, then a greater potential can be unlocked, chiefily throught the concoctions of our frontal lobes, and then we will move onward and upward to do amazing things.
Idealistic? Crazy? No. A worthy and optimsitc goal. I need to believe this to push back the Void.
You ask about the Nazis. Why couldn't that work? It can work, of course. They were on their way to building a civilization with fewer tribal identies and probably one on top making the decisions, but they were doing it through genocide and domination. And had they been successful, there would have been one tribe on top that would be spending a LOT of resource and effort dominating those underneath. Furthermore, much of humanity's potential through its complex diversity would be stamped out and the prevailing culture would be one that cannot tolerate much diversity. It would be an enormous loss, IMHO, in the catagory of "potential great things" and the level of cruelty required to make it happen would be enormous. I for one have trouble stomaching cruelty like that. Others are all too willing to make it happen, but I don't think people like that would be good leaders, and in the end I think we'd be better off with greater diversity.
And a last note - I believe capitalism isn't bad in and of itself. Its a tool, a frontal lobe concoction that manipulates other intrinsic human behavior to produce 'great things' but it is a mindless tool and it can be misused. That's what we see in the US today. IMHO, if we don't begin using it better, disaster will result.
I want to believe that over the next decade your economy will probably continue to grow and with some luck you might even get your money's worth when it comes to healthcare spending, both private and public. What I'm trying to figure out is why you can't tolerate eg. a 2% increase in healthcare expenditure (as a percentage of GDP) over a decade or two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That's beautiful. Watch how Dreadnaught will piss on it like a Nazi over a pile of Jewish corpses.
The American Dream has been utterly warped from "through my work I can support a family" into "I'm gonna be a BILLIONAIRE", and the culture promotes it like there's no yesterday. Have you watched American Idol? It is insidious and criminal, it is the thing that fuels frustrated dreams. How can you combat that kind of cultural force without resorting to "basic rights"? The Soviets saw no problem in murdering a few million, if their racial or working identity was not fashionable that day. Reagan had to label an entire half-globe an "empire of evil" to effect change!
Because healthcare shouldn't dominate an enormous chunk of our economy? And because most of that 2% is likely to be funded by government debt?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Sure, don't read my thoughtful, earnest, though long-assed post. I even answered your Godwin. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Okay but let's be honest here, nothing the government does should dominate any chunk of any economy. Right? Except wars of course. And making new toys that go boom. Right? And subsidies to various actors. Right? But not healthcare at least. I forget why healthcare is especially repugnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Law enforcement, lets not forget. And the associated system of courts. And the highway system - remember, that's paid for by tax money, largely. Except where there's toll systems. But a toll system doesn't BUILD highways, just helps maintain them. There's a big up front investment in building them. Same with rail lines. And ports. And air ports too. And air traffic control systems. And water purification systems both for drinking and effluent. On the other hand, you have to realize that conservatives in the US believe all this stuff could be privatized and as a result work better, cheaper, faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm not quite sure why healthcare should not dominate a huge chunk of our economy. After all, isn't all that economy-stuff supposed to make our lives better?
And how better to make our lives better than helping them being healthier and longer?
Or did I miss some other ultimate purpose behind that money-making stuff? Are we supposed to strive after making money just because it makes money?
Isn't healthcare (as an industry, including pharma and insurers) something like 1/6 of our economy? If our population is around 30% baby boomers it just makes sense their medical needs will be a huge chunk of our "service economy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm talking about spending here, and it's very clear that we can't afford the health costs on the horizon. Why this actuarial reality is an affront to your views is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
90% of Americans drive cars. Does that mean gasoline purchases should comprise 90% of our economy? :weird:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Loki, is that you? WTF :donkey:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I was stating a fact economists throw around all the time about our top 6 sectors. Healthcare, Financial Services, Education, Government Services, Energy. Not in that order. Consumption/consumers also makes up 70% of our economy. We're primarily a service-oriented country. Are you disputing any of that?
Our demographics and ratios matter, y'know. Workers to retirees. Youth to elderly. Paradox being we're living longer, elders using more services (especially medical-related). We need to have a growing youthful and educated population to keep it humming along. Placing the tax burden on the young won't work. But neither will cutting their education or reducing immigration, or crushing middle classes into poverty.
Heh, as I was writing that I did feel it was a Loki style response. But also entirely accurate, just because a certain segment of the population uses a certain service doesn't mean that service has to comprise an equally-large portion of our economy.
There are basic services that are very costly in the developing world, but cost a fraction of a household budget in the developed world. It's all about how robust an economy is and how cost-efficient a particular sector can be.
Tell that to the banking and financial, or energy resource industries. For that matter, tell OPEC. Then complain to your legislators and their lobbyist special interest groups. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You got a point in there somewhere? If this is about the US healthcare system, it matters that a large and growing number of ageing and elderly people will be consuming expensive, high-tech, innovative things that will keep them alive longer. Longevity means using more services. That means need for more physicians, nurses, PAs, aides, facilities, R & D, pharmaceuticals, surgical procedures, mobility devices, various professional therapies, and education for the providers. Specialization makes us look great on the whole, but it's also very, very expensive.Quote:
There are basic services that are very costly in the developing world, but cost a fraction of a household budget in the developed world. It's all about how robust an economy is and how cost-efficient a particular sector can be.
The biggest problem with Medicare is spending 80% of its money on 25% of its consumers, mostly at their end-of-life or last year of life. The biggest problem with Medicaid is reimbursing expensive hospital and ED providers for things like sore throats and ear infections, because we lack free-standing clinics for primary care, and sufficient primary care providers. The biggest problem for the uninsured or underinsured is not being able to afford OOP basics.
We have our priorities backward.
If we guarantee medical care for seniors, we're going to pay for lots of expensive end-of-life stuff unless you want to strictly ration care.
Candidly I don't see your point. I want to get us out of the business of guaranteeing things we can't afford. You want to pursue something far more elusive, which is making unaffordable things affordable. You're the one who wants to put the cart before the horse here.
Man you got a crazy amount of hate for the most random things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Not necessarily. We can "guarantee" medical care for everyone, but only at Basic and/or Preventative levels. Also, levels of care have been rationed for decades. Mostly based on public vs private "insurance" schemes. But then, that's how we ended up with denial of coverage, rescission of coverage, escalating premiums, and denial of services. Ask anyone with renal failure secondary to hypertension or heart disease.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
You don't see my point because you're still thinking inside the box. My point is an ethical /moral exercise....we need to take things you call "elusive" and frame them in concrete terms. Without being complete jerk-offs and assholes. Examples would be:Quote:
Candidly I don't see your point. I want to get us out of the business of guaranteeing things we can't afford. You want to pursue something far more elusive, which is making unaffordable things affordable. You're the one who wants to put the cart before the horse here.
The newest treatment for end-stage prostate cancer costing $93,000 but only yielding 3 extra months of life per patient. Covered by Medicare.
The ability to perform joint replacement and organ transplants, but doing them for 90 year olds. Covered by Medicare.
The need for mobility devices, but spending $5,000 on electric scooters for everyone. Covered by Medicare.
The gap in long-term assisted living, not funding home-care as generously as institutional care (nursing homes). Medicare fighting for Medicaid.
And so it goes.....
So, once again, the choice is between rationing and kids draining their bank accounts so their parents can get a new hip.
That's been the "choice" for decades. Medicine has always been rationed, and it's still rationed. Previous generations exposed the fact that wealthy payers could get the best, because they could pay for the best. Once insurance entered the field, even lower income people could "buy" the same care once afforded to the wealthy. After that was recognized as a carrot or perk to employers, they started sharing the (rising) costs of insurance premiums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
That led to a society that equated excellent healthcare with either (a) being wealthy or (b) being insured. Now we have people dependent on employer subsidies for their health insurance, so excellent care means being wealthy or being employed. Neither is a sustainable model, or makes any damn sense for a "wealthy, first world nation".
It isn't random, learn to read, dumb-assQuote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski