The issue of health care

Users who are viewing this thread

Public healthcare works fine. In some countries, it's been deliberately mismanaged (e.g. Britain), in others, the funding was never collected properly (e.g. France, where employers get massive deductions from their share of the bill), but when the government honestly tries, it works without trouble.
 
I tend to think of a highly invested public health care system (eg, some of those EU countries) as being for people who... well... don't know what managing money is, at all. While if your more astute with your money, you'd probably be better off with a place that doesn't have wonderful public health care (eg, the USA)

Why? well, think about it. If you lived a country without highly invested public health care, odds are you'll be getting a bit of tax relief because of that. Now, a smart person would go "oh, better get some health cover from a private company', while others might go "Woo, holiday!".  Its all relative, or so i figure, but good public health care kind of takes away the opportunity for people to be stupid and spend money that they probably should have saved.
 
Cirdan said:
Public healthcare works fine. In some countries, it's been deliberately mismanaged (e.g. Britain), in others, the funding was never collected properly (e.g. France, where employers get massive deductions from their share of the bill), but when the government honestly tries, it works without trouble.

It works best when the country's population is not so big..
 
sneakey pete said:
I tend to think of a highly invested public health care system (eg, some of those EU countries) as being for people who... well... don't know what managing money is, at all. While if your more astute with your money, you'd probably be better off with a place that doesn't have wonderful public health care (eg, the USA)

Why? well, think about it. If you lived a country without highly invested public health care, odds are you'll be getting a bit of tax relief because of that. Now, a smart person would go "oh, better get some health cover from a private company', while others might go "Woo, holiday!".  Its all relative, or so i figure, but good public health care kind of takes away the opportunity for people to be stupid and spend money that they probably should have saved.

Public health care gives some people the chance to get treatment and live, despite their income. Theres no ****ing way a guy who makes $600 a month is going to save $50.000 for the oncological treatment that might save his life. Wheter those people deserve that money to get spent on them or not is a different discussion. But I do believe that a health care system based solely (or almost solely) on private companies is really easily subject to being abused by said companies. The bureocracy of the state might be slower, but you are guaranteed to get what you are suppossed to get, or at least thats how it works here.
 
OliveTower said:
Moss said:
OliveTower said:
I think the state should pay for things you couldn't help avoid, like brain cancer (What you do hardly effects that, right?), and possibly help out more if your problem is preventing you from providing for kids. But not things that are a result of your bad decisions. Lung cancer from smoking? Pay for it yourself, fag. AIDS? Quit ****ing hobos. This, I guess, would help balance it, but I have no idea how health care works outside the states, so I can't say.

Wow, I just lost all respect for you with the AIDS comment right there. Idiot.

Why should I pay for the bad result of you taking a chance?
Because such sacrifices are inherent in most socialist systems. It's about greater overall benefit. Do you believe in taxes?
 
Cloud Breaker said:
Cirdan said:
Public healthcare works fine. In some countries, it's been deliberately mismanaged (e.g. Britain), in others, the funding was never collected properly (e.g. France, where employers get massive deductions from their share of the bill), but when the government honestly tries, it works without trouble.

It works best when the country's population is not so big..
That's an obscenely stupid comment. People are the source of income, people are what the income is spent on, therefore people factor out of the equation. People/people=1, and one is the multiplicative identity.

If you qualified your statement, you might be right. In a capitalist country, if there is a very unequal income repartition and if the very rich control the state, then public healthcare can run into funding problems if the population is large and if you accept that in the general case the ruling class is proportionally smaller when the population is larger. That is, in fact, the problem with public healthcare in France, where recent governments have pursued a policy of taking from the poor to give to the rich.

D'Sparil said:
Public health care gives some people the chance to get treatment and live, despite their income. Theres no ****ing way a guy who makes $600 a month is going to save $50.000 for the oncological treatment that might save his life. Wheter those people deserve that money to get spent on them or not is a different discussion. But I do believe that a health care system based solely (or almost solely) on private companies is really easily subject to being abused by said companies. The bureocracy of the state might be slower, but you are guaranteed to get what you are suppossed to get, or at least thats how it works here.
These people deserve the money to be spent on them. In fact, generally speaking, the lower a person's income is the more essential they are to the economy. The very rich are mostly parasites; most multimillionaires do not contribute anything other than funding, which can be supplied by an efficient banking sector. They are useless but they enrich themselves with wealth generated by the other classes of society. Some people become rich thanks to an innovative idea and hard work, but by the time they are rich this contribution is in the past. The middle classes generally play an organisational role in the economy; what they produce cannot generally be consumed, yet it enhances (greatly) the production of actual consumables. They are non-necessary but useful. However, the lower classes are indispensable; you simply cannot do without the people who produce your food, build your house, sew your clothes or remove your garbage*. They are essential. Hence, they deserve healthcare more than any other class of society.

Of course, humans and their activities rarely fit into convenient little boxes, so that's a very simplified overview. But it mostly holds true.

*Well, you could always ask the army to remove the garbage  :lol:


Why? well, think about it. If you lived a country without highly invested public health care, odds are you'll be getting a bit of tax relief because of that. Now, a smart person would go "oh, better get some health cover from a private company', while others might go "Woo, holiday!".  Its all relative, or so i figure, but good public health care kind of takes away the opportunity for people to be stupid and spend money that they probably should have saved.
Except that a private company might charge you more than the state. The state is interested in its citizens' welfare; the private company is interested in its profits. You're also overlooking the case of those who will not be able to afford proper healthcare, not matter how well they manage their money.
 
Cirdan said:
Except that a private company might charge you more than the state. The state is interested in its citizens' welfare; the private company is interested in its profits. You're also overlooking the case of those who will not be able to afford proper healthcare, not matter how well they manage their money.

The state has interest in staying in office. Nothing more. (you can go on about the ideals etc, but face it: anything much larger than a country council and the people are career politicians)
Yes, its democracy n ****, but, to be honest, most people don't care enough to do anything about it. Oh, they might care that the public hospitals are overcrowded. Or they might care that patients are dying in waiting rooms. But only enough to go "oh, thats sad" when they hear it on the news. It doesn't stick with them. They go around with the attitude "oh, well, i'm not going to need a hospital any time soon anyway". Come election time, its all "ohh, these guys promise all this stuff!". Most people don't seem to remember the ****

A balanced system works best, in my opinion.
 
Cirdan said:
Cloud Breaker said:
Cirdan said:
Public healthcare works fine. In some countries, it's been deliberately mismanaged (e.g. Britain), in others, the funding was never collected properly (e.g. France, where employers get massive deductions from their share of the bill), but when the government honestly tries, it works without trouble.

It works best when the country's population is not so big..
That's an obscenely stupid comment.

I didn't think so.

I'll give examples.

A small developed country has high GNP per capita.

Compare China with Taiwan or Singapore, or South Korea.

It will apply to most other small (in terms of population) developed countries.

Individuals in such countries who have high or medium income rate can more or less fend for themselves.

Then the civil welfare department can focus on the small minority who really do not have the means to pay for their medical care, and this is important, because just like you said, (and I agree) this minority low-class people are very essential to society.

In China, it's the opposite. The majority cannot afford hospital bills. It's hard for the Chinese government to try, and succeed, in taking care of a billion paupers.

Yes yes, my view is limited. But do not bash me please. I'll listen quietly.
 
sneakey pete said:
The state has interest in staying in office. Nothing more. (you can go on about the ideals etc, but face it: anything much larger than a country council and the people are career politicians)
The State is interested in the economy. Free healthcare means most people will seek it, which both cuts down on epidemics and ensures you have a much higher portion of the population fit for work.
Come election time, its all "ohh, these guys promise all this stuff!". Most people don't seem to remember the ****
Here in the UK we've seen governments fall as a result of their mismanagement of the NHS.

In China, it's the opposite. The majority cannot afford hospital bills. It's hard for the Chinese government to try, and succeed, in taking care of a billion paupers.
Makes no difference, since the health sector is likewise part of the economy. You won't make much money trying to sell a product most people can't afford.

China has the same problem as Africa, it's not the financing of a health service but the retaining of talent.
 
sneakey pete said:
Cirdan said:
Except that a private company might charge you more than the state. The state is interested in its citizens' welfare; the private company is interested in its profits. You're also overlooking the case of those who will not be able to afford proper healthcare, not matter how well they manage their money.

The state has interest in staying in office. Nothing more. (you can go on about the ideals etc, but face it: anything much larger than a country council and the people are career politicians)
The state != the people in government. Yes, I know European countries are sliding back and half of the third world never figured this out in the first place, but there's an important distinction here. If your state and its current leader are the same thing, you've got more problems to fix than just healthcare anyway.

Beyond that, you still haven't given a convincing reason for the state inflating the price of healthcare. Private companies will do this for profits, the state doesn't have that motivation. Governments will sabotage public healthcare if the interests they represent feel strong enough to do so and don't want to pay for their workers' healtcare, but that's an issue of bad governance, not something inherent to public healthcare.
Yes, its democracy n ****,
Actually, not really. There's some forms of limited democracy in some countries, but mostly the comman man or woman cannot influence the government beyond rioting.
but, to be honest, most people don't care enough to do anything about it. Oh, they might care that the public hospitals are overcrowded. Or they might care that patients are dying in waiting rooms. But only enough to go "oh, thats sad" when they hear it on the news. It doesn't stick with them. They go around with the attitude "oh, well, i'm not going to need a hospital any time soon anyway". Come election time, its all "ohh, these guys promise all this stuff!". Most people don't seem to remember the ****
As Arch pointed out, elected governments have fallen for mismanaging public health care. It tends to become a major gripe.

Cloud Breaker said:
I didn't think so.

I'll give examples.

A small developed country has high GNP per capita.

Compare China with Taiwan or Singapore, or South Korea.

It will apply to most other small (in terms of population) developed countries.

Individuals in such countries who have high or medium income rate can more or less fend for themselves.

Then the civil welfare department can focus on the small minority who really do not have the means to pay for their medical care, and this is important, because just like you said, (and I agree) this minority low-class people are very essential to society.

In China, it's the opposite. The majority cannot afford hospital bills. It's hard for the Chinese government to try, and succeed, in taking care of a billion paupers.

Yes yes, my view is limited. But do not bash me please. I'll listen quietly.
So, you're basically assuming that a big country is going to be less developed than a small country?

Counter-example: Sierra Leone is much less populous than Japan, yet also much less developed.

Obviously, a much less developed country with lower incomes will have a harder time maintaining adequate healthcare for its entire population, but that has nothing to do with the size of said population. China doesn't have good public healthcare because of low per capita income, not because of a large population.
 
Cirdan said:
Private companies will do this for profits, the state doesn't have that motivation. Governments will sabotage public healthcare if the interests they represent feel strong enough to do so and don't want to pay for their workers' healtcare, but that's an issue of bad governance, not something inherent to public healthcare.
Usually the opposite to be honest. Companies tend to offer private medical insurance for employees in areas where public healthcare provision isn't provided, it generally costs them more money to have an employee of work sick than it does to pay for the insurance (and it also means they can offer a lower than normal wage since such benefits tend to be attractive). Most jobs here in the UK now offer some form of discounted or employer provisioned medical insurance, largely as a result of the lengthening waiting times on the NHS.
 
Cirdan said:
So, you're basically assuming that a big country is going to be less developed than a small country?

Nope. I was saying that a small developed country can easily have higher GNP per capita than a big developed country.

Cirdan said:
Counter-example: Sierra Leone is much less populous than Japan, yet also much less developed.


I'm of course aware that a small country can be less developed than a bigger country. I'm not questioning the level of development, I'm questioning the economic capacity. Whether a nation can diffuse its resources to its people adequately. And that job is easier for a smaller nation.

Cirdan said:
Obviously, a much less developed country with lower incomes will have a harder time maintaining adequate healthcare for its entire population, but that has nothing to do with the size of said population. China doesn't have good public healthcare because of low per capita income, not because of a large population.

I expected you to think this to be self-explanatory. I already know this.

I concluded that China has low per capita income, because it has a large population. And that is why I said public health care is easier for smaller developed countries, whose economic power is comparable to United Kingdom, not just because the population is small, but because smaller the population, higher the income per capita, and thus less number of people who need free medical service.

And I stress that I'm talking about developed countries only.
 
Cloud Breaker said:
Cirdan said:
So, you're basically assuming that a big country is going to be less developed than a small country?

Nope. I was saying that a small developed country can easily have higher GNP per capita than a big developed country.
You don't seem to understand. GDP per capita is generally used as the measure of economic development. China's low per capita income results from underdevelopment, not from a large population. You still don't seem to understand that the basic, most fundamental, production unit is the worker. People are productive. More people means the GDP is divided more, but it also means more GDP to divide.

The USA have a quite large population, yet they also have a high per capita GDP. Belgium is much less populous and can quite legitimately be considered a very developed country, yet it has less per capita GDP.
 
With public provisioning paid for by taxes, the individual is paying into the system constantly whether they use it or not. Since the majority will not require healthcare constantly then most of the time the 75% not currently utilising the system should be paying more than enough to support the 25% who are.

Really the advantage of a developed nation is more to do with infrastructure and coverage rather than funding. Few places in the UK are more than 30 minutes away from a hospital, and even the remotest regions have access to a doctor on demand. A farmer in rural China on the other hand probably isn't so lucky.
 
Cirdan said:
You don't seem to understand. GDP per capita is generally used as the measure of economic development. China's low per capita income results from underdevelopment, not from a large population. You still don't seem to understand that the basic, most fundamental, production unit is the worker. People are productive. More people means the GDP is divided more, but it also means more GDP to divide.

The USA have a quite large population, yet they also have a high per capita GDP. Belgium is much less populous and can quite legitimately be considered a very developed country, yet it has less per capita GDP.


China

GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$6.991 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
Definition Field Listing
$3.251 trillion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
11.4% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$5,300 (2007 est.)


Belgium

GDP (purchasing power parity):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$376 billion (2007 est.)
GDP (official exchange rate):
Definition Field Listing
$453.6 billion (2007 est.)
GDP - real growth rate:
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
2.7% (2007 est.)
GDP - per capita (PPP):
Definition Field Listing Rank Order
$35,300 (2007 est.)


This raccoon is confused...

On one hand China has several times the economic power of Belgium, but Belgians are richer than Chinese by the same margin.
 
I don't understand the point of comparing China to Belgium? Belgium is a developed European state and was one of the first countries to enter the industrial revolution in the 19th century, China is a much less developed country which remained very backwards throughout the 19th century and spent most of the first half of the 20th in a state of war, and only since the 1950s has been able to seriously embark upon economic development. If Belgium's per capita GDP wasn't much higher than China's, it would be downright astonishing. China, however, has a massive population, so that total GDP is higher. Again, nothing surprising there. If China and Belgium had the same total GDP, then the Chinese would be quite litterally starving to death.

Really the advantage of a developed nation is more to do with infrastructure and coverage rather than funding. Few places in the UK are more than 30 minutes away from a hospital, and even the remotest regions have access to a doctor on demand. A farmer in rural China on the other hand probably isn't so lucky.
That depends on the relative costs of the infrastructure and drugs. If they are produced locally, then your reasoning stands (and the same applies also to a hypothetical worldwide state). On the other hand, if medicines and medical equipment are imported, then you often end up having to pay first-world prices with third-world resources.

Usually the opposite to be honest. Companies tend to offer private medical insurance for employees in areas where public healthcare provision isn't provided, it generally costs them more money to have an employee of work sick than it does to pay for the insurance (and it also means they can offer a lower than normal wage since such benefits tend to be attractive). Most jobs here in the UK now offer some form of discounted or employer provisioned medical insurance, largely as a result of the lengthening waiting times on the NHS.
But most companies generally manage to make the employee pay for more of his or her healthcare that way, and especially to make employees pay more for their dependants.
 
Cirdan said:
That depends on the relative costs of the infrastructure and drugs. If they are produced locally, then your reasoning stands (and the same applies also to a hypothetical worldwide state). On the other hand, if medicines and medical equipment are imported, then you often end up having to pay first-world prices with third-world resources.
I was thinking more of the qualitative effects. Someone living in a city with access to several hospitals is naturally going to receive a better standard of care than someone who lives in a remote village. In a developed nation you don't tend to get extreme disparity because (usually) few inhabited areas are truly remote, whereas a country which is still primarily agrarian or simply under-developed will be the opposite.
But most companies generally manage to make the employee pay for more of his or her healthcare that way, and especially to make employees pay more for their dependants.
Not really, though it depends on the country. If the company is paying for the insurance policy then there's no cost to the employee in so far as having to pay for medical treatment. The only real cost is artificially lowered wages, particularly in a country where free healthcare is already available, but then this could apply across the board (pension schemes, company transport and similar 'benefits'), but then one could argue that if said benefits are indeed attractive to new employees then there must be a reason.

Of course, in the UK employee provisioned medical insurance is a tax break, so there's always that.
 
Cirdan said:
I don't understand the point of comparing China to Belgium? Belgium is a developed European state and was one of the first countries to enter the industrial revolution in the 19th century, China is a much less developed country which remained very backwards throughout the 19th century and spent most of the first half of the 20th in a state of war, and only since the 1950s has been able to seriously embark upon economic development.

I don't know about this. Maybe a person of Archonsod's prestige can convince me of the validity of this statement.

Maybe you are. Please justify that China is much less developed than Belgium. This is not self-explanatory to me.


You don't understand the point?

My point is: 'Small developed country can more easily distribute its resources to its people than big developed country can.'

United States of America is one huge exemption.



 
Huh? are you being deliberately dense? Do you not agree with my summary of Chinese history? Are you telling me China had an industrial revolution comparable to Belgium's in the 19th century?


As to proving China is less developed than Belgium, again, look at the GDP per capita. Look at the average production per work-hour. One Chinese produces less than one Belgian--ergo China is less developed.

Your talk of distributing resources is absurd. It's not natural resources but human labour that underpins most economies (Qatar or Kuweït provide exceptions, because they are tiny countries located ontop of lagrlarge stocks of valuable resources).
 
Back
Top Bottom