Why do people hate capitalism?

[wallyj84]

You're dodging, or missing, the point. The American healthcare system provides incredibly robust numbers for pre-clinical screening and treatment. This is attributed to two major factors: the first is that clinics are competitive, the second is that you are more likely to see a specialist same-day. Why we have problems though is that we spend twice as much per capita as any other country, pushing many out of reach of our healthcare. Single-payer healthcare eliminates competition and sacrifices some speed for affordability and clerical efficiency. If you don't think it's a choice of a value system, you're just trying to to force your view onto others.

With that said, there's no need to convince me that affordability is priority número uno. The Commonwealth Fund and WHO have proven with incredible satisfaction that it's possible to lower costs by up to 50% with a screening correction of ±5%.

Single payer wouldn't eliminate competition, at least not by itself. The only way to eliminate the competition would be if hospitals were no longer private and were assigned patients. As long as doctor's remain private businesses they will compete with each other.

 

[wallyj84]

what you show only compares England, Canada, NZ, Australia and USA...

Only the UK is in the top 25 of best healthcare systems

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
So, you are way too expensive and not even good at what you are doing, but still you think a multi payer system is better?

If it's more expensive, it's definitely less efficient. That people aee out of reach makes the whole system just bad.
Am I? I didn't noticed... till now I thought we would exchange opinions at this discussion, didn't knew that you feel attacked if someone doesn't agrees with you. so, you think a system is good even if only wealth profit from it?

Your link isn't working.

 

[distilledpunk]

what you show only compares England, Canada, NZ, Australia and USA...

Only the UK is in the top 25 of best healthcare systems

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/
So, you are way too expensive and not even good at what you are doing, but still you think a multi payer system is better?


If it's more expensive, it's definitely less efficient. That people aee out of reach makes the whole system just bad.
Am I? I didn't noticed... till now I thought we would exchange opinions at this discussion, didn't knew that you feel attacked if someone doesn't agrees with you. so, you think a system is good even if only wealth profit from it?


Talking about not fast enough



Just a very personal quote, but anyway

First, you should probably review your sources before posting them. WHO proved exactly what I said. You can find the statistical annex between 162-164

The US is ranked number one in responsiveness, but is also ranked the highest in expenses per capita - fairness in financial contribution placing them significantly lower than any country of the EU that had adopted single-payer healthcare. We have the best responsiveness in our healthcare industry, but the soaring costs and inability for that healthcare to be obtained by so many, still, cripples us. Single-payer healthcare sacrifices that responsiveness for lower expenses and better distribution and access to healthcare.

Everything I said in the previous post has only been strengthened, not refuted.

 

[distilledpunk]

Your link isn't working.

You have to remove the /quote from the end

 

[Perados]

Your link isn't working.

You are correct...
Try it again:
thepatientfactor.com: World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

This isn't the list I wanted to post, but the report has all informations I mentioned
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems






Here is an article of the guardian that confirms, in total the US system isn't good, even if it offers good quality for those who can afford it.
www.theguardian.com: Which country has the world's best healthcare system?
(Even If the article ranks France way lower than the WHO, it's still worth reading)

 

[distilledpunk]

I mean, it's not like the French or Canadians are dropping dead, so maybe America's spot of best responsiveness to healthcare is, I don't know, pointless? It's just undeniable that our responsiveness (the speed and wait time for operation and outpatient surgery) is the best in the world.

Your Guardian link is still dodging the point.

You're dodging, or missing, the point. The American healthcare system provides incredibly robust numbers for pre-clinical screening and treatment. This is attributed to two major factors: the first is that clinics are competitive, the second is that you are more likely to see a specialist same-day. Why we have problems though is that we spend twice as much per capita as any other country, pushing many out of reach of our healthcare. Single-payer healthcare eliminates competition and sacrifices some speed for affordability and clerical efficiency. If you don't think it's a choice of a value system, you're just trying to to force your view onto others.

With that said, there's no need to convince me that affordability is priority número uno. The Commonwealth Fund and WHO have proven with incredible satisfaction that it's possible to lower costs by up to 50% with a screening correction of ±5%.

 

[Perados]

You have to remove the /quote from the end

You are correct...
Thanks

 

[Perados]

I mean, it's not like the French or Canadians are dropping dead, so maybe America's spot of best responsiveness to healthcare is, I don't know, pointless? It's just undeniable that our responsiveness (the speed and wait time for operation and outpatient surgery) is the best in the world.

Your Guardian link is still dodging the point.

Well I remember a report about the US healthcare system...

They interviewed a guy who had an accident and cut off two of his fingers.
At the hospital he got asked what finger he likes more, to fix the ring finger would cost him $75k, to fix the little finger just $15k...

Yes, it's an extreme example, but as long as you have to desite which finger gets fixed and which gets lost, "speed" is just the second most important point.
Better to have 10 fingers and wait 15 minutes longer as to have 9 fingers 15 minutes more early





Plus, ask yourself why doctor's are so fast as doing so many screenings.
Simply because they make the big money with it... and it's questionable to offer a whole population every kind of screening, if the likelihood to get "leathel cancer" is under 20%

 

[distilledpunk]

That's deceitful. Emergency visits are fast everywhere. Responsiveness is about operation and outpatient services - such as wisdom teeth extraction, specialist visits, even mental healthcare more or less! For example, the chances of receiving a heart or lung transplant through the UNOS is much more likely than through Canada or EU. We're not talking about a Rx or an emergency visit which have been dealt heavy blows, we're talking about open heart surgery, kidney transplants, etc. There's a noticeable difference in response times between America and other countries when it comes to this. My grandpa, for example, was able to schedule a hip replacement within only two weeks of knowing he needed one. For some countries, this process could take up to 5 months.

 

[distilledpunk]

Example of discrepancies in wait times between Canada and US, for example. But as Alec notes, our high points are still competing with universal healthcare. Such as (only) Germany ranking higher than us in getting a hip replacement quicker. Half of Americans get same-day appointments. We also have a significant number of people (half) who don't receive healthcare because of the cost. There's a certain level of value judgment, you're trying to extrapolate information to reach an objective conclusion. That's not how that works, but we can compare America's achievements with those of other countries and see how slim the margin of our success is - doesn't quite seem worth it for doubled the cost.

Unfortunately, most people who are presented with such information are unlikely to listen. They'd ranger stick their fingers in their ears and go "La la la."

 

[slurper_la]

Why do you say that?

All: The reason why I'm growing tired of my thread is that it has degraded to insults like the one above. Please, can we all be respectable?

Because you obviously don't understand that it's very difficult to find decent housing for $300 - $600 per month.
Or that it's difficult to feed, clothe and shelter oneself for less than $400 a month.

That's what you'd have to do if you worked at minimum wage. Do the math.

And no starving people? You have got to be kidding. I don't know where you live but I guarantee I could come to your city and take you on a short tour of neighborhoods, probably not far from wherever you lock your door at night, where people don't know where their next meal is coming from.

And welfare!!!! People do ok on welfare???? I bet you have no idea what the monthly allotment of food stamps is for a family of 4.

 

[Perados]

That's deceitful. Emergency visits are fast everywhere. Responsiveness is about operation and outpatient services - such as wisdom teeth extraction, specialist visits, even mental healthcare more or less! For example, the chances of receiving a heart or lung transplant through the UNOS is much more likely than through Canada or EU. We're not talking about a Rx or an emergency visit which have been dealt heavy blows, we're talking about open heart surgery, kidney transplants, etc. There's a noticeable difference in response times between America and other countries when it comes to this. My grandpa, for example, was able to schedule a hip replacement within only two weeks of knowing he needed one. For some countries, this process could take up to 5 months.

Correct, it is likely that you will have to wait 5 month for an operation. - but you only have to wait so long, as long as you don't have to fear to die during this time or get harmed. If it's urgent, you can get ANY treatment within 2 weeks as well...

So, the question remains: What is the benefit to get a treatment as fast as possible, if a huge number of people are excluded, because they cant afford it?

Why should I support a system, where I can get a heart treatment in 2 weeks, but my neighbour has to run around with just 9 fingers???



About transplantations:
This has NOTHING to do with the healthcare system, but with the will of people to donate a lunge, heart, kidney or what ever...

And yes, Europeans and in special Germans aren't willing to do so

 

[grandunification]

Because you obviously don't understand that it's very difficult to find decent housing for $300 - $600 per month.
Or that it's difficult to feed, clothe and shelter oneself for less than $400 a month.

That's what you'd have to do if you worked at minimum wage. Do the math.

And no starving people? You have got to be kidding. I don't know where you live but I guarantee I could come to your city and take you on a short tour of neighborhoods, probably not far from wherever you lock your door at night, where people don't know where their next meal is coming from.

And welfare!!!! People do ok on welfare???? I bet you have no idea what the monthly allotment of food stamps is for a family of 4.

Well, as I have mentioned, I have lived on minimum wage for years. I do pretty decent. The poorest people in the US for example are far better off than the wealthy in Venezuela. Sorry, but nobody starves in America, it just doesn't happen. In fact, America is sometimes said to have an obesity problem which has resulted from the easy accessibility of food.

 

[distilledpunk]

Correct, it is likely that you will have to wait 5 month for an operation. - but you only have to wait so long, as long as you don't have to fear to die during this time or get harmed. If it's urgent, you can get ANY treatment within 2 weeks as well...

So, the question remains: What is the benefit to get a treatment as fast as possible, if a huge number of people are excluded, because they cant afford it?

Why should I support a system, where I can get a heart treatment in 2 weeks, but my neighbour has to run around with just 9 fingers???



About transplantations:
This has NOTHING to do with the healthcare system, but with the will of people to donate a lunge, heart, kidney or what ever...

And yes, Europeans and in special Germans aren't willing to do so

Less risk, less development time, less need to rely on disability.

False dichotomy. You could support the commercialized healthcare system and still believe that there is a significant problem with wealth distribution and unchecked price-setting by healthcare oligopolies.

It has a lot to do with transplants, actually. UNOS is a national system that weighs the needs of waiting listees. Doctors aren't applying their patient to one of multiple organizations, they're applying to UNOS. UNOS rose from capitalism and competitive trading, it's like a supermarket to buy donated organs.

 

[Perados]

Well, as I have mentioned, I have lived on minimum wage for years. I do pretty decent. The poorest people in the US for example are far better off than the wealthy in Venezuela. Sorry, but nobody starves in America, it just doesn't happen. In fact, America is sometimes said to have an obesity problem which has resulted from the easy accessibility of food.

Have a look again WHO really has an obesity problem... mainly poor people. Not because they eat too much, but because they can only afford junk food.

And why do you compare the USA with Venezuela? Why not with Bangladesh, in this case the USA would come off even better
No, serious... compare the USA sith Canada, France, Britain, Germany or Japan. This would be a comparison on eye level and would fit what Sanders demands.

 

[Perados]

Less risk, less development time, less need to rely on disability.

False dichotomy. You could support the commercialized healthcare system and still believe that there is a significant problem with wealth distribution and unchecked price-setting by healthcare oligopolies.

and the option to solve this massive failure???

Till now it looks like a commercialized system isn't as good as public healthcare system.
As long as you can't explain how you can run a commercialized system that suppoets 100% of the population, I will stay with a public system.

It has a lot to do with transplants, actually. UNOS is a national system that weighs the needs of waiting listees. Doctors aren't applying their patient to one of multiple organizations, they're applying to UNOS. UNOS rose from capitalism and competitive trading, it's like a supermarket to buy donated organs.

such lists exist in Europe as well...
The problem isn't in relation to the healthcare system, but simply to the amount of donations

 

[PhillyPrick]

I believe that people who are very successful deserve to make more money then others.

HOWEVER, nobody deserves billions of dollars while others are barely making ends meet. Its ridiculous. It's our current system.

There needs to be a lower gap between the rich and the poor.

 

[grandunification]

Have a look again WHO really has an obesity problem... mainly poor people. Not because they eat too much, but because they can only afford junk food.

And why do you compare the USA with Venezuela? Why not with Bangladesh, in this case the USA would come off even better
No, serious... compare the USA sith Canada, France, Britain, Germany or Japan. This would be a comparison on eye level and would fit what Sanders demands.

Britain is probably my favorite country outside the US, but I haven't been there. I would love to visit! Those are all great countries. You know, not a single one of them has the kind of socialism Sanders has talked about. Sanders has actually talked about the greatness of bread lines. He said they're a good thing because in capitalism all the wealth goes to the top and people starve, but socialism gives the food back to the poor. He's a pinko.

 

[distilledpunk]

and the option to solve this massive failure???

Till now it looks like a commercialized system isn't as good as public healthcare system.
As long as you can't explain how you can run a commercialized system that suppoets 100% of the population, I will stay with a public system.
such lists exist in Europe as well...
The problem isn't in relation to the healthcare system, but simply to the amount of donations

My solution, as I mentioned before, would be to follow a five step program:

1. Reverse the decision that corporations are people too. Follow this up by significantly reducing corporate taxes (one of the only ones I can think of, atm, I would keep is the employer match on the FICA withholding).
2. Progressively raise personal taxes. People owe their country, not the other way around.
3. Adjust the minimum wage over a course of 10 years to be $16/hour.
4. Tax all transactions by market need in the US, like the VAT in the UK.
5. Set stock market caps on shares, based on their asset value.

This would eliminate the government strangle on businesses, allowing them to grow, growth of business = more opportunities for people. It would reduce the incentive to liquidate assets, because assets are worth more directly through raising a stock market cap than liquidating which is taxed, and holding money in offshore accounts won't stop a tax placed on any transaction, formulated by market need.

These five steps give money back to the people, provide a strong incentive for employers and investors to GROW instead of paying out dividends every quarter, and reduce overinflation by setting a cap equal to asset value (cf. Sheldon Anderson or GSG).

 

[Perados]

Britain is probably my favorite country outside the US, but I haven't been there. I would love to visit! Those are all great countries. You know, not a single one of them has the kind of socialism Sanders has talked about. Sanders has actually talked about the greatness of bread lines. He said they're a good thing because in capitalism all the wealth goes to the top and people starve, but socialism gives the food back to the poor. He's a pinko.

You maybe try to get some new information about Britain

Even more about Jeremy Corbin