Universal health care in a universe created by God

[Will Bouwman]

Then there are those that provide something that people actually value; you know: Rembrandt, Mozart and the other bloke who did something quite good.

the other bloke was Shen Kuo (who refined the compass for navigation during the Song dynasty)

-Imp

Thanks, I knew there was another one.

[Will Bouwman]

... yadda yadda yadda...

Thank you, I am much the wiser.

[Immanuel Can]

5 trillion/year, minimum, perpetually. Where are you getting it?

The US already spends 4.5 trillion a year on health, and still the Americans who can afford to, have to pay more for insurance premiums than typical national health contributions in the UK.

Yeah, but the NHS is the chronic complaint of Englishmen. Like the Canadian system, it's crashing for lack of resources.

I'm not advocating the American system, either. What I'm pointing out is that there simply is no easy solution. As I've said before, I'd love for everybody to have universal, free healthcare...but no Socialist seems to know HOW the thing could even be done. It doesn't stop them barking, though.

Socialists love easy solutions: they pretend that money is magic and just appears from wishing; they believe the money government tax out of their own people belongs to the government; they believe the government uses their money efficiently, so we should have more government; they believe whatever government media tells them; they believe that wanting something is the same as having a right to it; they think that their elites will look out for their interests; they think that economies can thrive on taking rather than making capital; they think that they can make a better kind of human being; they think that a 100% record of failure is no argument against an idealist political plan...they think any number of things which are simply untrue, and even outright absurd.

But that's what ideological possession does; it lobotomizes all its victims.

Bottom line: any health care solution is going to have to be fiscally sustainable, and perpetually so. That means it's going to take wads and wads of cash, flowing from an unending source of some kind. The problem is, no Socialist has any actual idea where such a source can be located. And the gap between their unrealism and the hard fiscal realities are what crashes the economies of every Socialist state.

It always fails. 100% of the time, it results in disaster. But Socialists never give up. Their ability to deny reality seems infinite. If they could monetize that, maybe they'd finally have their infinite spring of free cash.

[FlashDangerpants]

But that's what ideological possession does; it lobotomizes all its victims.

Didn't somebody recently raise the issue of irony with you?

[Gary Childress]

5 trillion/year, minimum, perpetually. Where are you getting it?

The US already spends 4.5 trillion a year on health, and still the Americans who can afford to, have to pay more for insurance premiums than typical national health contributions in the UK.

Yeah, but the NHS is the chronic complaint of Englishmen. Like the Canadian system, it's crashing for lack of resources.

I'm not advocating the American system, either. What I'm pointing out is that there simply is no easy solution. As I've said before, I'd love for everybody to have universal, free healthcare...but no Socialist seems to know HOW the thing could even be done. It doesn't stop them barking, though.

Socialists love easy solutions: they pretend that money is magic and just appears from wishing; they believe the money government tax out of their own people belongs to the government; they believe the government uses their money efficiently, so we should have more government; they believe whatever government media tells them; they believe that wanting something is the same as having a right to it; they think that their elites will look out for their interests; they think that economies can thrive on taking rather than making capital; they think that they can make a better kind of human being; they think that a 100% record of failure is no argument against an idealist political plan...they think any number of things which are simply untrue, and even outright absurd.

But that's what ideological possession does; it lobotomizes all its victims.

Bottom line: any health care solution is going to have to be fiscally sustainable, and perpetually so. That means it's going to take wads and wads of cash, flowing from an unending source of some kind. The problem is, no Socialist has any actual idea where such a source can be located. And the gap between their unrealism and the hard fiscal realities are what crashes the economies of every Socialist state.

It always fails. 100% of the time, it results in disaster. But Socialists never give up. Their ability to deny reality seems infinite. If they could monetize that, maybe they'd finally have their infinite spring of free cash.

The for-profit model tends to mean that those who cannot afford it, cannot get preventive care. So their experience with healthcare is often landing in the emergency room with an untreated condition that has become potentially life-threatening. In that case, hospitals are legally required to screen and "stabilize" anyone who is having an "emergency" regardless of their ability to pay. However, hospitals will charge the uninsured for the full amount for that procedure. If payment is not made in full, then it might be made through an agreed-upon settlement or by finding assistance from a charity source. And if hospitals do not get a settlement either, then they will turn the bill over to a collections agency along with the best known contact information for the person who couldn't pay it. Funds that are never recovered are factored into the standard price of procedures to be passed on to those who can cover their costs.

In the end, preventive care may never be received by some in the US because hospitals and medical professionals can legally refuse (and often do) to provide it if someone cannot pay. Not sure how that works in Canada.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then there are those that provide something that people actually value; you know: Rembrandt, Mozart and the other bloke who did something quite good.

the other bloke was Shen Kuo (who refined the compass for navigation during the Song dynasty)

-Imp

Thanks, I knew there was another one.

Don't forget Jethro Tull, the guy who not only created a machine to plant parsnips in neat lines, but also the fine art of standing on one leg to play flute.

[Immanuel Can]

The for-profit model tends to mean that those who cannot afford it, cannot get preventive care.

This is true.

And the universal model means the medical system degenerates, and then the country goes bankrupt.

What's the solution? Nobody knows. But the first thing we've got to be realistic about is the fact that facile answers are not good enough.

[Gary Childress]

The for-profit model tends to mean that those who cannot afford it, cannot get preventive care.

This is true.

And the universal model means the medical system degenerates, and then the country goes bankrupt.

What's the solution? Nobody knows. But the first thing we've got to be realistic about is the fact that facile answers are not good enough.

Well, if vital statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and stuff like that are higher in countries with "socialized" medicine, doesn't that serve as adequate proof that healthcare is working better in those countries than in the for-profit model?

[Immanuel Can]

The for-profit model tends to mean that those who cannot afford it, cannot get preventive care.

This is true.

And the universal model means the medical system degenerates, and then the country goes bankrupt.

What's the solution? Nobody knows. But the first thing we've got to be realistic about is the fact that facile answers are not good enough.

Well, if vital statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and stuff like that are higher in countries with "socialized" medicine, doesn't that serve as adequate proof that healthcare is working better in those countries than in the for-profit model?

No, because it things like infant mortality and life expectancy depend heavily on other things. Lifestyle is one of them. And having a relatively harmonious society is another. The absence of abortion is a third. Drugs have a massive impact on health and life expectancy, as does the rate of drinking and smoking. Immigration will change the variables. Rate of violence...percentage driving... family structure...local diseases...There are, in short, so many variables that it's very hard to compare societies, unless you find two that share all the essentials.

But there is one place where there's a good experiment: North and South Korea. Same people, same language, same culture, same history, same location (approximately)...but one Socialist, and one not.

In which one would you wish to live, if you had to?

[Gary Childress]

This is true.

And the universal model means the medical system degenerates, and then the country goes bankrupt.

What's the solution? Nobody knows. But the first thing we've got to be realistic about is the fact that facile answers are not good enough.

Well, if vital statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and stuff like that are higher in countries with "socialized" medicine, doesn't that serve as adequate proof that healthcare is working better in those countries than in the for-profit model?

No, because it things like infant mortality and life expectancy depend heavily on other things. Lifestyle is one of them. And having a relatively harmonious society is another. The absence of abortion is a third. Drugs have a massive impact on health and life expectancy, as does the rate of drinking and smoking. Immigration will change the variables. Rate of violence...percentage driving... family structure...local diseases...There are, in short, so many variables that it's very hard to compare societies, unless you find two that share all the essentials.

But there is one place where there's a good experiment: North and South Korea. Same people, same language, same culture, same history, same location (approximately)...but one Socialist, and one not.

In which one would you wish to live, if you had to?

I would rather live in South Korea; however, South Korea has a "single-payer" universal healthcare system (something like what Medicare for all would be). North Korea is just an out-and-out dungeon. Do you have any examples of entirely for-profit systems that are working better than systems with universal healthcare?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if vital statistics such as life expectancy, infant mortality, and stuff like that are higher in countries with "socialized" medicine, doesn't that serve as adequate proof that healthcare is working better in those countries than in the for-profit model?

No, because it things like infant mortality and life expectancy depend heavily on other things. Lifestyle is one of them. And having a relatively harmonious society is another. The absence of abortion is a third. Drugs have a massive impact on health and life expectancy, as does the rate of drinking and smoking. Immigration will change the variables. Rate of violence...percentage driving... family structure...local diseases...There are, in short, so many variables that it's very hard to compare societies, unless you find two that share all the essentials.

But there is one place where there's a good experiment: North and South Korea. Same people, same language, same culture, same history, same location (approximately)...but one Socialist, and one not.

In which one would you wish to live, if you had to?

I would rather live in South Korea; however, South Korea has a "single-payer" universal healthcare system (something like what Medicare for all would be). North Korea is just an out-and-out dungeon.

Exactly right.

So why opt for Socialism? Would America be better as an "out-and-out dungeon"?

Do you have any examples of entirely for-profit systems that are working better than systems with universal healthcare?

I've said this several times now: at the moment, I have no particular solution, and neither does anybody else.

But I see some of the problems clearly. That's a first step. If you're ever going to solve a problem, you always have to be realistic about the challenges that stand in front of you.

[Will Bouwman]

That's four! Blimey; I'm starting to think Ian Dury might have had a point: https://youtu.be/cY2GmYE_piE?si=_k3HPRj7xa6RSuk4

[phyllo]

I've said this several times now: at the moment, I have no particular solution, and neither does anybody else.

Let's just leave it at "you have no particular solution".

Nuff said.

[Immanuel Can]

I've said this several times now: at the moment, I have no particular solution, and neither does anybody else.

Let's just leave it at "you have no particular solution".

Great. You've got a solution! Let's have it.

Run your numbers by us.

[Walker]

I've said this several times now: at the moment, I have no particular solution, and neither does anybody else.

Let's just leave it at "you have no particular solution".

Great. You've got a solution! Let's have it.

Run your numbers by us.

- Less government in medicine.
- The market will regulate appropriate costs for those getting medical treatment, so that Paul doesn’t need to be robbed because Peter got sick.
- There. No more problem.
- Lots of resistance to that.
- First, the view would have to change.
- Lots of obstacles to prevent such a threat to government fiefdoms.

Some numbers in this link.
https://img.patriotpost.us/01KV62ZMSTEV ... dpr=2&q=50

*

The first step on that fiscal rehabilitation and shifting the view away from the drunken orgy of government spending and fraud would be to eliminate baseline budgeting.
AI: What is baseline budgeting?