Universal health care in a universe created by God

[promethean75]

Listen, man, the problem has only ever been how to determine labor value in a labor market that isn't controlled by competing employers that set that wage average through free competition with each other ("I'll pay you a dollar more per hr to work for me, kid. Think about it. Here's my card.")

Presently, there is no planning. What you're worth is what Bob will pay you. No worker councils and russian market analysts needed.

But if you turn the ownership of the means of production over to the employees they gotta figure out what the wages are gonna be... and how do you do that?

Some kind of calculus, bruv. You factor in the cost of the education for the job skill and the number of people who are able to do it. If you've got a very expensive time-consuming education involved and only a small minority are competent enough to receive it, you've got a very valuable type of worker and a good paying field that the communist bastards have an incentive to enter if they are able.

You also gotta prevent that prob Plato pointed out. You can't have workers voting on their own wages because their votes will be biased. I think that was Plato. If not, it should've been. You have committees in other fields determine the wages and salaries of workers. Essentially everybody but you and your coworkers gets to decide what you make.

[Immanuel Can]

Listen, man, the problem has only ever been how to determine labor value in a labor market that isn't controlled by competing employers that set that wage average through free competition with each other ("I'll pay you a dollar more per hr to work for me, kid. Think about it. Here's my card.")

Presently, there is no planning. What you're worth is what Bob will pay you. No worker councils and russian market analysts needed.

But if you turn the ownership of the means of production over to the employees they gotta figure out what the wages are gonna be... and how do you do that?

Some kind of calculus, bruv. You factor in the cost of the education for the job skill and the number of people who are able to do it. If you've got a very expensive time-consuming education involved and only a small minority are competent enough to receive it, you've got a very valuable type of worker and a good paying field that the communist bastards have an incentive to enter if they are able.

It's a tough calculus. You have to figure out, as well, what is worth money. Is it worth money if an employee works overtime? How about if the owner puts himself at considerable risk by borrowing money to invest in growing the business? Is an HR manager or an accountant a real job, or is it only a real job if you bust your knuckles doing it? What about "need": Marx said, "...each according to his need." Well, what a legit "need," and what's just a want, and what's just a whine? And what if one person's work is excessively more important to the success of the project than the low-level labour of another? How do you weigh that? And so on...

You also gotta prevent that prob Plato pointed out. You can't have workers voting on their own wages because their votes will be biased. I think that was Plato. If not, it should've been. You have committees in other fields determine the wages and salaries of workers. Essentially everybody but you and your coworkers gets to decide what you make.

That's going to be a lot of committees. Is having committee meetings to decide if what people do is work, real work? Or is it just a free-time activity? Why can't a committee equally be biased in favour of that which serves that particular committee's own interests, too?

There's a much easier way: the market. If people will pay you to do it, it's work. If they won't, it's not. If it makes you money, it's working; if it doesn't, it ain't working. The market has a marvellous way of telling everybody the truth about what the thing they do is actually worth. And it doesn't require any committees.

[FlashDangerpants]

You seem to know more about it than I do.

Don't let confidence fool you. As usual, Flash is just trolling. You'll find that nothing I said remotely resembled Flash's attempted "summary" of my position. I pointed to things like copayments, limited services, local delivery, no prescriptions, and so forth as evidence of less than "universal" healthcare -- not "boob jobs."

However, if your definition of "universal" allows for such things as copayments, limitations of service, de-centralized delivery, no prescription coverage and so on, you should say so: I will work with the definition you assign.

The reason why every time you make one of your little jokes you attach that stupid little sunglasses smiley to it is because you are unable to detect sarcasm at a human level of understanding and need mechanical signals to realise it's there when you read. Any humans reading my words would know that the unlimited boob jobs for the boys and bunion plasters for the girls remarks were exaggerations for effect. I am not going to change up my whimsical jocular style just because you are a psychopath who struggles to understand the intent of communications written by others.

Obviously I was correct to draw attention to your absolutist fixation on unlimited supply.

[MikeNovack]

However, if your definition of "universal" allows for such things as copayments, limitations of service, de-centralized delivery, no prescription coverage and so on, you should say so: I will work with the definition you assign.

a) Who said no co-payments (we haven't gotten that far)
b) Limitations of service (every single payer system I know of has this at least distinguishing medical requirement vs not). But do note that our multiple payer insurance plans do that also. You never had to have something "pr-approved? (by the insurance company.
c) Many/most are decentralized with respect to providers/care. The only feature common to all is SINGLE PAYER.

d) WHY no prescription coverage? "Eliquis" (generic apixaban not yet allowed in US) so it is VERY pricey. If our insurance didn't pay most of the cost Penny would have to be taking rat poison << No, we'd mange to pay for the Eliquis but it's become a major part of our annual budget -- but MOST could not >> If our Medicaid and/or private insurance plans over prescriptions, why not a single payer plan?

You have some reason for not wanting prescriptions covered? Explain.

[FlashDangerpants]

a) Who said no co-payments (we haven't gotten that far)

Why do you assume all conversations centre themselves around you?

Many of those countries don't use single payer insurance systems by the way. Off the top of my head I know that Holland, Germany and Switzerland all operate competitive health insurance markets. I believe there are several more.

[Immanuel Can]

However, if your definition of "universal" allows for such things as copayments, limitations of service, de-centralized delivery, no prescription coverage and so on, you should say so: I will work with the definition you assign.

a) Who said no co-payments (we haven't gotten that far)

I was speaking to Gary. I'd like to find out what his understanding of "universal health care" includes and does not include.

[Gary Childress]

However, if your definition of "universal" allows for such things as copayments, limitations of service, de-centralized delivery, no prescription coverage and so on, you should say so: I will work with the definition you assign.

a) Who said no co-payments (we haven't gotten that far)

I was speaking to Gary. I'd like to find out what his understanding of "universal health care" includes and does not include.

My understanding of "universal healthcare" is that a "universal" healthcare system is a system that brings about the best healthcare results for a society as a whole. For example, a health care system that resulted in a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy would be less "universal" than a health care system that resulted in a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy of a population. Clearly, the overall results are not producing the greatest amount of health for the society in question, for the society with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

[Immanuel Can]

a) Who said no co-payments (we haven't gotten that far)

I was speaking to Gary. I'd like to find out what his understanding of "universal health care" includes and does not include.

My understanding of "universal healthcare" is that a "universal" healthcare system is a system that brings about the best healthcare results for a society as a whole. For example, a health care system that resulted in a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy would be less "universal" than a health care system that resulted in a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy of a population. Clearly, the overall results are not producing the greatest amount of health for the society in question, for the society with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

What we really need to know is what you think it includes, and what it is free not to include.

For example, is a health care system that has no attached drug plan "universal health care"? Or if it has a copay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it has spending limits, before which or after which, some people are required to pay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it exists alongside a private medical system, is it still "universal health care"? Or if there are procedures it does not cover, is it "universal health care"? Or if not everybody in the nation, for whatever reason, has access to it, is it "universal health care"?

These things are highly relevant, because they will determine how much money is needed in order to produce it and sustain it. They will indicate the economic realities, not mere aspirational hopes and dreams.

[Will Bouwman]

Meanwhile this:

...things like immigration and the mental health and fentanyl crises, which aren't actually even being addressed right now, and will explode the costs if they ever are.

is still wrong.
Anyway:

You seem to know more about it than I do.

Don't let confidence fool you.

That's right Gary Childress, in some cases it's Dunning-Kruger.

As usual, Flash is just trolling. You'll find that nothing I said remotely resembled Flash's attempted "summary" of my position.

Unless you look here:

So "let's give everything free to everybody" is no kind of answer.

So in addition to Mr Can can't do research, Mr Can can't do simple arithmetic, we can add Mr Can can't even remember what he said earlier.

[phyllo]

I was speaking to Gary. I'd like to find out what his understanding of "universal health care" includes and does not include.

My understanding of "universal healthcare" is that a "universal" healthcare system is a system that brings about the best healthcare results for a society as a whole. For example, a health care system that resulted in a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy would be less "universal" than a health care system that resulted in a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy of a population. Clearly, the overall results are not producing the greatest amount of health for the society in question, for the society with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

What we really need to know is what you think it includes, and what it is free not to include.

For example, is a health care system that has no attached drug plan "universal health care"? Or if it has a copay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it has spending limits, before which or after which, some people are required to pay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it exists alongside a private medical system, is it still "universal health care"? Or if there are procedures it does not cover, is it "universal health care"? Or if not everybody in the nation, for whatever reason, has access to it, is it "universal health care"?

These things are highly relevant, because they will determine how much money is needed in order to produce it and sustain it. They will indicate the economic realities, not mere aspirational hopes and dreams.

Wow. After 20 pages ... what is universal health care?

[Gary Childress]

I was speaking to Gary. I'd like to find out what his understanding of "universal health care" includes and does not include.

My understanding of "universal healthcare" is that a "universal" healthcare system is a system that brings about the best healthcare results for a society as a whole. For example, a health care system that resulted in a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy would be less "universal" than a health care system that resulted in a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy of a population. Clearly, the overall results are not producing the greatest amount of health for the society in question, for the society with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

What we really need to know is what you think it includes, and what it is free not to include.

For example, is a health care system that has no attached drug plan "universal health care"? Or if it has a copay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it has spending limits, before which or after which, some people are required to pay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it exists alongside a private medical system, is it still "universal health care"? Or if there are procedures it does not cover, is it "universal health care"? Or if not everybody in the nation, for whatever reason, has access to it, is it "universal health care"?

These things are highly relevant, because they will determine how much money is needed in order to produce it and sustain it. They will indicate the economic realities, not mere aspirational hopes and dreams.

I don't have answers to those questions. I might be in the same boat you are (unless you have answers to the questions you raised). Do you disagree with the statement I made above concerning vital statistics?

As far as realities vs. aspirations go, obviously, aspirations can't always meet reality. However, aspirations are what drive us to improve something.

[phyllo]

I don't have answers to those questions.

When you use a word or phrase, you have some meaning in your mind.

IOW, when you wrote "universal health care", you had some idea of what it is.

So spit it out.

[Immanuel Can]

My understanding of "universal healthcare" is that a "universal" healthcare system is a system that brings about the best healthcare results for a society as a whole. For example, a health care system that resulted in a higher infant mortality rate and lower life expectancy would be less "universal" than a health care system that resulted in a lower infant mortality rate and higher life expectancy of a population. Clearly, the overall results are not producing the greatest amount of health for the society in question, for the society with higher infant mortality and lower life expectancy.

What we really need to know is what you think it includes, and what it is free not to include.

For example, is a health care system that has no attached drug plan "universal health care"? Or if it has a copay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it has spending limits, before which or after which, some people are required to pay, is it "universal health care"? Or if it exists alongside a private medical system, is it still "universal health care"? Or if there are procedures it does not cover, is it "universal health care"? Or if not everybody in the nation, for whatever reason, has access to it, is it "universal health care"?

These things are highly relevant, because they will determine how much money is needed in order to produce it and sustain it. They will indicate the economic realities, not mere aspirational hopes and dreams.

Wow. After 20 pages ... what is universal health care?

Well, he seems to have some special definition that's not automatically clear to everybody. So we need to find out what he's thinking it is.

[Immanuel Can]

As far as realities vs. aspirations go, obviously, aspirations can't always meet reality. However, aspirations are what drive us to improve something.

That is true. But it is also true that aspirations are what made Socialists kill so many people. The unrelenting commitment to an "ideal" that is unattainable made it thinkable for them to murder their opponents. And we see the same thing today, on the Left especially. The rejoicing over the murder of Charlie Kirk, the cries for Trump to be murdered, the rallying cry, "Punch a Nazi" (meaning anybody not okay with the Left's program), all signal unmistakably that the Left remains homicidally inclined.

So be careful what "ideal" you serve. Attainable ideals are good; the unattainable ones can be murderous.

Even in health care, a proposed medical solution to an excessively large clientele has come to be the murder of babies, the elderly and infirm, and even just the depressed. Canada's a cautionary tale, in that regard. And the medical mangling of children in the name of "trans" rights has become one of this century's great evils. There will be more to come, I'm sure...and always in the name of some "ideal."

[Gary Childress]

By "universal" healthcare, I mean a healthcare system relatively equally accessible to everyone in a particular society. As far as copays, drug plans, and the particulars, I couldn't say one way or the other how that should work.