|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
| Quote: |
| In the meantime, thousands become unemployed and people lose investments. A major company failing creates a ripple effect that hurts many more than just those employed or invested there. |
Remove the threat of this happening, and remove the incentive for companies to remain competitive and operate at a profit.
| Quote: |
I'm in favor of bailouts providing the following:
Bailout money is prioritized to help working people and investors (in that order). |
Vague. And if you really want to help the working people, you cut taxes and reduce inflationary gov't spending (inflation is what squeezes working people the most, making it more difficult to save any money for a rainy day).
| Quote: |
| Leadership of said company in no way benefits from the bailout. In fact, I'd require the leadership to fork over their fortunes (and in extreme cases face jail time) if a bailout is required. |
Uh huh. And then what? A company without leadership is going to then prosper and become competitive again? New effective leadership is going to want to come into a bankrupt firm being propped up by bailouts (and all the red tape that would entail) and transform it better than private investors (taking a risk with their own money) would? Not going to happen. Having a trough of public funds available is a perfect recipe for corruption, however.
| Quote: |
| Plans are put into place so that the money is paid back (this actually happens a lot). |
Not really. Didn't you read the article about GM still posting losses? The zombie banks can supposedly "pay back" money because they are allowed to create it out of thin air (basically just an accounting trick), but other than that...
| Quote: |
| This way, leadership still has accountability, but the effects on workers and the economy in general are minimized. |
Accountability is best enforced in the free market. Having big brother step in to protect us from reality always has unintended negative consequences and hurts even more people.
Literally the only time I can think of where government is effective at managing the economy is during war. If GM had massive government contracts to build tanks or something (like Boeing has to build jets) they'd probably be thriving (at the public's expense). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
The US has the best hospitals. "Best care" would be an average over all citizens, which the US does not have. Maybe you're thinking of "best possible care", which is irrelevant for someone poor and uninsured.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In the meantime, thousands become unemployed and people lose investments. A major company failing creates a ripple effect that hurts many more than just those employed or invested there. |
Remove the threat of this happening, and remove the incentive for companies to remain competitive and operate at a profit.
|
Not if you incentivize it in other ways...
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm in favor of bailouts providing the following:
Bailout money is prioritized to help working people and investors (in that order). |
Vague. And if you really want to help the working people, you cut taxes and reduce inflationary gov't spending (inflation is what squeezes working people the most, making it more difficult to save any money for a rainy day).
|
No. Most working people don't pay much in taxes; they're already not burdened by them. You help working people by keeping jobs. You do that by not letting major companies go belly up. You ask most working people whether they'd prefer lower taxes or job security, the answer would be clear.
Again, inflation is only bad if wages don't keep pace.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Leadership of said company in no way benefits from the bailout. In fact, I'd require the leadership to fork over their fortunes (and in extreme cases face jail time) if a bailout is required. |
Uh huh. And then what? A company without leadership is going to then prosper and become competitive again? New effective leadership is going to want to come into a bankrupt firm being propped up by bailouts (and all the red tape that would entail) and transform it better than private investors (taking a risk with their own money) would? Not going to happen. Having a trough of public funds available is a perfect recipe for corruption, however.
|
Only if this "trough" has no transparency or accountability.
There are plenty of people who are capable of running a company, such as people in upper management leadership from other companies. I'm not saying we should ban the private sector from getting involved, I'm just saying we shouldn't let huge businesses fail.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Plans are put into place so that the money is paid back (this actually happens a lot). |
Not really. Didn't you read the article about GM still posting losses? The zombie banks can supposedly "pay back" money because they are allowed to create it out of thin air (basically just an accounting trick), but other than that...
|
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/ed-whitacre/ceo-says-gm-has-repaid-government-loans-full/
Basically covers what I think is right and wrong with the situation.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This way, leadership still has accountability, but the effects on workers and the economy in general are minimized. |
Accountability is best enforced in the free market. Having big brother step in to protect us from reality always has unintended negative consequences and hurts even more people.
|
Unintended consequences? Yes. Hurt more people than a company going under? Definitely not.
| visitorq wrote: |
Literally the only time I can think of where government is effective at managing the economy is during war. If GM had massive government contracts to build tanks or something (like Boeing has to build jets) they'd probably be thriving (at the public's expense). |
EPA? FDA? Effective compared to what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
The US has the best hospitals. "Best care" would be an average over all citizens, which the US does not have. Maybe you're thinking of "best possible care", which is irrelevant for someone poor and uninsured. |
The vast majority of Americans enjoy the best healthcare in the world. So no, it is not irrelevant at all. Nationalizing the entire healthcare system, and bringing it down to the level of other countries just so uninsured people (who should be able to afford the "best possible" care in the world, if it were competitively priced) can then have access to inferior, rationed healthcare, is ludicrous. Bring down the price, keep the quality high. In other words, lower licensing restrictions and get rid of excessive regulation. The market will do the rest. Healthcare will never be "free" though.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| In the meantime, thousands become unemployed and people lose investments. A major company failing creates a ripple effect that hurts many more than just those employed or invested there. |
Remove the threat of this happening, and remove the incentive for companies to remain competitive and operate at a profit.
|
Not if you incentivize it in other ways... |
Incentives other than profit? Such as? I can't wait to hear this...
| Quote: |
No. Most working people don't pay much in taxes; they're already not burdened by them. You help working people by keeping jobs. You do that by not letting major companies go belly up. You ask most working people whether they'd prefer lower taxes or job security, the answer would be clear.
Again, inflation is only bad if wages don't keep pace. |
Ignorance. Yes, poor people do pay taxes. Ever heard of sales tax? Inflation is also a tax, since it is caused by government spending.
And inflation does hurt poor people the most, because their wages don't keep pace. Not even close.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Leadership of said company in no way benefits from the bailout. In fact, I'd require the leadership to fork over their fortunes (and in extreme cases face jail time) if a bailout is required. |
Uh huh. And then what? A company without leadership is going to then prosper and become competitive again? New effective leadership is going to want to come into a bankrupt firm being propped up by bailouts (and all the red tape that would entail) and transform it better than private investors (taking a risk with their own money) would? Not going to happen. Having a trough of public funds available is a perfect recipe for corruption, however.
|
Only if this "trough" has no transparency or accountability. |
Welcome to reality. Are you actually unaware of how ridiculously corrupt our government is?
| Quote: |
| There are plenty of people who are capable of running a company, such as people in upper management leadership from other companies. I'm not saying we should ban the private sector from getting involved, I'm just saying we shouldn't let huge businesses fail. |
That's because you don't understand economics. Too big to fail means to big to exist. Free market competition is essential to a healthy economy, always has been, always will be. Propping these companies up is a wasteful policy and doomed to failure (the continued failure of companies like GM proves this). The bailouts were an absolute disgrace.
| Quote: |
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/27/ed-whitacre/ceo-says-gm-has-repaid-government-loans-full/
Basically covers what I think is right and wrong with the situation. |
It's nonsense. GM is still total crap, and despite what the CEO says ( ) the US taxpayer is still out tens of billions. This bloated corpse of a company should be allowed to die (along with all its toxic assets) and something else can rise from its ashes.
[All the Koolaid drinkers who bought the government propaganda and Phil Lebeau's breathless praises of the world's worst automaker (and best channel stuffer) are certainly watching today's inexplicable plunge in GM shares with horror and pure terror. Now that GETCO is out of the picture, having failed to churn the crap out of the $33 IPO price, and keep it at support, ongoing realistic price discovery will soon send shares far, far lower, on both plunging Chinese car demand and dealer "channel stuffing."]
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/shares-bailout-motors-plunge-lowest-post-ipo-price
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This way, leadership still has accountability, but the effects on workers and the economy in general are minimized. |
Accountability is best enforced in the free market. Having big brother step in to protect us from reality always has unintended negative consequences and hurts even more people.
|
Unintended consequences? Yes. Hurt more people than a company going under? Definitely not. |
People will be much better off in the long run. You seem to think giving someone Novacain when they really need a root canal is a "solution". Our economy is going down. The pain train has just about entered the station. Either our economy is going to reorganize itself according to free market principles (suffer some pain short term, but then come roaring back), or most people are going to end up as debt slaves living under martial law (with mass riots etc., just like in Greece and elsewhere). It depends if the corporatist government gets its way or not, but this current set up is not sustainable.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Literally the only time I can think of where government is effective at managing the economy is during war. If GM had massive government contracts to build tanks or something (like Boeing has to build jets) they'd probably be thriving (at the public's expense). |
EPA? FDA? Effective compared to what? |
The EPA and FDA?? You must be JOKING. I couldn't think of more harmful regulatory bodies if I tried (excepting the other federal bodies of course). The environment gets trashed on the government's watch, and we're literally fed poisons in our food and water (with one of the most obese, unhealthy populations in the world). Hmm.
(But at least we still have the most advanced healthcare in the world (for now), if only it were cheaper)... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
How do you judge something like that? You have complained on these boards about how American doctors just hand out pills for anything, which doesn't seem to me to be a wonderful example of healthcare.
What about the aspects which are hard to quantify, such as sympathetic nursing and doctor-patient communication? How do you compare that between countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
How do you judge something like that? You have complained on these boards about how American doctors just hand out pills for anything, which doesn't seem to me to be a wonderful example of healthcare. |
Not sure when I really complained about that per se. Unless you're referring to the discussion about giving psychotropic meds to children etc. Basically I'm all for medicine being cheap, and I don't think prescriptions should be required for anything (ex. when I'm living in Thailand I can buy the generic version of most things over the counter for mere pocket change, and the quality is good). I am against government subsidies for things like vaccines or birth control etc., or especially against granting monopolies to big pharma that allows them to earn record profits through price gouging, while these same companies pay kickbacks to doctors that prescribe all their mind-altering drugs to people. Definitely not my idea of "free market".
| Quote: |
| What about the aspects which are hard to quantify, such as sympathetic nursing and doctor-patient communication? How do you compare that between countries. |
There are quite a few statistics that could show that American healthcare is the most effective. This source has compiled a list of facts, which I will summarize here (see the link for details; its citations are at the bottom):
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K.
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.
Anyway, I'm not saying all US hospitals are the best, or that all hospitals in other countries are inferior (some are quite good), just that the US sets the standard. Without that standard (and all the medical advancements it has brought about), healthcare around the world would arguably be nowhere near the level it is today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
How do you judge something like that? You have complained on these boards about how American doctors just hand out pills for anything, which doesn't seem to me to be a wonderful example of healthcare.
What about the aspects which are hard to quantify, such as sympathetic nursing and doctor-patient communication? How do you compare that between countries. |
US Health System Ranks Last Compared To Other Countries: Studies
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17715.htm
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jaykimf wrote: |
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| akcrono wrote: |
| Important to note that having the best hospitals is not the same as having the best care. The best hospitals means the best care possible, not the best care that most citizens can get. |
The US has the best care. It's just too expensive for many people. Therefore, prices need to come down (supply and demand).
|
How do you judge something like that? You have complained on these boards about how American doctors just hand out pills for anything, which doesn't seem to me to be a wonderful example of healthcare.
What about the aspects which are hard to quantify, such as sympathetic nursing and doctor-patient communication? How do you compare that between countries. |
US Health System Ranks Last Compared To Other Countries: Studies
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17715.htm
U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623 |
Pitiful attempt. Your source (a study by the Commonwealth Fund, which is blatant socialist propaganda) is utterly refuted by the facts presented in my previous post. American medical technology is better in basically every way, but hey we'll just rate it dead last anyway because it has less than "universal" coverage - even though the vast majority of Americans are covered and receive better care (incl. higher cancer survival rates, shorter wait times, higher satisfaction rates reported by patients, much better access to MRIs and CATs etc). Try again.
| Quote: |
| The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found. |
| Quote: |
| The Commonwealth Fund is a private U.S. foundation (specifically, a think tank[1]) whose stated purpose is "to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency", especially for those they consider society's most vulnerable (e.g., low-income Americans and the elderly). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh come on VisitorQ, Jay Kim provided you with evidence and all you can say is it is 'propaganda' - that is not the kind of rational argument I have come to expect from you. You should refute the information or accept it.
Personally, I don't buy that America has the best health care in the world, though I do agree that America does the most health related research in the world.
So, go a head one more time, how is American health care better than other countries? I'd really like to understand. You have already said we have much fewer doctors than in other countries so it cannot be access to health care, is it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Unposter wrote: |
| Oh come on VisitorQ, Jay Kim provided you with evidence and all you can say is it is 'propaganda' - that is not the kind of rational argument I have come to expect from you. You should refute the information or accept it. |
Excuse me? Refute what information? Jaykim links were just a worthless study by a socialist think tank whose stated purpose is to bring about "universal healthcare". Aside from showing no methodology or facts, they magically come to the patently absurd conclusion that US ranks "last" in the developed world  You actually expect me to take it seriously? I know propaganda when I see.
And before that I made a post showing how the US leads the world in many ways.
| Quote: |
Personally, I don't buy that America has the best health care in the world, though I do agree that America does the most health related research in the world.
So, go a head one more time, how is American health care better than other countries? I'd really like to understand. You have already said we have much fewer doctors than in other countries so it cannot be access to health care, is it? |
Did you read my previous post? The one that jaykim skipped over right before he posted his propaganda? My post contained facts. His contained a lot of hot air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
akcrono
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
Incentives other than profit? Such as? I can't wait to hear this...
|
I already said it:
"Leadership of said company in no way benefits from the bailout. In fact, I'd require the leadership to fork over their fortunes (and in extreme cases face jail time) if a bailout is required."
| visitorq wrote: |
Ignorance. Yes, poor people do pay taxes. Ever heard of sales tax? Inflation is also a tax, since it is caused by government spending.
|
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jul/08/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-51-percent-american-households-pa/
Sales tax does not exist in all states. Even for the ones that have it, it makes up a very low percentage of the taxes they pay, since necessities usually aren't taxed.
| visitorq wrote: |
And inflation does hurt poor people the most, because their wages don't keep pace. Not even close.
|
They often do. My state's minimum wage goes up regularly. Teachers (as well as other government workers) have wage increases built into their contracts.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Only if this "trough" has no transparency or accountability. |
Welcome to reality. Are you actually unaware of how ridiculously corrupt our government is?
|
So the problem isn't bailouts, it's the environment that allows corruption.
| visitorq wrote: |
That's because you don't understand economics. Too big to fail means to big to exist. Free market competition is essential to a healthy economy, always has been, always will be. Propping these companies up is a wasteful policy and doomed to failure (the continued failure of companies like GM proves this). The bailouts were an absolute disgrace.
|
A free market regularly allows businesses to become to big. We could either cap how big a company can become, or accept that some will have to get bailed out. I don't think "let them fail and let innocent people suffer needlessly" is an option.
| visitorq wrote: |
It's nonsense. GM is still total crap, and despite what the CEO says () the US taxpayer is still out tens of billions. This bloated corpse of a company should be allowed to die (along with all its toxic assets) and something else can rise from its ashes.
|
In the meantime, many people lose their jobs or are negatively affected by it.
| visitorq wrote: |
[All the Koolaid drinkers who bought the government propaganda and Phil Lebeau's breathless praises of the world's worst automaker (and best channel stuffer) are certainly watching today's inexplicable plunge in GM shares with horror and pure terror. Now that GETCO is out of the picture, having failed to churn the crap out of the $33 IPO price, and keep it at support, ongoing realistic price discovery will soon send shares far, far lower, on both plunging Chinese car demand and dealer "channel stuffing."]
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/shares-bailout-motors-plunge-lowest-post-ipo-price
|
And that is a problem with the management, not with bailouts.
| visitorq wrote: |
People will be much better off in the long run. You seem to think giving someone Novacain when they really need a root canal is a "solution". Our economy is going down. The pain train has just about entered the station. Either our economy is going to reorganize itself according to free market principles (suffer some pain short term, but then come roaring back), or most people are going to end up as debt slaves living under martial law (with mass riots etc., just like in Greece and elsewhere). It depends if the corporatist government gets its way or not, but this current set up is not sustainable.
|
Yes, there is no other possible outcome.
| visitorq wrote: |
The EPA and FDA?? You must be JOKING. I couldn't think of more harmful regulatory bodies if I tried (excepting the other federal bodies of course). The environment gets trashed on the government's watch, and we're literally fed poisons in our food and water (with one of the most obese, unhealthy populations in the world). Hmm.
|
And of course that wouldn't happen without them. They clearly do nothing.
| visitorq wrote: |
(But at least we still have the most advanced healthcare in the world (for now), if only it were cheaper)... |
Which is why it's not the best for everyone. Which is why it's not the best overall. It IS the best for those who have coverage.
| visitorq wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Commonwealth Fund is a private U.S. foundation (specifically, a think tank[1]) whose stated purpose is "to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency", especially for those they consider society's most vulnerable (e.g., low-income Americans and the elderly). |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Fund
|
| Quote: |
| The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit American conservative think tank[1] whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
| Unposter wrote: |
| Oh come on VisitorQ, Jay Kim provided you with evidence and all you can say is it is 'propaganda' - that is not the kind of rational argument I have come to expect from you. You should refute the information or accept it. |
It's exactly the kind of argument I have come to expect from him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Not sure when I really complained about that per se. Unless you're referring to the discussion about giving psychotropic meds to children etc. |
Oh, sorry, I'm mixing you up with another American, who had attended medical school and says that American doctors dish out medicines too freely.
| visitorq wrote: |
There are quite a few statistics that could show that American healthcare is the most effective. This source has compiled a list of facts, which I will summarize here (see the link for details; its citations are at the bottom):
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Could this also be due to the fact that fewer Americans smoke than Europeans? You also have lower life expectancies and a younger population than most European countries, so a combination of more elderly cancer patients and higher levels of smoking will push cancer mortality rates right up. (That's one thing that the Europeans could definitely learn from the USA - how to discourage people from smoking)
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. See above.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Does that reflect need? The example that your source gave (statins) might simply be essential for more patients in the USA, where obesity is a bigger problem, than other countries.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Those are impressive figures for the USA. Does it mean that they have better access, or does it mean that they have simply educated the public more effectively regarding preventitive screening? Whatever the case, it's very positive and there are lessons to be learnt here for other countries.
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Those are self-reported figures. If the USA is anything like the UK, there will be a load of people who couldn't even run for the bus but would deny that they are in poor health.
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. I can well imagine that's true compared to the UK. What about France or Switzerland? The problem with that article is that it just keeps picking a country which the USA outperforms in a certain measure. To do a fair comparison you would need to look at the best 20 or 30 healthcare systems in the world and rank them according to many different criteria. The you'd probably find that the USA leads the way in some respects and other countries are better in others.
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Yes. We want to be more like the French. Also, this is as much to do with perception and expectation as the ACTUAL quality of care (for example, the UK probably has a far more investigative and scaremongering media than many other countries which might pick up or exaggerate the problems which exist in our health system)
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. See my answers to 5 & 7.
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. I can well believe it.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The vast majority? I'm a big admirer of the USA's concentration on R&D in the fields and science and technology, but statements like this completely ignore the international nature of modern scientific research. For example, look the list of Nobel laureates in physiology/medicine and see how many prizes have been shared between scientists either from institutions in different countries or those who have emigrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine
Anyway, I'm not saying all US hospitals are the best, or that all hospitals in other countries are inferior (some are quite good), just that the US sets the standard. Without that standard (and all the medical advancements it has brought about), healthcare around the world would arguably be nowhere near the level it is today. |
And I'm not putting down US hospitals, I'm just saying that all countries need to take a very close look at what should be considered best practice in medicine by comparing different systems and seeing what we can learn from each other. I would also say that the figures you supplied need far greater investigation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| akcrono wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
Incentives other than profit? Such as? I can't wait to hear this...
|
I already said it:
"Leadership of said company in no way benefits from the bailout. In fact, I'd require the leadership to fork over their fortunes (and in extreme cases face jail time) if a bailout is required." |
And how does that apply to the leadership that would be needed to replace them? As for losing their fortunes, the free market would ensure that better than anything (and provide a better incentive for them to not let it get to that state in the first place, than if they expected bailouts to be forthcoming).
| Quote: |
| Sales tax does not exist in all states. Even for the ones that have it, it makes up a very low percentage of the taxes they pay, since necessities usually aren't taxed. |
I see you're trying to backtrack now. So only "some states have it"?
Anyway, you're also missing the obvious point that tax squeezes the middle class and makes them much more vulnerable to sinking into poverty. Rather than having money saved away, that money is taken by the government and wasted.
| Quote: |
| They often do. My state's minimum wage goes up regularly. Teachers (as well as other government workers) have wage increases built into their contracts. |
Patent nonsense. You're living in a dream world if you think wages keep up with inflation. How many people have money saved up or own a house these days, hm? How many people are up to their eyeballs in debt, or living paycheck to paycheck?
You're not fooling anybody.
| Quote: |
| So the problem isn't bailouts, it's the environment that allows corruption. |
Both sides of the same coin.
| Quote: |
| A free market regularly allows businesses to become to big. We could either cap how big a company can become, or accept that some will have to get bailed out. I don't think "let them fail and let innocent people suffer needlessly" is an option. |
More unmitigated nonsense written by someone who knows nothing about economics. It is literally impossible for a business to become "too big" in a free market. They can become "big enough", and for a brief period even resemble a monopoly (while providing the best possible goods or services to the consumer for the best price), but free market competition will inevitably move in and erode their market share. The only way to have a true monopoly is to involve the state. The only (debatable) example of a free-market monopoly in history is De Beers (which is a very unusual example). All other monopolies were either caused by government, or weren't really monopolies (ie. not capable of price gouging or maintaining their overwhelming market share over time without state assistance).
| Quote: |
| In the meantime, many people lose their jobs or are negatively affected by it. |
People are inevitably going to be negatively effected by our corporatist/fascist government system. The point is to fix the problem, not make it worse, as the government always does.
| Quote: |
| And that is a problem with the management, not with bailouts. |
| Quote: |
| And of course that wouldn't happen without them. They clearly do nothing. |
Uh huh. So then why spend billions of dollars having them? And actually, no we wouldn't have things like toxic GMO crud contaminating all our food without the FDA. The FDA is basically just a direct front for Monsanto into the government. It's deplorable and would be better off abolished outright.
| Quote: |
| Which is why it's not the best for everyone. Which is why it's not the best overall. It IS the best for those who have coverage. |
Thank you. Therefore, it is the best, period. Make it cheaper (like it used to be) and problem solved.
That's fine, it matters not at all, since the content in my link did not come from the NCPA, but was written by a medical doctor (whose article was originally published in the Washington Post). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| johnnyenglishteacher2 wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
There are quite a few statistics that could show that American healthcare is the most effective. This source has compiled a list of facts, which I will summarize here (see the link for details; its citations are at the bottom):
Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Could this also be due to the fact that fewer Americans smoke than Europeans? You also have lower life expectancies and a younger population than most European countries, so a combination of more elderly cancer patients and higher levels of smoking will push cancer mortality rates right up. (That's one thing that the Europeans could definitely learn from the USA - how to discourage people from smoking)
Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. See above.
Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Does that reflect need? The example that your source gave (statins) might simply be essential for more patients in the USA, where obesity is a bigger problem, than other countries.
Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Those are impressive figures for the USA. Does it mean that they have better access, or does it mean that they have simply educated the public more effectively regarding preventitive screening? Whatever the case, it's very positive and there are lessons to be learnt here for other countries.
Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Those are self-reported figures. If the USA is anything like the UK, there will be a load of people who couldn't even run for the bus but would deny that they are in poor health.
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. I can well imagine that's true compared to the UK. What about France or Switzerland? The problem with that article is that it just keeps picking a country which the USA outperforms in a certain measure. To do a fair comparison you would need to look at the best 20 or 30 healthcare systems in the world and rank them according to many different criteria. The you'd probably find that the USA leads the way in some respects and other countries are better in others.
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. Yes. We want to be more like the French. Also, this is as much to do with perception and expectation as the ACTUAL quality of care (for example, the UK probably has a far more investigative and scaremongering media than many other countries which might pick up or exaggerate the problems which exist in our health system)
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. See my answers to 5 & 7.
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. I can well believe it.
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The vast majority? I'm a big admirer of the USA's concentration on R&D in the fields and science and technology, but statements like this completely ignore the international nature of modern scientific research. For example, look the list of Nobel laureates in physiology/medicine and see how many prizes have been shared between scientists either from institutions in different countries or those who have emigrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physiology_or_Medicine
Anyway, I'm not saying all US hospitals are the best, or that all hospitals in other countries are inferior (some are quite good), just that the US sets the standard. Without that standard (and all the medical advancements it has brought about), healthcare around the world would arguably be nowhere near the level it is today. |
And I'm not putting down US hospitals, I'm just saying that all countries need to take a very close look at what should be considered best practice in medicine by comparing different systems and seeing what we can learn from each other. I would also say that the figures you supplied need far greater investigation |
Go and read the link I provided in that post. Your questions are answered therein (the list I gave was simplified, the original is provided in the link with more detailed explanations and citations). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johnnyenglishteacher2
Joined: 03 Dec 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Go and read the link I provided in that post. Your questions are answered therein (the list I gave was simplified, the original is provided in the link with more detailed explanations and citations). |
I was replying to the points made in the source article. I have some serious reservations about the conclusions drawn from the data that the writer presents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
