NationStates

Nakena wrote:Healthcare costs in the US are fucked because of the personal costs needed for clerks to figure out the costs and paperwork for billings.

lol mah freez

That bureaucracy spoils everything. If only health care consumers could do business on the barrel-head, and free the market in health services. Fifty bucks for an amputation. Another twenty bucks if you want the barrel head and the axe sterilized. Another ninety for the cauterize and dressing treatment. You can even get cauterization without dressing, just thirty bucks, but you'll have to take a bus across town.

The paperwork overhead is much worse in private insurance than it is in Medicare/Medicaid. If you want that money spent on actual health care, then nationalize the bastards.

Phoenicaea wrote:roman empire collapse was marked by loss of aqueducts and baths, these day ‘public services’, when the roman-barbarian provinces became unable to foresee their maintenance.

i see it is analogue to these days consume essential services frenesia.

"Frenesia" isn't a word, but perhaps it should be. A culture of frenzy ...

I think government foresight tends towards the end of their term. Why do anything with benefits after that? It might be the other party who gets credit. Why do anything with benefits before the next election? It will just get talked down and minimized, by election time.

Corporations are prone to the same problem. To them, the equivalent of winning an election is a high share price in the future. Though to be fair, some of them take a much longer term view than government does.

After all, the decay of public healthcare in the US is a problem for the future. In the recent past (and I think in the near future) public healthcare is on the way up.

^true, first sentence describes what is classically called as ‘tiranny by majority’. not merely the bends of factious majorities, it is widely a decay of ‘republican integrity’.

the second sentence is even more important to describe, and traditionally less investigated. not exhaustive, some scholars give a short summary as a ‘loss of mantainance’ of the capitalist structure.

in that light, the so-called (not a trustable definition for me) capitalism has been well maintained before ‘89 since it had to show better than economic planning.

after the fall of the urss, without restraints it slowly got without a foresee. frenesia means as ‘hurry’, ‘agitation’

Phoenicaea wrote:^true, first sentence describes what is classically called as ‘tiranny by majority’. not merely the bends of factious majorities, it is widely a decay of ‘republican integrity’.

the second sentence is even more important to describe, and traditionally less investigated. not exhaustive, some scholars give a short summary as a ‘loss of mantainance’ of the capitalist structure.

Unsustainability? Capitalism continually recreates itself, though. Being wasteful is hardly even a factor now ... while capitalism in the past was about competition (waste being a disadvantage) it not longer has a competitor. So waste is only profits given up, not a cost.

Industry and services in the various nations no longer competing across national borders, that is. All in common cause, a monopoly, due to the 'glue' of international banking.

in that light, the so-called (not a trustable definition for me) capitalism has been well maintained before ‘89 since it had to show better than economic planning.

after the fall of the urss, without restraints it slowly got without a foresee.

"Lost it's foresight?" I think we agree, though. The USSR was not a good competitor, but competing militarily, the US did have an external 'reference' to measure waste and foresight by. It really is a terrible way to judge the functioning of an economy, though. Government pays ridiculous prices for new weapons. And the technology is not all freely available to industry. Also, besides nukes, arms races usually end badly.

frenesia means as ‘hurry’, ‘agitation’

Just like "frenetic"! I like the word.

^in that case, technological contention between capitalism and planned socialism also determines the history through military as you say, yet i believe what is mostly referred is ‘politically’ natured.

that capitalist chiefs had to show its overall wellness in the political arena, in front of small people prone to communist influence, so for the tight political struggle and the betterments that such strife brings.

for europe said hypothesis is to believe (it was christ against lenin), in america australia i do not know

valuable insight of ‘capitalism that recreates itself’ then, it will merit its own wider debate.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Nakena wrote:Healthcare costs in the US are fucked because of the personal costs needed for clerks to figure out the costs and paperwork for billings.

lol mah freez

That bureaucracy spoils everything. If only health care consumers could do business on the barrel-head, and free the market in health services. Fifty bucks for an amputation. Another twenty bucks if you want the barrel head and the axe sterilized. Another ninety for the cauterize and dressing treatment. You can even get cauterization without dressing, just thirty bucks, but you'll have to take a bus across town.

The paperwork overhead is much worse in private insurance than it is in Medicare/Medicaid. If you want that money spent on actual health care, then nationalize the bastards.

Medicare and Medicaid are not very good. There is a huge market for Medicare supplemental insurance because it is not good on its own. Also the US government is part of the problem.
The US government has a ton of redundant health programs they do not coordinate their billing and record keeping.

But we absolutely need to create a common government wide system of billing and record keeping.
That private companies would be strongly encouraged to use.

You can have a good mixed public abs private system. Some of the best in the world are.

I'm going to make it super simple: all citizens of a nation have a right to receive affordable healthcare. No citizen should have to risk a life of debt that could very well carry over to their children in order to receive life-saving treatments. It is cruel and malevolent to have to subject anyone to such an experience and only a truly broken and corrupt country would permit such a system to exist.

If you do not agree with this simple fact then we have nothing to discuss.

True Refuge wrote:

Celritannia wrote:
I didn't say Germany though, I said the German Model.

I’m unsure how you see importance in that distinction. It’s plainly obvious to anyone with knowledge of the asphyxiation of the independent labor movement in Germany that the social reforms conceded by the state were to undermine workers by weakening labour association, not out of the goodness of politicians hearts. It’s not a source of inspiration unless you desire stepping stones towards the hellish social-corporatism of Scandinavia. This isn’t a major concern anyway - The Housing Question points out the clear relationship between social welfare and wages, and that relationship is not impressive.

Social reforms generally serve the same purpose, although it’s a weird dynamic today because labour movements are so weak that it’s often the interests of the small business owner that workers are roped into supporting. Terrible times.

By any chance, are you an accelerationist? Not to assume, but I’ve heard similar lines of thinking from accelerationists.

Novus America wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
That bureaucracy spoils everything. If only health care consumers could do business on the barrel-head, and free the market in health services. Fifty bucks for an amputation. Another twenty bucks if you want the barrel head and the axe sterilized. Another ninety for the cauterize and dressing treatment. You can even get cauterization without dressing, just thirty bucks, but you'll have to take a bus across town.

The paperwork overhead is much worse in private insurance than it is in Medicare/Medicaid. If you want that money spent on actual health care, then nationalize the bastards.

Medicare and Medicaid are not very good. There is a huge market for Medicare supplemental insurance because it is not good on its own. Also the US government is part of the problem.
The US government has a ton of redundant health programs they do not coordinate their billing and record keeping.

But we absolutely need to create a common government wide system of billing and record keeping.
That private companies would be strongly encouraged to use.

You can have a good mixed public abs private system. Some of the best in the world are.

Supplemental insurance IS "mixed public and private" yet you use it to illustrate the failure of M/M. Why is that?

The public system has to bear a small number of very sick patients, including some who went broke despite having good jobs before. It would be a lot better if that was diluted with equally-funded but much healthier people who are currently in the private system.

I think we can rule out forcing the private funds to take their share of bad-risk people. To force the funds to treat those people to the Medicaid standard would make them under-diagnosed ... 'cos I don't trust doctors that much either. Overbearing private insurance also corrupts doctors, forcing them to make triage decisions by stealth, instead of openly as in a public system. What is best for the patient considering the resources available, clearly discriminates between patients when their ability to pay differs.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:I'm going to make it super simple: all citizens of a nation have a right to receive affordable healthcare. No citizen should have to risk a life of debt that could very well carry over to their children in order to receive life-saving treatments. It is cruel and malevolent to have to subject anyone to such an experience and only a truly broken and corrupt country would permit such a system to exist.

If you do not agree with this simple fact then we have nothing to discuss.

Cool. So who's going to pay?Federal, state or greedy, profit-making hospitals and pharmaceutical companies?

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:I'm going to make it super simple: all citizens of a nation have a right to receive affordable healthcare. No citizen should have to risk a life of debt that could very well carry over to their children in order to receive life-saving treatments. It is cruel and malevolent to have to subject anyone to such an experience and only a truly broken and corrupt country would permit such a system to exist.

If you do not agree with this simple fact then we have nothing to discuss.

Cool. So who's going to pay?Federal, state or greedy, profit-making hospitals and pharmaceutical companies?

The Federal Government should ensure all children under the age of 16, maybe 18, receive healthcare free of charge.

Granted, a Universal Healthcare System would be better, but we have to work within the parameters of what the US has currently.