Quote:Im glad you are happy with it, but speak for yourself

I'm curious, what exactly is your source of health care, and why are you happy/dissatisfied with it?. It would give your arguments a bit more perspective.

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco
Im not saying they couldnt, but the real cost of it is going to be high, no matter how you spin it. To present universal coverage somehow as a saving, a win for everyone, and get away with it, well, im amazed.

Because you've studied the numbers, right?

Which numbers? You mean the ones that can be manipulated whichever way you want them to?

I missed it. Did you answer the question I had there?

I saw i question mark, but i didnt see a well-posed question. Hence the call for clarification, but like i suspected, there isnt any.

Quote:Original post by WazzatMan

Quote:Im glad you are happy with it, but speak for yourself

I'm curious, what exactly is your source of health care, and why are you happy/dissatisfied with it?. It would give your arguments a bit more perspective.

My healthcare is largely forced from others at gunpoint. That is enough to make me dissatisfied with it. Me deciding what is best for me, or me delegating those decisions to others on a consensual basis, is completely illigal.

The quality of services is poor, in my opinion. Every stupid little thing, even a five minute consult, has a month of waiting for it, at least. If you have a real problem that will not directly kill you, expect to be waiting a lot.

Expenditures as fraction of GDP may be somewhat lower than in the US, but that doesnt tell a whole lot. I bet they spend very little money on healthcare in north korea too. How much of that difference can be explained in the US not voiding medical patents alone?

Im not saying the US system isnt borked, mind. There are loads of things I think could be changed for the better. Reversing the trend of trying to teach people that saving, insurance and redistribution are one and the same thing would be a good start. Abolishing silly incentives for employer based coverage would be another. Universal coverage isnt one of them though.

Quote:Original post by Eelco
I saw i question mark, but i didnt see a well-posed question. Hence the call for clarification, but like i suspected, there isnt any.

My question pretty obviously could have been answered by any numbers pertaining to "the real cost of it." Also obvious here is your attempt to weasel around answering my question about the specifics of your knowledge.

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco
I saw i question mark, but i didnt see a well-posed question. Hence the call for clarification, but like i suspected, there isnt any.

My question pretty obviously could have been answered by any numbers pertaining to "the real cost of it." Also obvious here is your attempt to weasel around answering my question about the specifics of your knowledge.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of 'the real cost of it'. Such pretense is the domain of Keynesians, remember?

Quote:Original post by Eelco

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco
I saw i question mark, but i didnt see a well-posed question. Hence the call for clarification, but like i suspected, there isnt any.

My question pretty obviously could have been answered by any numbers pertaining to "the real cost of it." Also obvious here is your attempt to weasel around answering my question about the specifics of your knowledge.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of 'the real cost of it'.

Actually, you claim to know that "the real cost of it is going to be high"

Quote:Original post by Eelco
Such pretense is the domain of Keynesians, remember?

What's your excuse for being so pretentious, then?
:oP








Ah well ... in any case, at least you're willing to admit that you're blowing smoke. Bit of respect is due to you for that, I suppose.

Here .... for those that are interested in some of the numbers, a few of those silly "Keynesians" at Harvard studied one aspect where we may be able to save hundreds of billions:

http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/study-shows-us-health-care-paperwork-cost-2943-billion-1999

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco

Quote:Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote:Original post by Eelco
I saw i question mark, but i didnt see a well-posed question. Hence the call for clarification, but like i suspected, there isnt any.

My question pretty obviously could have been answered by any numbers pertaining to "the real cost of it." Also obvious here is your attempt to weasel around answering my question about the specifics of your knowledge.

I dont claim to have any knowledge of 'the real cost of it'.

Actually, you claim to know that "the real cost of it is going to be high"

No knowledge of the real absolute cost, no.

The real relative cost will be high.

Quote:
Ah well ... in any case, at least you're willing to admit that you're blowing smoke. Bit of respect is due to you for that, I suppose.

Yeah, you have yet to admit that. About time.

Quote:Original post by Talroth

Quote:Original post by Eelco
The quality of services is poor, in my opinion. Every stupid little thing, even a five minute consult, has a month of waiting for it, at least. If you have a real problem that will not directly kill you, expect to be waiting a lot.

And this surprises you how? If you're not suffering from something that sounds like it might kill you, then guess what. You can wait.

Thank you for making that decision for me; how kind of you, but i rather have you dont.

Quote:
Don't like waiting? Then tell your local government representative that you want to push for more funding to hire more workers for the health care system, even if it means you get to pay more taxes.

Ill ask for a pink unicorn while im at it.