>> (I can't help noticing that not a single one of these systems makes 
>> sense...)
> 
>   While the pages are humoristic, the "pure capitalism" actually *does*
> make sense to me:
> 
>   "You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull."
> 
>   That's rational behavior, looking towards the future and welfare.

Well, that's true I guess.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 02:54, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>
>>          They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that).
>> They're opposed to *universal* health care.
>
>    I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

	Tim answered this.

	Basically, the fear is that it won't work and so everyone will suffer - 
despite it working quite well in so many other countries, and despite 
countries whose overall health improved after switching to universal 
health care.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 04:59, Warp wrote:
>> Yes, because (the argument goes) "if person x doesn't have to pay for it
>> (because they don't have any money), why should I (even though I have
>> more than enough)?  person x is just a lazy deadbeat who's stealing *my*
>> money!"  :P
>
>    If that's someone's honest opinion, it has one major flaw: Basically the
> person is saying that poor people should be left to die because society (in
> other words, the citizens of the country) should have no obligation of
> keeping poor people alive and healthy. In other words, that poor people
> deserve no help from people who can afford helping them.

	Welcome to the US. That is indeed what many say.

	The US does have a government run system of health care for poor 
people. But you have to be quite poor. If you're not that poor, you need 
insurance. And insurance companies are good at denying you coverage. And 
you generally can't rely on the government when that happens.

>    I think Americans should stop complaining about things like taxes. They
> should take a look at Finland, where rich people pay up to 60% of their
> income in taxes. And that's not a typo. Americans have it quite easy with
> their, what, 20% tax roof? They could well increase that a bit.

	They view higher taxes as being anti-capitalist.	

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 05:20, somebody wrote:
>> Your point?
>
> That both systems/implementations are flawed.

	That doesn't make them _equally_ flawed.

	And while I'm fine with the Canadian model, I do have to ask: Why did 
you bring them into the discussion? The proposed health bill is not 
based off of them, and there are other universal health care countries 
that are ranked above Canada.

> Possible in some life threatening cases. But health care is not just about
> keeping dying people alive. Quality of life should be a big part of health
> care. With limited and mismanaged resources, Canada has no option but to act

	And the current model in the US is _precisely_ what makes the quality 
of life worse. It's pretty much established that people with 
serious/chronic illnesses in the US wait much longer to go to the doctor 
than in most of the countries that have universal health care. And all 
studies I've looked at indicate this as one of the reasons spending per 
capita is the highest here: They wait till it becomes more serious and 
thus it's more expensive to treat.

> retroactively and in panic mode, keep pushing life threatening conditions to
> the front of the long and growing wait lines. In the meantime, some in the
> months or years long list either progress to the point of becoming life
> threatening (a mixed blessing, for then they will be pushed to the front),

	Nice in theory. I see little evidence of this. I have close friends 
who've lived in Canada for over a decade now. They haven't encountered 
this. The long wait times are almost always for things that _can_ wait 
that long.

> Recently publicized story (and sometimes mis-publicized as a life
> threatening case):
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.org/patientstories/story-339.html
>
> Sure, it's not life threatening, but if I were in her shoes, I'd not wait to
> risk blindness either, not should I be expected to, in a developed country.

	A number of points:

1. For each horror story you bring to me from Canada, I'll bring 10 more 
of the current system in the US. Statistics do a much better job at 
telling the story than individual cases.

2. As you pointed out, her case is disputed. It doesn't help that she 
continually lied about her condition to the press.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/07/31/medicare-ad-exaggeration523.html

3. Although I think she paid for it - let's not forget that the Mayo 
clinic is a non-profit organization.

> Besides the obvious months and years long waiting lists (6 months for MRI,
> another 2-3 years for surgery is fairly common for knee surgeries, for
> instance), and risks associated with late diagnosis and threatment, the
> inability for a sizeable portion in some provinces of Canadians to have
> access to family practicioners also overburderns an already stretched system
> when patients are more or less left to use emergency rooms for diagnosis.

	I'll grant that. Still: Better to wait than not to get treated at all.

	The ultimate decider is to see the mortality statistics for each 
disease and compare. In some cases, the US was better. But for most 
problems (including, I believe, the two leading causes of death in the 
US), Canada fared better.

> And where exactly do shortage of doctors and nurses come from? Are we saying
> Canadian students are inherently dumber than their US counterparts and
> cannot finish medical school? Of course not, it's mismanagement and/or
> shortage of money. Many doctors and nurses move south of the border because
> they can make more money, work under better conditions (which comes back to
> money)... etc. Like it or not, money is what makes the world go around.

	That's merely because the US is nearby and culturally similar. AFAIK, 
the other industrialized UHC countries don't have a shortage of doctors 
the way Canada does. This isn't simply a problem of government funded 
health care.

	There are other, simpler reasons as well. The US takes foreign educated 
doctors. Canada has much greater restrictions on doctors coming from 
abroad. Hence, it's easy for doctors to leave, but hard to get doctors 
from abroad to come.

> difference may be without distinction anyway. I don't believe Canada's
> health care problems are due to doctors not working directly under
> government payroll. Either implementation could be made to work equally
> well, should there be enough money and good management.

	I'll agree with that.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         It's a question of rates. In the US, the percentage of the overall 
> wealth owned by the top 1% keeps increasing (depending on who you ask - 
> I'm seeing some contradictory figures). That's a net flow in that 
> direction.

  Is that a bad thing? I'm asking that seriously.

  Many people don't like rich people being so rich, and usually their main
motivation for thinking like this is, let's say it frankly, jealousy. They
do not have any *rational* argument.

  Ok, so some people are filthy rich. Does that make your life more
miserable economically? If that 1% of rich people were less rich, would
your life be wealthier by any significant amount? Would it change anything
in your life? Personally I don't really think so.

  A bit of balance between rich and poor can be achieved with progressive
taxing (ie. tax rich people with a higher percentage than poor people),
but that's a dangerous path to follow too far. If you punish rich people
too much with heavy taxes, the economy of your country may suffer. On the
other hand, if people are rewarded for succeeding (in the form of allowing
them to become filthy rich), that may actually improve the country's economy.
People who know how to make money circulate will want to succeed in that
country. If the country imposes heavy penalties on them in the form of taxes,
they may well move to another country and improve that country's economy.

  Is there any rational reason to punish rich people with heavy taxes,
other than jealousy and a generic sentiment of "fairness"?

  (And no, I am not rich. I am currently in a part-time job and I earn
barely enough to cover my living expenses. Yet, I do not have any problem
with some people being filthy rich. They don't harm me, and I have no
reason to be jealous of them. In fact, they may be doing good to me,
indirectly, by keeping the economy running, which means that I have a job.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 08/14/09 04:38, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:17:08 -0500, Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  wrote:
>
>> 	They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have that).
>> They're opposed to *universal* health care.
>
> Could you explain the difference between universal and national to a Brit?

	Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or 
private means).

	National just means, um, national. We have Medicare and Medicaid (one 
for the poor, one for the elderly, I think). To be eligible, assuming 
you're not an older person, you have to be poor. If not, then you're not 
covered unless you purchase insurance (or your employer does).

	And currently, having insurance is not much of a guarantee of anything. 
It's easy for the insurance company to deny coverage.

-- 
Doctor to patient: Although it's nothing serious, let's keep an eye on 
it to make sure it doesn't turn into a major lawsuit.

Post a reply to this message

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You_have_two_cows/26

(page has links to other ones, but in general none are very funny as 
they fail to follow the original 'two cows...' reduction to most basic 
state formula)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You_have_two_cows/26
> 
> (page has links to other ones, but in general none are very funny as 
> they fail to follow the original 'two cows...' reduction to most basic 
> state formula)

What, no combinator calculi?

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a857321$1@news.povray.org...
> On 08/14/09 05:20, somebody wrote:

> And while I'm fine with the Canadian model, I do have to ask: Why did
> you bring them into the discussion? The proposed health bill is not
> based off of them, and there are other universal health care countries
> that are ranked above Canada.

It's an example of a poorer implementation of so called socialized medicine
in a developed country. Yes, there are better examples, but my point is to
emphasize that switching systems is not a guarantee of improvement.

> > retroactively and in panic mode, keep pushing life threatening
conditions to
> > the front of the long and growing wait lines. In the meantime, some in
the
> > months or years long list either progress to the point of becoming life
> > threatening (a mixed blessing, for then they will be pushed to the
front),

> Nice in theory. I see little evidence of this. I have close friends
> who've lived in Canada for over a decade now. They haven't encountered
> this. The long wait times are almost always for things that _can_ wait
> that long.

Yes, a bum knee or hip won't kill you, nor will even going blind, but I
wouldn't consider waiting several years for those routine surgeries
acceptable health care. Canadian health care is great if you don't need to
see a specialist, and if you were lucky enough to have found a family
doctor, and if you stay healthy in general, needing simple prescriptions
every now and then. Something that actually is the case for majority of
people. But health is one of those things you only deal with when it's gone,
and then the reality may be different.

The same is true for Americans, of course, in that at any given time,
majority of the people don't need or have contact with health care. The only
difference is, they do feel the financial burden of health care explicitly
(instead of through taxes), so it's not easy to forget about health care or
insurance even when one's healthy.

> A number of points:
>
> 1. For each horror story you bring to me from Canada, I'll bring 10 more
> of the current system in the US.

You'd better, just to break even. Population of US is 10 times that of
Canada.

> Statistics do a much better job at telling the story than individual
cases.

Sure, but I would be careful to not limit statistics to mortality rates, but
include quality of health issues like wait list times. That said, when it
comes to things like infant mortality rates, Canada ranks near the bottom,
second to last only to US among OECD nations, IIRC.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a851828@news.povray.org...
> Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

> >         They're not opposed to *national* health care (we already have
that).
> > They're opposed to *universal* health care.

>   I wonder why. Would it be unfair that *all* people could get health care
> for free, that rich and poor people would be treated equally?

Equal treatment is good if it's also good treatment. If it ends up that
everyone is treated equally but badly, fairness all of a sudden becomes
fool's gold.

And no, it's mathematically impossible for *all* people to get health care
for free. Not saying it's a bad thing, but if some people are getting it for
free, some other people are paying extra, for those as well as themselves.

Post a reply to this message