• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mitt Romney the next new leader of the free world!!!

Very interesting final point about the survey, but being from 1996 I imagine the figures have changed a lot. I think it's a tough figure to analyse as well, because it's not as if people have a huge amount of excess health spending the way one would on entertainment. It's understandable that the highest paying would get most spending, because those with long term problems likely have to pay the most. For example my mum is quite badly disabled and can spend up to a month at a time in hospital, I shudder to think how much her health care would cost in the US
 
Regarding health care, I also wanted to mention that there is the problem "overtreatment", where unnecessarily risky (and expensive) surgeries are recommended to patients in lieu of more effective and affordable solutions.
I simply don't see how health care and capitalism can go hand-in-hand. Health care should exist to serve the patient to provide preventative health care and diagnosis/treatment of medical issues.

Making profit vs. Caring for patients
Obviously, both can be done, but there is a cost to the patient.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/overtreatment-is-taking-a-harmful-toll/?ref=health
 
The reality is that the private sector, almost without fail, runs more efficiently than the public sector. Unfortunatly, unless you want people in need of emergency care dying on the streets you can't allow the medical profession to be purely a private industry. Hence I feel going completely public is a better option than the half-and-half nature of the American industry
 
Richie said:
The reality is that the private sector, almost without fail, runs more efficiently than the public sector. Unfortunatly, unless you want people in need of emergency care dying on the streets you can't allow the medical profession to be purely a private industry. Hence I feel going completely public is a better option than the half-and-half nature of the American industry
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Sure, government has its bureaucracy, but privatized health insurance just seems like a glorified ponzi scheme at times.
 
The simple fact that in health care, unlike any other private industry, you are obliged to sell your service to someone you know can not or will not pay means that the private efficiency argument falls down. I was just reading in the times about how there are a number of things the US can learn from a number of US insurance companies in terms of efficiency, and I have no doubt there are a number of ways in which US healthcare is run much better than the NHS, but I think the examples are few and far between.
 
Skinhead in a Suit said:
Health care should not be about profitability. Simple.
Click to expand...

Why not? It's a business like any other. Should water or food not be about profitability? Or housing? All are equally, if not more essential for survival.

The desire for profit is what keeps markets competitive and improves quality of service.
 
Richie said:
Why not? It's a business like any other. Should water or food not be about profitability? Or housing? All are equally, if not more essential for survival.

The desire for profit is what keeps markets competitive and improves quality of service.
Click to expand...

You say that, but is this really true?
The whole point of capitalism is that it puts choice in the hands of the consumer. This is assuming that the consumer knows what he/she wants. But when it comes to one's own health, I don't think any citizen is qualified to make informed decisions about how best to treat themselves (unless they of course have a medical degree/knowledge).

A car salesman will always try to sell you the bells and whistles that you don't really need to maximize their profit. Hospitals are guilty of the same thing, except those "extras" could be even more detrimental to you.
 
papaspur said:
You say that, but is this really true?
The whole point of capitalism is that it puts choice in the hands of the consumer. This is assuming that the consumer knows what he/she wants. But when it comes to one's own health, I don't think any citizen is qualified to make informed decisions about how best to treat themselves (unless they of course have a medical degree/knowledge).

A car salesman will always try to sell you the bells and whistles that you don't really need to maximize their profit. Hospitals are guilty of the same thing, except those "extras" could be even more detrimental to you.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree on any single point you make, my comment was just my disagreement that healthcare should be strictly not for profit.
 
papaspur said:
You say that, but is this really true?
The whole point of capitalism is that it puts choice in the hands of the consumer. This is assuming that the consumer knows what he/she wants. But when it comes to one's own health, I don't think any citizen is qualified to make informed decisions about how best to treat themselves (unless they of course have a medical degree/knowledge).

A car salesman will always try to sell you the bells and whistles that you don't really need to maximize their profit. Hospitals are guilty of the same thing, except those "extras" could be even more detrimental to you.
Click to expand...

What if all hospitals had to publish waiting times and satisfaction surveys? Even better, if they publish MRSA and C-Diff rates too.

You could at least then choose where to go. Better hospitals will make more money, worse ones will make less and the competition improves everyone.
 
Richie said:
I don't disagree on any single point you make, my comment was just my disagreement that healthcare should be strictly not for profit.
Click to expand...

I should have written, as you did above, that "healthcare should not be strictly about profitability". Unfortunately, pretty much everything here in the US is about making returns for shareholders rather than the underlying non-quantifiable purpose of the reason for being in business in the first place. The costs of healthcare are astronomical to a point where a sustainable level of "care" being given is not affordable for many people, but at least the shareholders get to take home their annual dividends. That is the problem with the system as it currently is IMO without getting into the finer points.
 
Jurgen the German said:
He has no chance of beating Obama.
Click to expand...

fudge, I REALLY hope you are right, however as I was taking my morning walk, I was passed by a pick-up truck that had a large decal across the top of the front window which read: "All You Need is the Good Lord and a Gun". So there is my vote cancelled out.
 
Excellent discussion between John Stewart and Marco Rubio, a young, aspiring and very eloquent Republican senator from Florida. This may be the first conservative I've seen actually debate John Stewart mano y mano and not lose (ie. he doesn't just repeat the party line)...

[video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-28-2012/exclusive---marco-rubio-extended-interview-pt--1[/video]
 
Cant see that in the UK. Shame.

It baffles me how Republicans seem obsessed with nominating candidates who are (seemingly) idiots. How someone like Michelle Bauchmann ever got elected is beyond me, whenever she quotes history she makes herself look a fool.

I personally really like Chris Christie. Says what he thinks, doesn't take any brick and being a former District Attorney one imagines he will be able to speak publically without falling over himself every five minutes. Would be a refreshing change for the Republican party
 
Just watched that video, and I like Rubio a lot. Spoke very well.

Jon Stewart is flat out wrong on most of his points IMO. He spoke about Microsoft being too dominant and needing regulation which is just flat out rubbish. It wasn't government regulation that broke Microsofts monopoly, its been free market enterprise. 10 years ago they were the biggest tech company, now they would be lucky to crack the Top 3 with the emergence of Google and revival of Apple. It wasn't government regulation which inspired Steve Jobs to create the iPod and iPhone, it was free enterprise.

Even if you look at an area where they were dominant 10 years ago, internet browsing. After they defeated Netscape they had over 90% market share on web browsers, now it is less than 25% with Firefox and Chrome putting out better products and winning customers.
 
Jordinho said:
Microsoft now have to let the user choose which browser to use in Europe at least.
Click to expand...

If you think clicking a pop up the first time you open IE on a new Windows install is what cut the user base from 90% or 15% then you couldn't be more wrong. The legislation was a joke anyway, IE's market share had already fallen to 37% by the time it came in, it was completely unnecessary
 
Richie said:
If you think clicking a pop up the first time you open IE on a new Windows install is what cut the user base from 90% or 15% then you couldn't be more wrong. The legislation was a joke anyway, IE's market share had already fallen to 37% by the time it came in, it was completely unnecessary
Click to expand...

I've never used IE outside school/work computers personally, but I would hope at least some of the more casual users would switch if given the choice. Thought it was meant to be set up so IE didn't get any advantage over the other choices?
 
Jordinho said:
I've never used IE outside school/work computers personally, but I would hope at least some of the more casual users would switch if given the choice. Thought it was meant to be set up so IE didn't get any advantage over the other choices?
Click to expand...

That was indeed the idea of the legislation, but by the time it passed in December 2009 IE had already begun it's fall from grace.

Different websites are showing different stats (hence the fluctuating numbers I've given in previous posts) but all have been quite clear showing the downfall of IE since Firefox entered the marketplace and later, Chrome.

http://www.w3counter.com/trends

I doubt the legislation had anything to do with it, the competition from other browsers is really what has affected the market share
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back