HEALTH CARE - User fees

[SirJosephPorter]

Singapore has user-fees too, yet it also have universal health care. So while I agree that the US system is a shambles and certainly not to be emulated, we can't say it's all because of user-fees otherwise the Singaporean system wouldn't be so great either. I think the problem in the US has to do with a combination of user-fees and other things.

Singapore is a tiny nation (a city state) and a dictatorships besides, Singapore is hardly relevant to any discussion about health care. If they ever have any problems such as cost overrun, shortage of doctors etc., all they have to do is pass a draconian law (raising taxes, or mandating that so many graduates must go to medical schools etc.) to solve the problem.

Like China's one child policy. When you compare a democracy to a dictatorship, you are comparing apples with oranges.

 

[L Gilbert]

USA has come up with very few good ideas of late, Machjo. It did in the 70s (civil rights, women’s’ rights, gay rights, environmentalism etc.). Of late, its ideas have been tax cuts resulting in huge deficits, Iraq invasion, its insane health care system.

If US comes up with a good idea, I have no problem adopting it. The problem is, it has come up with very few good ideas lately.

lol And you'd only admit this if a syphilitic leftie like Obammy is prez. If a Rep prez came up with a couple good ideas, you'd turn yourself inside out before admitting it. lmao

 

[Machjo]

I could see an effective system being put in place with or without user fees, but I don't see why we have to deny one side's legitimate arguments just because we don't like the ideology it's associated with.

 

[L Gilbert]

Singapore is a tiny nation (a city state) and a dictatorships besides, Singapore is hardly relevant to any discussion about health care. If they ever have any problems such as cost overrun, shortage of doctors etc., all they have to do is pass a draconian law (raising taxes, or mandating that so many graduates must go to medical schools etc.) to solve the problem.

Like China's one child policy. When you compare a democracy to a dictatorship, you are comparing apples with oranges.

A real democracy like Switzerland's or a plutarchy like ours?

 

[L Gilbert]

I could see an effective system being put in place with or without user fees, but I don't see why we have to deny one side's legitimate arguments just because we don't like the ideology it's associated with.

Me either. That's just a fool's game.

 

[Machjo]

Singapore is a tiny nation (a city state) and a dictatorships besides, Singapore is hardly relevant to any discussion about health care. If they ever have any problems such as cost overrun, shortage of doctors etc., all they have to do is pass a draconian law (raising taxes, or mandating that so many graduates must go to medical schools etc.) to solve the problem.

So you're saying that if a dictatorship comes up with a good idea, we must absolutely reject it because it comes from a dictatorship? non sequitur.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Now going on to user fees, they have both advantages and disadvantages. As for advantages, they make people think twice about going to the doctor's for a cold.

That is not an advantage Machjo, that is a disadvantage. It may prevent people from visiting the doctor for cold, but it also will keep them from visiting the doctor when they have a legitimate illness, or for pre and post natal care, for preventive care (pap smear, cancer testing etc.).

I fail to see how you regard that as an advantage.

 

[L Gilbert]

That is not an advantage Machjo, that is a disadvantage. It may prevent people from visiting the doctor for cold, but it also will keep them from visiting the doctor when they have a legitimate illness, or for pre and post natal care, for preventive care (pap smear, cancer testing etc.).

I fail to see how you regard that as an advantage.

rofl
That's not surprising. You seem to think the gov't covering someone showing up in emerg (or even their doc's office) with a headcold is a valid reason for going to emerg. Blinder than a deaf bat.
Never mind that the $500 a day our doc would get could alleviate some of her equipment costs (or other overhead).

 

[Machjo]

Also, the argument of a small vs large nation doesn't hold either. Sweden's health care system is more decentralized than Singapore's because it's a bigger country obviously. And ours even bigger. However, what would be stopping us from borrowing ideas from Singapore and simply incorporating them into a more decentralized and democratic systmem? Besides, Singapor's system itself was originally based on the British system which is similar to ours, and then they'd incorporated some American ideas into it while keeping the best of the British system. So are you saying that while democratic ideas are compatible with a totalitarian health care system, that health care ideas coming from totalitarian regimes cannot be compatible with democratic ones? Whether you're aware of it or not, you're then praising totalitarian systems for being more open to new ideas!?

 

[Machjo]

That is not an advantage Machjo, that is a disadvantage. It may prevent people from visiting the doctor for cold, but it also will keep them from visiting the doctor when they have a legitimate illness, or for pre and post natal care, for preventive care (pap smear, cancer testing etc.).

I fail to see how you regard that as an advantage.

The second part you mention is a legitimate disadvantage worth considering. However, the part about sniffles is still an advantage.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So you're saying that if a dictatorship comes up with a good idea, we must absolutely reject it because it comes from a dictatorship? non sequitur.

What I am saying is that if an idea works in a dictatorship (like user fee in Singapore) that doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in a democracy (like China's one child policy).

 

[Machjo]

rofl
That's not surprising. You seem to think the gov't covering someone showing up in emerg (or even their doc's office) with a headcold is a valid reason for going to emerg. Blinder than a deaf bat.
Never mind that the $500 a day our doc would get could alleviate some of her equipment costs (or other overhead).

This is the first time I read the expression 'blinder than a deaf bat'. But it made me laugh. I'll remember that.

 

[L Gilbert]

Also, the argument of a small vs large nation doesn't hold either. Sweden's health care system is more decentralized than Singapore's because it's a bigger country obviously. And ours even bigger. However, what would be stopping us from borrowing ideas from Singapore and simply incorporating them into a more decentralized and democratic systmem? Besides, Singapor's system itself was originally based on the British system which is similar to ours, and then they'd incorporated some American ideas into it while keeping the best of the British system. So are you saying that while democratic ideas are compatible with a totalitarian health care system, that health care ideas coming from totalitarian regimes cannot be compatible with democratic ones? Whether you're aware of it or not, you're then praising totalitarian systems for being more open to new ideas!?

Yup. Canada can always modify an idea to make it fit. Very few systems are completely rigid.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The second part you mention is a legitimate disadvantage worth considering. However, the part about sniffles is still an advantage.

Perhaps. But taken overall, it is a huge disadvantage. If user fees keep 100 patients with sniffles away form doctor's office, but leads to one or two more cancer cases, the health care system is hugely worse off than if there had not been any user fee.

In spite of all the bluster and bravado, nobody has been able to come up with even a single good argument in favor of user fees here (except merely to state that they are for it).

 

[Machjo]

Waht I am saying is that if an idea works in a dictatorship (like user fee in Singapore) that doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in a democracy (like China's one child policy).

Hmmm... isn't the US a democracy with hospital user fees?

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps. But taken overall, ti is a huge disadvantage. If user fees keep 100 patients with sniffles away form doctor's office, but leads to one or two more cancer cases, the health care system is hugely worse off than if there had not been any user fee.

Do you have any statistics on this? And besides, I'm sure most can tell the diffeence between the sniffles and a lump.

 

[L Gilbert]

What I am saying is that if an idea works in a dictatorship (like user fee in Singapore) that doesn't necessarily mean that it will work in a democracy (like China's one child policy).

And it doesn't mean that it wouldn't work either. The solution would be to weigh the pros and cons and see if you can adapt it to fit. Dismissing any of the pros is just stupid.

 

[Machjo]

Very few systems are completely rigid.

Hmmm... depends on how that brain's system is wired... oh, sorry, we weren't talking about cerebral systems, that's right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Whether you're aware of it or not, you're then praising totalitarian systems for being more open to new ideas!?

Totalitarian systems are not more open to ideas. However, when they decide to adopt an idea, there is no debate, it gets adopted with lightening speed.

And that is always an advantage of a dictatorship, things move much more quickly in a dictatorship than they do in a democracy. China was able to adopt one child policy, no way India could have done that.

Anyway, we are going to a party. Bye.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Hmmm... isn't the US a democracy with hospital user fees?

Quite so, and it has serious problems.