SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:27:31 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Reforming Atlasian Public Health Act of 2014 (Debating)  (Read 9817 times)
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2014, 11:04:54 AM »

Aye, on the assumption that the final version will be simplified.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2014, 12:18:31 PM »

Aye, although AFJ is right, we need to Atlasia-ify this

If it passes I'll introduce an amendment to do so.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2014, 06:28:47 PM »

5-5-0-0

Second one of these today.

Two days left o nthis vote.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2014, 08:27:56 PM »

One day left.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2014, 05:46:35 AM »

Time is up.

Vote on Amendment 60:67 by TNF

Aye (5): Alfred F. Jones, bore, Talleyrand, TNF, and Tyrion
Nay (5): DC al Fine, Goldwater, Lumine, NC Yankee and shua
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (0):

Tied, Cincy you need to end the vote and break the tie of course.

Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2014, 11:54:11 AM »

I hope the Vice President sees the correct course of action and takes Atlasia down the road to single payer health care.
Logged
Cincinnatus
JBach717
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,092
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2014, 05:32:55 PM »

NAY.  

I support single-payer.  I want single-payer.  I don't want this copy and pasted amendment.  The entire reason we have a non-functioning healthcare system as it is, is because of our collective failure to understand what we're passing, and administrating.  If a collective body, or the Senator wants to craft legislation that some Senators will actually read, I will, to the best of my legally granted ability, shove it up the queue.  Focus on the fact that we have an amendment that everyone can grasp, and is readily attainable.       
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2014, 12:06:01 AM »

NAY.  

I support single-payer.  I want single-payer.  I don't want this copy and pasted amendment.  The entire reason we have a non-functioning healthcare system as it is, is because of our collective failure to understand what we're passing, and administrating.  If a collective body, or the Senator wants to craft legislation that some Senators will actually read, I will, to the best of my legally granted ability, shove it up the queue.  Focus on the fact that we have an amendment that everyone can grasp, and is readily attainable.       

How is our current healthcare law 'non-functioning'? 

Enlighten me. 

This has been a long debate and the discussion has meandered frequently, but if you look back to this section I think you'll find an answer.

Yes, I found that thread right after I made my post here, which is why I deleted it. 

Not quickly enough, apparently.  Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2014, 12:39:44 PM »

We have already fixed sixth in thep resent text

I just found something else:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Is this bold meant to be a limit on the reintroduced co-pays?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2014, 12:49:49 PM »

NAY.  

I support single-payer.  I want single-payer.  I don't want this copy and pasted amendment.  The entire reason we have a non-functioning healthcare system as it is, is because of our collective failure to understand what we're passing, and administrating.  If a collective body, or the Senator wants to craft legislation that some Senators will actually read, I will, to the best of my legally granted ability, shove it up the queue.  Focus on the fact that we have an amendment that everyone can grasp, and is readily attainable.       

The President has told me no less than six times privately and twice in public that he opposes single payer.

I look at it like this. What are the priorities we want with healthcare reform?
Lower Costs
Higher Quality
Access for Poor, Mentally ill, Veterans nad Seniors
Focus on early and Preventative care as opposed to Emergency "sick care" when it is more expensive.
Anything I am missing?

We can do all that with a properly functioning public option system. The only difference provided by a single payer system is we all get to pay for Warren Buffet and Bill Gate's Healthcare. If some rich fat cat wants to live a life of excess, he should pay (through the nose at that) on the private market and that way avoid that cost being spread around to everyone else or have it taken from the same source as everyone else. Single Payer doesn't allow for that and so the cost gets eaten by same funding source that is funding everyone else. If cost cutting becomes necessary, chances are the one with the most influence will be the last one to get cut. 
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2014, 12:56:40 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I came up with this outline late last night, so it is rather preliminary. ANHC will almost certainly dominate the market in any case and some regions may just opt for it ot be the only provider.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2014, 01:21:52 PM »

We have already fixed sixth in thep resent text

I just found something else:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Is this bold meant to be a limit on the reintroduced co-pays?

That is how I have always understood it.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2014, 11:58:16 PM »

The goals I have in mind for our healthcare reform are that 1) I don't want to sacrifice quality of care 2) I don't want to nationalize all hospitals; we have many, many prestigious hospitals in universities in this country that offer some of the best care in the world; I don't want to lose that, 3) I don't particularly want to roll back our healthcare system though to where people lose coverage. If there is a way to accomplish all of those things, great. Tongue

I do believe that single payer may be the natural progression from where we are now, but I know very little about healthcare law and at the moment, I am in the middle of my final law exams, and I don't have time to research it till this weekend or next week.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2014, 07:55:22 AM »

I disagree because you got to look at the long term picture and not just the short term picture.

 First off, you are presuming that the non-ANHC heathcare providers would be monolithic, for-profit healthcare, which is not going to be case. Under the outline I posted above, it would be perfectly reasoanble for a region to require all authorized insurance opertations other than ANHC, to be non-profit coorperative, or even offer a public option of their own to compete with ANHC. When you live in a world that is dominated by such non-traditional providers, you are going to see those remaining for-profit operations are going to look and operate much differently, because as Nix said, 1) people can easily choose a gov't or non-profit option and 2) they are deprived of the monopolitistic even oligarchic hold that they hold over the life world of healthcare. In fact I would argue that in a system free of any government involvement, you would actually have no free market just as much as you wouldn't in single payer because you have this tendency to monopolize to a large extent through the provider networks and in real life the gov't has done little to stop that process.

Second of all, you assume that single payer is the natural end state and that it is the preferable end state. If we have it now it is because both, Fritz and Napoleon structured it so that we would have this as the defacto situation. Healthcare, regardless of the "Its a Right" is primarily a responsibility, taken or thrown away whenver you drink a beer, light a cigarette or pig out on junk food. I am for personal responsbility and freedom of choice, but a society on freedom requires that people are held responsible for their own actions. In a system with no premiums, how do you incenvize responsible behavior? How do you put a higher cost, reflective of the cost to society on those who are not? Think of it like the push for a carbon tax, seeing the put a price on the carrying capacity of the environment to handle a particular amount of carbon.

Single Payer is a disaster in the making. The only real presence of a cost cutting measure is the ability of the government to dictate prices to the doctors, nurses, hospitals, suppliers and drug companies. I have no love for any of these has institutions, not even hospitals after what happened last month so I can play that game too, but such is not a good basis for proper policy. What is a good basis is to play out that process of time. The gov't can make it work in the short term defraying the cost of people's poor lifestyle choices, but eventually they will have to choose. They can keep going with the short-term focused cost cutting, and risk people's access from lack of supply as too few go into the profession, develop and produce drugs or manufacture equiptment, or come up with some criteria for the denial of care to certain people.

Unlike some, I do believe that fate is avoidable if we develop a system that provides access to preventative care (done) and prices in poor decisions making with some system of premiums. That way we move towards a lower cost environmnet slowly over time as opposed to having to take the drastic steps at the back end. I think that is far cheaper and more effective care for more people then continuing as we are and one thing is for sure, Single Payer isn't capable of addressing this issue.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2014, 08:03:34 AM »

The consequence of this is that single payer advocates are arguing for reforms that would be less drastic in their effects than the reforms that would be necessary to make Fritzcare compatible with a thriving private insurance market. There isn't really any viable ground between the two.

Since when has Atlasia really give a damn about the drastic consequences of policies it enacts? Fritzcare, as he originally introduced it, was an inoperable mess.  Yet it likely would have passed the Senate in 2009, because people were far more concerned with not voting against the concept universal helathcare, then finding what worked. Fortunately, Franzl and Afleitch did insist on some minimal improvements.

Or how about the transition of tri-care into Fritzcare last year? Rather simplistic approach in my view. Howe about the transition of medicare and medicaid into barely functioning Fritzcare in 2009?

I am confident that if properly structured, we have less to fear from the establishment of exchanges and switching ANHC over to a premium system, then continuing down the single payer road to hell.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2014, 08:10:27 AM »

I have to say, speaking as someone from Britain, this whole debate bemuses me. For one thing the costs of the NHS are, while by no means low, cheaper than in almost every other developed countries. The other point I'd make is people don't not drink beer or not smoke because they think they'll have to pay for it. No one thinks lung cancer is worth smoking but 100 grand in hospital fees are not. As well, a comprehensive, free at the point of delivery healthcare service does not preclude private insurance. In Britain a bit more than 10% of people have private insurance, because it gets you a slightly nicer room, and it's a status symbol, among other things.

I do recognise though that I'm out of the mainstream on this issue, in that I'd prefer to nationalise hospitals, and pay for it out of general taxation, in a similar way to the NHS operates, so I'm not going to try and push that.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2014, 08:16:07 AM »

The goals I have in mind for our healthcare reform are that 1) I don't want to sacrifice quality of care 2) I don't want to nationalize all hospitals; we have many, many prestigious hospitals in universities in this country that offer some of the best care in the world; I don't want to lose that, 3) I don't particularly want to roll back our healthcare system though to where people lose coverage. If there is a way to accomplish all of those things, great. Tongue

1) Then you don't want single payer, it will remove competition, reduce incentives to get early and preventative care, and discourage both supply and research of new and improved procedures, technology and facilities.
2) Then you really don't want single payer. Single payer would essentially mean that gov't would spend about three decades financialliy depriving hospitals as well as all the other facets of healthcare until it realize the hard way that such wouldn't work long term. At that point all the hospitals would likely already have been nationalized because the reimbursements would be too low to sustain them without the treasury eating the red ink.
3) Shua's recommendation I believe, is for a more gradual stair stepping up the premium ladder. Its hard to comapre because the present system is not presently a sliding scale premium one but a sliding scale of benefits. I think there are three, maybe four steps that all drastic, after which supplemental insurance is required (at exhorbinant costs most likely). You could lower the payroll tax (regressive taxation so lowering it helps the poor by default) in a premium system and provide a much more gradual stepping up, easing the pain on the poor and middle class.

I do believe that single payer may be the natural progression from where we are now, but I know very little about healthcare law and at the moment, I am in the middle of my final law exams, and I don't have time to research it till this weekend or next week.

It is not so much knowledge of law (I assume you mean real life law where we are well beyond now) as it is an understanding of economics, monopolies and behavior, such you have showed much understanding of it in other areas in the past so while you are right to want to find out as much as possible, I am sure you possess more then enough basis from which to approach this debate as it is. The confusing part is where it gets into the nature of the disconnect between the product or service being sold and the person buying it becuase insurance, gov't or private is in between, and of course what appears to be a natural tendency towards monopilzation. Single payer doesn't fix the former and is unnecessary to address the latter.

As for the time, that is a problem regardless and unfortunately I am undet the gun myself but from bad weather hence why these are all rather rushed. Wink
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2014, 08:24:23 AM »

I have to say, speaking as someone from Britain, this whole debate bemuses me. For one thing the costs of the NHS are, while by no means low, cheaper than in almost every other developed countries.


This is not the first time I had to contend on the "British Perspective" whilst having a debate over healthcare. Tongue Afleitch was rather forcefull in defending NHS as I recall. It is not just a question of cost, but also cost relative quality. I also recall a substantial controversy surronding some recent reforms to NHS proposed by Cameron. Did these pass and what were they and why was he pushing them?

The other point I'd make is people don't not drink beer or not smoke because they think they'll have to pay for it. No one thinks lung cancer is worth smoking but 100 grand in hospital fees are not.

Then why have taxes worked so well over the last thirty years to reduce smoking? Again you missed my point, it is not so much just about discouraging or incentivizing the use, but also defraying the cost to the general healthcare inflation and to the treasury, since any system we adopt would in effect have substantial government subsization. This way we avoid the risk of reduced access for one person on the account of the actions of another they have nothing to do with.

 
As well, a comprehensive, free at the point of delivery healthcare service does not preclude private insurance. In Britain a bit more than 10% of people have private insurance, because it gets you a slightly nicer room, and it's a status symbol, among other things.

Then NHS is not a pure single payer system by definition, regardless, no?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2014, 08:25:56 AM »

We have already fixed sixth in thep resent text

I just found something else:

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Is this bold meant to be a limit on the reintroduced co-pays?

That is how I have always understood it.

That is still a lot of money for a person below the poverty line. I think about $900 for the lower category, but that is a rough calculation as I am in a hurry.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2014, 09:41:51 AM »

I have to say, speaking as someone from Britain, this whole debate bemuses me. For one thing the costs of the NHS are, while by no means low, cheaper than in almost every other developed countries. The other point I'd make is people don't not drink beer or not smoke because they think they'll have to pay for it. No one thinks lung cancer is worth smoking but 100 grand in hospital fees are not. As well, a comprehensive, free at the point of delivery healthcare service does not preclude private insurance. In Britain a bit more than 10% of people have private insurance, because it gets you a slightly nicer room, and it's a status symbol, among other things.

I do recognise though that I'm out of the mainstream on this issue, in that I'd prefer to nationalise hospitals, and pay for it out of general taxation, in a similar way to the NHS operates, so I'm not going to try and push that.

What's especially amusing about this is that government health care spending as a % of GDP is a bit over 9% in the UK and a bit under 9% in the United States. Yet another 10% of our GDP goes toward health care in the form of private spending... and we have lower life expectancies, more preventable deaths, and higher mortality rates for everything other than cancer.

What I find especially amusing is that you are comparing the pre-Obamcare United States to the NHS Britain when the debate is between a single payer system and a public option.

One of the biggest variablies that are thus not accounted for in the aTlasia-America difference is that we cover preventative care and those with pre-existing conditions, have since 2009, and will continue to under any product resulting from this debate and therein, combined probably with exentuating factors like lifestyle choices and so foth are probably the bulk of the lower outcomes. And as you yourself have pointed out, most of the pre-existing private companies that sap up a lot of the private side of that are also gone. It is frnkaly and apples to oranges compairson.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2014, 04:45:46 PM »

I have to say, speaking as someone from Britain, this whole debate bemuses me. For one thing the costs of the NHS are, while by no means low, cheaper than in almost every other developed countries.


This is not the first time I had to contend on the "British Perspective" whilst having a debate over healthcare. Tongue Afleitch was rather forcefull in defending NHS as I recall. It is not just a question of cost, but also cost relative quality. I also recall a substantial controversy surronding some recent reforms to NHS proposed by Cameron. Did these pass and what were they and why was he pushing them?
Have you ever wondered why both me and afleitch, despite him being a torie and me a labour supporter who disagree on almost everything, both support the NHS so strongly Tongue

The Cameron reforms basically made GPs like businessman who bought their own services, and generally marketized the NHS. They were initially far more radical, but public outcry watered them down at least twice. As for why he supported them, my answer would be because he's an idealogue who is emotionally attached to the idea of a free market.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why have taxes worked so well over the last thirty years to reduce smoking? Again you missed my point, it is not so much just about discouraging or incentivizing the use, but also defraying the cost to the general healthcare inflation and to the treasury, since any system we adopt would in effect have substantial government subsization. This way we avoid the risk of reduced access for one person on the account of the actions of another they have nothing to do with. [/quote]
Taxes work well because they are an immediate cost to the buyer, increasing the cost of healthcare doesn't because it is a possible cost 30 years down the line, so people don't factor it in. I'd be willing to bet that the people less able to afford the costs of risky health habits are those most likely to have risky health habits- people aren't rational accountants.

I accept that if there was a real shortage of medicines or services then single payer is basically subsidising some people over others- although I think that's true for any system, it's just different people get discriminated against. Besides, I don't think that's it's all that big a problem anyway- certainly in Britain there is not really a problem of "deserving" people losing out on treatment to "undeserving" people.

 
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then NHS is not a pure single payer system by definition, regardless, no?
[/quote]

It depends how you define single payer. Wikipedia seems to think it is, because the government is the single payer for all healthcare, but I think this is more a semantic dispute than anything.
Logged
Fmr. Pres. Duke
AHDuke99
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,019


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -3.13

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2014, 05:51:49 PM »

I just want to say I am open to any and all ideas so long as they can reasonably meet the criteria I set forth in my previous post. I am far from an ideologue on this because I know very little about it. I want what is best for the people in general, but I also want to preserve or even increase our quality of care in the process.

I think this is a discussion we need to have and we need to be open to all options. The facts show that our healthcare system is in dire need of an overhaul, and I want to make that a goal of mine before I leave office. Once I have more free time after this weekend when exams are over, I will do some research myself so I can better understand our options.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2014, 09:43:48 PM »

All that I'll say is that it'd be very strange for most people to buy insurance when we have a public option that - at least on paper - provides a better quality of care at a lower cost than most health insurance plans did prior to Fritzcare's enactment.

Maybe these benefits are not actually what they appear to be, and maybe providers are skirting the law and discriminating in favor of patients with private insurance. But if Fritzcare is working in the way that it's intended to work, few people would have any reason to seek out private insurance.

Moreover you'd expect massive adverse selection problems in the private market because the people who find purchasing additional insurance worthwhile are probably using a lot more health care than those who do not. If we haven't wiped out the private health insurance industry completely, the prices that the remaining firms charge will be extremely high.

I'm not especially sympathetic to the insurance industry. But we need to understand how Fritzcare is working if we're going to have this single payer vs. reformed Fritzcare debate. Yankee is correct insofar as a generous, free, and universally available public option is almost functionally indistinguishable from true single payer. The primary difference is that we haven't actually banned private insurance, but as we've likely driven most or all insurance companies out of business, the distinction is mostly a matter of principle.

The consequence of this is that single payer advocates are arguing for reforms that would be less drastic in their effects than the reforms that would be necessary to make Fritzcare compatible with a thriving private insurance market. There isn't really any viable ground between the two.

There is a reason for many people to purchase private insurance in the current set-up, which is that above a certain income level, the government benefits leave a whole lot left to pay.  You are correct though that this provides an adverse selection problem.  You may be right that creating a subsidized private option as I have suggested is a more radical change at this point than moving to full single-payer, though that's not enough to stop me from wanting to try to do it.  It seems like some sort of sliding-scale premium is being put forward as the middle ground - whether or not that's viable I don't know.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: May 01, 2014, 10:21:34 AM »

I said "US" in that post rather than Atlasia deliberately. I didn't mean to confuse by mentioning a RL issue, but you implied in an earlier post that single payer produces worse outcomes, and this example shows that that claim is false.

I've been deliberately cagey about what I favor in Atlasia, because I'm not exactly sure. To clarify, I lean toward supporting Fritzcare with reforms to encourage healthier behaviors, but with the understanding that this will probably lead toward government ownership of many hospitals and the effective end of private health insurance. But I'm not necessarily satisfied with that outcome, so I remain undecided.

relative to what? Worse relative to what, Nix? Where did I say NHS Britain was worse then pre-Obamacare US?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2014, 10:29:31 AM »

I have to say, speaking as someone from Britain, this whole debate bemuses me. For one thing the costs of the NHS are, while by no means low, cheaper than in almost every other developed countries.


This is not the first time I had to contend on the "British Perspective" whilst having a debate over healthcare. Tongue Afleitch was rather forcefull in defending NHS as I recall. It is not just a question of cost, but also cost relative quality. I also recall a substantial controversy surronding some recent reforms to NHS proposed by Cameron. Did these pass and what were they and why was he pushing them?
Have you ever wondered why both me and afleitch, despite him being a torie and me a labour supporter who disagree on almost everything, both support the NHS so strongly Tongue

The Cameron reforms basically made GPs like businessman who bought their own services, and generally marketized the NHS. They were initially far more radical, but public outcry watered them down at least twice. As for why he supported them, my answer would be because he's an idealogue who is emotionally attached to the idea of a free market.

What would Afleitch say about why Cameron was pushing them? or Cameron himself? Tongue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why have taxes worked so well over the last thirty years to reduce smoking? Again you missed my point, it is not so much just about discouraging or incentivizing the use, but also defraying the cost to the general healthcare inflation and to the treasury, since any system we adopt would in effect have substantial government subsization. This way we avoid the risk of reduced access for one person on the account of the actions of another they have nothing to do with.
Taxes work well because they are an immediate cost to the buyer, increasing the cost of healthcare doesn't because it is a possible cost 30 years down the line, so people don't factor it in. I'd be willing to bet that the people less able to afford the costs of risky health habits are those most likely to have risky health habits- people aren't rational accountants.

I accept that if there was a real shortage of medicines or services then single payer is basically subsidising some people over others- although I think that's true for any system, it's just different people get discriminated against. Besides, I don't think that's it's all that big a problem anyway- certainly in Britain there is not really a problem of "deserving" people losing out on treatment to "undeserving" people.[/quote]

A premium surchage, whilst still on a sliding scale basis mind you to factor in the financial situation obviously, is not a direct cost to the buyer? Insurance companies are pricing into the premiums the risk these activities pose, Life insurance has done it for quite a while.

Maybe not, but it is a substnatial source of the overall cost of healthcare and the inflation and one of the reason America dwarfs those of other countries, aside from not covering the cheaper earlier treatments, is a culture that some objective people might say is rather irresponsbile or even stupid, to the point that they probably need as much of a kick in the ass as possible, financially or otherwise. One thing I do think Atlasia probalby does still possess from America is that.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then NHS is not a pure single payer system by definition, regardless, no?

It depends how you define single payer. Wikipedia seems to think it is, because the government is the single payer for all healthcare, but I think this is more a semantic dispute than anything.
[/quote]

I disagree, if there is a still a healthcare insurance market and insurance is not banned from private sources, that makes it far more of a market dominating public option then "Single-payer" as I would understand it.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.