4 ms·

> you believe in your side beyond reason I don't believe in anything. Maybe universal healthcare will be possible some day, and even a good thing. Presently, i

by guylhem 14y ago

> you believe in your side beyond reason I don't believe in anything. Maybe universal healthcare will be possible some day, and even a good thing. Presently, in the US, it's a really bad idea. Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea. The best solution to reduce costs? Remove all the legal cruft - including medical boards which create monopolies in labor. Leave maybe only the FDA to evaluate drugs. Let the market sort out the rest - ie deregulate.

infinite8s 14y ago
Seriously? You feel confident enough to evaluate the qualifications of the 'doctor' you've just gone to see about the potentially life-threatening bulge on the side of your neck, which he dismisses as just "an enlarged lymph node, no way its Non-Hodgkins lymphoma", which if caught early enough is totally treatable but if you wait too long is fatal? You really feel qualified to do that?
vacri 14y ago
Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea. Um... what? I'm Australian and have a pretty good idea of the funding of our healthcare system. Can you please explain in better detail how it mooches off our immigration? Also, can you please cite some references showing folks that want to remove coverage from immigrants being sensible economists rather than fringe racists? It seems to me that you're just inventing things out of whole cloth at this point.
- guylhem 14y ago
  I'm not australian so I can't say for sure what's happening down there, but the situation seems very much like France. In Europe, and especially in France, many people share the belief that immigration is causing problems to the healthcare system. Whether they are economists or fringe racists does not matter if they manage to get enough votes. I don't know how frequent racism is in Australia when compared to France - after reading about the riots in the press, along with this recent article which featured a poll, showing 83% thought racism was prevalent I thought it was "very much alive". http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/racism-very-much-alive-in-australia-says-dr-charles-teo/story-fn7x8me2-1226247766763 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/racism-very-much-a... Maybe the press and the polls are inventing things, and my comparison with France is not valid- but since we were talking about Australia, it seemed quite apropos. EDIT: Volpe, please reread the parent comment. The problem is that western countries with diversity and immigration programs are also the ones with universal healthcare, and that there's a trend of resentment against other groups in these countries (quite related !!) that apparently conflict with the basic idea of social spending, and thus universal healthcare. I've made my prediction - that countries with low (or no) growth will either reduce (or maintain low) their diversity and increase social spending, or increase diversity while decreasing social spending. I'll be watching the situation in Europe and North America to see if these predictions happen - using universal healthcare as a proxy to see how social spending evolves. Australia and Canada could give interesting example since they run active immigration programs and enjoy a decent growth - while still harbouring this kind of resentment. I'd be curious to know if growth can be helpful against this trend, or if the trend is stronger than the benefits of growth and will keep developing.
  - Volpe 14y ago
    So I'll paraphrase what you just wrote: France is having some problems that (i think) support my case, and I saw that Australia has some unrelated racism issue, so I concluded that France's healthcare system and Australia's healthcare system are the same. Do you recall my earlier point about you being 'beyond reason' you are just making wild guesses at things, and cherry picking data to support your factually incorrect stance.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The article you posted highlights a peculiarity of the Australian racism debate - most of it is countering the idea that there is no racism in Australia, which is nonsense. There is racism here, just as there is racism everywhere. And it's got nothing to do with social spending - the US harbours quite a lot of racism (much more openly than in Aus) and it hates social spending. Australians are so sensitive about the race issue that most will either say there is no racism or that we're the worst in the world, but the truth is that we have problems, but aren't that bad if you actually start comparing to other countries. We certainly have nothing like France's actual laws on books that single out muslims. But back to the meat of the question, you said this: Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants. How are the immigrants footing the bill? From what you've said above, they're draining the system, not funding it ('causing problems') Also, on the while still harbouring this kind of resentment bit - There is not a country in the world that doesn't have a racism problem nor a population segment that resents foreigners.
lyudmil 14y ago
If you truly believe the market is the best way to sort it out, why not let the government compete? Have a single-payer system and let people opt-in. Also, repeal the laws that currently prohibit the government from negotiating drug prices. In a free market, if I'm a major client, I have some leverage to get preferential rates. Then, I'd be all for the market sorting it out. Would you support something like that? My guess is not, which means you aren't really arguing for deregulation, but for a different kind of regulation.
- guylhem 14y ago
  The government can not "compete" with the free market - because it foots the bill with tax money. One or more non-profits OTOH? For sure I would agree - and if they can get leverage and get preferential rates, good for them.
Volpe 14y ago
> the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants Umm... except they are covered as well... so how does that work?

by guylhem 14y ago

infinite8s 14y ago

Seriously? You feel confident enough to evaluate the qualifications of the 'doctor' you've just gone to see about the potentially life-threatening bulge on the side of your neck, which he dismisses as just "an enlarged lymph node, no way its Non-Hodgkins lymphoma", which if caught early enough is totally treatable but if you wait too long is fatal? You really feel qualified to do that?

vacri 14y ago

Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants, to which some bright bulbs think removing coverage would be another bright idea. Um... what? I'm Australian and have a pretty good idea of the funding of our healthcare system. Can you please explain in better detail how it mooches off our immigration? Also, can you please cite some references showing folks that want to remove coverage from immigrants being sensible economists rather than fringe racists? It seems to me that you're just inventing things out of whole cloth at this point.

guylhem 14y ago
I'm not australian so I can't say for sure what's happening down there, but the situation seems very much like France. In Europe, and especially in France, many people share the belief that immigration is causing problems to the healthcare system. Whether they are economists or fringe racists does not matter if they manage to get enough votes. I don't know how frequent racism is in Australia when compared to France - after reading about the riots in the press, along with this recent article which featured a poll, showing 83% thought racism was prevalent I thought it was "very much alive". http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/racism-very-much-alive-in-australia-says-dr-charles-teo/story-fn7x8me2-1226247766763 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/racism-very-much-a... Maybe the press and the polls are inventing things, and my comparison with France is not valid- but since we were talking about Australia, it seemed quite apropos. EDIT: Volpe, please reread the parent comment. The problem is that western countries with diversity and immigration programs are also the ones with universal healthcare, and that there's a trend of resentment against other groups in these countries (quite related !!) that apparently conflict with the basic idea of social spending, and thus universal healthcare. I've made my prediction - that countries with low (or no) growth will either reduce (or maintain low) their diversity and increase social spending, or increase diversity while decreasing social spending. I'll be watching the situation in Europe and North America to see if these predictions happen - using universal healthcare as a proxy to see how social spending evolves. Australia and Canada could give interesting example since they run active immigration programs and enjoy a decent growth - while still harbouring this kind of resentment. I'd be curious to know if growth can be helpful against this trend, or if the trend is stronger than the benefits of growth and will keep developing.
- Volpe 14y ago
  So I'll paraphrase what you just wrote: France is having some problems that (i think) support my case, and I saw that Australia has some unrelated racism issue, so I concluded that France's healthcare system and Australia's healthcare system are the same. Do you recall my earlier point about you being 'beyond reason' you are just making wild guesses at things, and cherry picking data to support your factually incorrect stance.
- vacri 14y ago
  The article you posted highlights a peculiarity of the Australian racism debate - most of it is countering the idea that there is no racism in Australia, which is nonsense. There is racism here, just as there is racism everywhere. And it's got nothing to do with social spending - the US harbours quite a lot of racism (much more openly than in Aus) and it hates social spending. Australians are so sensitive about the race issue that most will either say there is no racism or that we're the worst in the world, but the truth is that we have problems, but aren't that bad if you actually start comparing to other countries. We certainly have nothing like France's actual laws on books that single out muslims. But back to the meat of the question, you said this: Australia is the token example of what I said above- the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants. How are the immigrants footing the bill? From what you've said above, they're draining the system, not funding it ('causing problems') Also, on the while still harbouring this kind of resentment bit - There is not a country in the world that doesn't have a racism problem nor a population segment that resents foreigners.

lyudmil 14y ago

If you truly believe the market is the best way to sort it out, why not let the government compete? Have a single-payer system and let people opt-in. Also, repeal the laws that currently prohibit the government from negotiating drug prices. In a free market, if I'm a major client, I have some leverage to get preferential rates. Then, I'd be all for the market sorting it out. Would you support something like that? My guess is not, which means you aren't really arguing for deregulation, but for a different kind of regulation.

guylhem 14y ago
The government can not "compete" with the free market - because it foots the bill with tax money. One or more non-profits OTOH? For sure I would agree - and if they can get leverage and get preferential rates, good for them.

Volpe 14y ago

> the bill for its social system is footed by immigrants Umm... except they are covered as well... so how does that work?