sure thing, as long as no tax money is used to fund it do whatever you want
crowdfund it if you like. the gov should not be in the insurance business.
oh and if obamacare was so great, why are people crowdfunding thier kids care?
Which part of my post specifically makes me a human second? Is it the law of unintended consequences or my belief that no human life is more sacred than others?
The Beveridge Model
In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government through tax payments, just like the police force or the public library.
Many, but not all, hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government. In Britain, you never get a doctor bill. These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge.
Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include its birthplace Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Hong Kong still has its own Beveridge-style health care, because the populace simply refused to give it up when the Chinese took over that former British colony in 1997. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world’s purest example of total government control.
The Bismarck Model
It uses an insurance system — the insurers are called “sickness funds” — usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.
Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don’t make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model — Germany has about 240 different funds — tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.
The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America.
The National Health Insurance Model
This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there’s no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance.
The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada’s system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated.
The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries — Taiwan and South Korea, for example — have also adopted the NHI model.
The Out-of-Pocket Model
Only the developed, industrialized countries — perhaps 40 of the world’s 200 countries — have established health care systems. Most of the nations on the planet are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. The basic rule in such countries is that the rich get medical care; the poor stay sick or die.
In rural regions of Africa, India, China and South America, hundreds of millions of people go their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. They may have access, though, to a village healer using home-brewed remedies that may or not be effective against disease.
In the poor world, patients can sometimes scratch together enough money to pay a doctor bill; otherwise, they pay in potatoes or goat’s milk or child care or whatever else they may have to give. If they have nothing, they don’t get medical care.
These four models should be fairly easy for Americans to understand because we have elements of all of them in our fragmented national health care apparatus. When it comes to treating veterans, we’re Britain or Cuba. For Americans over the age of 65 on Medicare, we’re Canada. For working Americans who get insurance on the job, we’re Germany.
For the 15 percent of the population who have no health insurance, the United States is Cambodia or Burkina Faso or rural India, with access to a doctor available if you can pay the bill out-of-pocket at the time of treatment or if you’re sick enough to be admitted to the emergency ward at the public hospital.
The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people. All the other countries have settled on one model for everybody. This is much simpler than the U.S. system; it’s fairer and cheaper, too.
Because Obamacare was and is garbage.
Interestingly, even Obama has said that Obamacare was drawn from Romneycare, the Massachusetts plan championed by then-Governor Mitt Romney. But Romneycare was itself derived from the Chafee / Grassley / Durenberger / Hatch Republican alternative to the Clinton plan. The essence of Obamacare is a structure devised in 1993-94 by those Republican senators, then rejected and renounced in apocalyptic terms by Grassley and Hatch. (Durenberger, retired from the Senate and a genuine expert on health policy and reform, took a very different tack from outside the body.)
I can't think of a single example of a parent that has ever valued their lives over those of their children.
It is patently inhuman and frankly rejects biological imperative for the parent to value themselves above their offspring. You will not find a single example that contradicts this in the entirety of the animal kingdom.
So, you aren't a parent. Fine. (I mean, if you are, then what the fuck?) Neither am I, but I also understand that your claim is pure tripe. From a simple, soulless, economic or math position, it is perfectly obvious that a child is more valuable than an adult.
What is the value of a life and what it has left to contribute vs what it can or can't be? As an adult, you understand where you are and what you have left to contribute. You also realize that your time is far, far more limited than that of a child's. With the child, their potential value is essentially always greater than that of the adult, because of the near-limitless possibilities that the child offers. You see, they are not yet determined. The potential value is always going to be far greater than the known, expressly limited quantity of the determined adult.
I find that your comment is an attempt to mask your latent inhumanity behind some perceived nobleness of an asinine political purity that, if fully realized, would paint you as a monster.
You don't get it, of course, but I assure you everyone else does. Or perhaps you are just on the spectrum. I have no idea, really, but there is a clear lack of normal humanity in your words.
I'll score that as a "no".
Although I'm sure examples of this exist, it's irrelevant. You're not asking me to value my child's life over my own (and even then, it's really none of your business), you're asking me to value someone else's child's life over my own, or any other random person. I don't.
You can't think of any species that engages in cannibalism, even towards the young?
sure thing, as long as no tax money is used to fund it do whatever you want
crowdfund it if you like. the gov should not be in the insurance business.
oh and if obamacare was so great, why are people crowdfunding thier kids care?
To answer this question, I have to make assumptions about the mean. It's highly likely that the young adult graduated at least high school and probably has at least some post-secondary education. These are investments that society has placed in this individual. The young child has most likely received far less investment. In other words, it is safe to assume that from a purely economic perspective, losing the young adult represents a far great economic loss than losing the child.
Do you know why rodents eat their own young? I do--perhaps you should ask me how I know...
It's a resource strategy. When they are faced with a pending calorie deficit--poor food stores, sudden dire weather conditions, or stress (nearby predators, for example), they sometimes will eat their young because they know that they won't be able to provide for them and wean them to maturity. It's actually a way to preserve the intense biological cost of producing young and reserving the energy for a more viable time to rear a new litter. Selection and adaptation in unpredictable environments leads to strategies like this, and rodents have been ultimately successful at doing this for tens of millions of years longer than we have been around. But they will also fight off predators when they threaten their young. Many of these species are communal, and show real altruistic behavior towards the young of the community. But yeah, what do they know: it's only worked for some ~60 million years for them.
You are the one that said you valued your life over your child's. You said that "No child's life is more valuable than an adult's. They are all equal."
Yes, it is my business. It is a thought like this that leads to parents drowning their babies in the bathtub due to stress (hey! at least the rodents have the decency to reserve those calories for replacement babies...).
And yes, you should value other children.
You aren't going to be around much longer.
FYGM is what kills humanity.
It is patently inhuman. You defend your inhumanity with a ruinous economic philosophy that seeks to remove the soul from humanity and replace it with nonsense math, because that is somehow more noble but is really just a defense of abject selfishness.
either am I, but I also understand that your claim is pure tripe. From a simple, soulless, economic or math position, it is perfectly obvious that a child is more valuable than an adult.
I have to hand it to you, though: you are thoroughly balls deep into your philosophy, but pretending that this makes you anything less than a monster doesn't fool anyone else.
Unfortunately, your analysis is reliant on multiple assumptions, one of which I have to point out is tremendously flawed. You assume the productivity of an average individual is constant over time. It is not. Please see evaluations of productivity of workers including units like GDP per hour worked from the OECD. This value is not stagnant, it has been steadily increasing over time. In the past twenty years, it has increased by 33%. To take a more extreme example, consider the productivity of the average American in 1930 vs 1950 (Great Depression vs post-WWII boom), it has dramatically increased over time. This will only continue in the future as we increase automation and other methods to enhance worker productivity.
Just as zinfamous, you still completely ignore anything but perceived opportunity cost. The young adult has been the benefactor of actual consumption. And from my perspective, I only get to consume the productivity of today, so hypothetical productivity a future in which I no longer exist is of little value to me, rationally speaking.
I think you should seriously think about what you just wrote, because it is nonsensical and you make so many leaps in logic that you now don't even know what rationale point you are trying to make.
If all you care about is the "productivity of today" and ignore future benefits, then that means the adult has been the larger drain on society, as they have consumed 5 years of pre-elementary school resources, 12-16 years of elementary/secondary/high/college school resources in exchange for only a handful of years of productivity.
The young child has only consumed pre-elementary school resources, meaning he/she has been a smaller drain on society. You can't argue the immediate future benefits of the adult because as you say, you only get to consume "productivity of today."
If you are actually interested in the logic of return of investment, you have to discuss both the costs and benefits. You can't just cover your eyes and say all you care about is today.
The fact that society has invested so much in a young adult is an argument for saving the adult as their total loss would be a loss of all of their hypothetical future productivity plus their past actual consumption.
I can't think of a single example of a parent that has ever valued their lives over those of their children. It is patently inhuman and frankly rejects biological imperative for the parent to value themselves above their offspring. You will not find a single example that contradicts this in the entirety of the animal kingdom.
Of all the things you wrote, this statement epitomizes your illogical conclusion. As I originally wrote, the hypothetical productivity of the child and adult are not equal and is one of many variables that you ignore in your oversimplified scenario. It is absolutely false to assume productivity is stagnant.
Furthermore, with your point that you care about productivity of today, then the past consumption of an individual is a negative value that lowers, not increases, the value of the individual. Education is a societal/individual cost from an economic perspective, the benefit of education is increased future productivity, please do not conflate the two.
No, I'm not. You still, however, have to compare the hypothetical productivity with the hypothetical productivity of the adult combined with actual cost.
A large incurred cost guarantees a huge loss, which I can save. The analogy is about loss prevention (saving one life vs the other) which means measuring total loss. Any incurred/hypothetical losses are measured against incurred/hypothetical gains. The only incurred loss or gain is the cost that has been sunk into the adult. So you have guaranteed loss measured against any hypothetical future gain. You keep looking at it as if it is a forward-looking investment only.
And in that regard it's highly speculative. Productivity gains in the long run have generally increased, but productivity growth in the last several years has been lackluster.
All moot points. Nobody is arguing that productivity of today does not matter. You've shown zero evidence that productivity of tomorrow might not have as high as marginal value compared to today. But all of these points do make one argument, you are essentially pointing out the inherit flaws of your overly simplified example from above.You also have to consider the fact that productivity today has some sort of intrinsic value when compared to productivity tomorrow (although this isn't a TVM discussion). After all, the productivity of tomorrow is likely impossible without the productivity of today. You might also consider that the marginal value of productivity tomorrow might not be as high as today, especially in the face of automation.
To all the conservatives complaining about covering other people, I hope you walk the walk and remove yourself from any form of medical insurance.
I'm not aware of any healthcare system that gives all possible treatments to all citizens.
Your flipping-flopping between time-points indicates exactly what I have already discussed, you haven't seriously considered the logical implications of what you've said.
To summarize, the long-term future gains of a child are significantly greater than long-term future gains of an adult.
When suddenly faced with that fact, you jump to "productivity of today." If you want to evaluate the "productivity of today" instead of forward-looking investments, the costs of the child is significantly less than the adult.
Education by itself is not of any direct benefit to society, its true value is increasing the productivity of the individual. The adult has incurred several years of educational losses on society that the child has not. Therefore, educational costs is detrimental and not a beneficial value when assessing "total loss," and the adult has inflicted greater detrimental costs on society than the child.
Short-term trends do not make a long-term trend. You've provided no evidence that the long-term trend is no increase in productivity.
All moot points. Nobody is arguing that productivity of today does not matter.