US Health Insurance is Bullshit
Maniakkid25 Offline
#31
Part-time ranter, full-time cricket
*****
Posts:
Threads:
Joined:
Jun 2018
Currently Playing
Lots of different things
Favourite Platform(s)
What answer makes me a hipster?
Pronouns
Any/Any
XP: 5,455
Halloween Birthday Bash Megami Tensei* Final Fantasy 
I have to disagree with Metallix on the point that it would be inefficient and wasteful, merely because of the fact that Europe exists. If it were true that government run medical care were inefficient and wasteful, then we would have seen all the European countries who adopted the system cycle out of it within years. And yet, when UKIP famously campaigned in advocating Brexit, they explicitly said that the money they sent to the EU should be spent on the NHS, the government run health care service. This turned out to be a claim that was bulls***, but it does raise the question of why they would pick that particular organization to campaign with.

Can you find examples of wasteful spending? CERTAINLY! Anything run by anyone will inevitably find themselves throwing money at a bad idea! But, even if the wasteful spending is systemic, those nations have clearly decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. And lest it not be said, the UK is actually rather famous for throwing good money after bad. They did scrap all their VTOL jets before being able to guarantee new ones, leaving a massive hole in their navy for carrier support.

I can actually get much more local, and show a private example of cost-benefit analysis. The grocery store chain that I work at has a policy that, even if you opened and ate from the item, you can return it for a full refund. And yes, we do get cheeky f***ers who decide to eat the vast majority of the item, and then return it for the refund! And yet, despite that being a clear drain on profits, we still maintain it as a policy, because the good will we get from customers for it outweighs the monetary cost we have for having to toss the item.

I don't really want to start going for the economic datasheets, examining economic growth and spending based on datasheets reported out to the World Bank or some such organization. These are just the points that immediately spring to mind for me.
#31
Maniakkid25 Offline
Part-time ranter, full-time cricket
Posts:
Threads:
Joined:
Jun 2018
Currently Playing
Lots of different things
Favourite Platform(s)
What answer makes me a hipster?
Pronouns
Any/Any
Halloween Birthday Bash Megami Tensei* Final Fantasy 
XP: 5,455
I have to disagree with Metallix on the point that it would be inefficient and wasteful, merely because of the fact that Europe exists. If it were true that government run medical care were inefficient and wasteful, then we would have seen all the European countries who adopted the system cycle out of it within years. And yet, when UKIP famously campaigned in advocating Brexit, they explicitly said that the money they sent to the EU should be spent on the NHS, the government run health care service. This turned out to be a claim that was bulls***, but it does raise the question of why they would pick that particular organization to campaign with.

Can you find examples of wasteful spending? CERTAINLY! Anything run by anyone will inevitably find themselves throwing money at a bad idea! But, even if the wasteful spending is systemic, those nations have clearly decided that the benefits outweigh the costs. And lest it not be said, the UK is actually rather famous for throwing good money after bad. They did scrap all their VTOL jets before being able to guarantee new ones, leaving a massive hole in their navy for carrier support.

I can actually get much more local, and show a private example of cost-benefit analysis. The grocery store chain that I work at has a policy that, even if you opened and ate from the item, you can return it for a full refund. And yes, we do get cheeky f***ers who decide to eat the vast majority of the item, and then return it for the refund! And yet, despite that being a clear drain on profits, we still maintain it as a policy, because the good will we get from customers for it outweighs the monetary cost we have for having to toss the item.

I don't really want to start going for the economic datasheets, examining economic growth and spending based on datasheets reported out to the World Bank or some such organization. These are just the points that immediately spring to mind for me.
Quote
Moonface Online
#32
Phoggies!
Administrators
Posts:
Threads:
Joined:
Jun 2018
Currently Playing
Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (PS4) | Binding of Isaac (PC) | Minecraft (PC)
Favourite Platform(s)
PlayStation | Nintendo | PC
Pronouns
he/him
XP: 11,474
Crash Bandicoot Horizon Zero Dawn (Shiny) Minecraft 
Is it government controlled though if it's just publicly funded via taxes? The government would just control the funding, not the service itself, and although there are differences between the two, isn't the government still determining the funds when they're allowing insurance and pharmacy companies to fund them in return of not making changes to healthcare services that would impact the profits of those parties? I suspect I'm painting it too simple, but it feels like the extreme ends are the government abuses the funds and guts the healthcare, or doesn't touch them at all but lets others abuse the funds to inflate prices and line pockets.
[Image: FragrantSorrowfulLeafbird-size_restricted.gif]

I, the Philosophical Sponge of Marbles, send you on a quest for the Golden Chewing Gum of the Whoop-A-Ding-Dong Desert under the sea!
#32
Moonface Online
Phoggies!
Posts:
Threads:
Joined:
Jun 2018
Currently Playing
Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen (PS4) | Binding of Isaac (PC) | Minecraft (PC)
Favourite Platform(s)
PlayStation | Nintendo | PC
Pronouns
he/him
Crash Bandicoot Horizon Zero Dawn (Shiny) Minecraft 
XP: 11,474
Is it government controlled though if it's just publicly funded via taxes? The government would just control the funding, not the service itself, and although there are differences between the two, isn't the government still determining the funds when they're allowing insurance and pharmacy companies to fund them in return of not making changes to healthcare services that would impact the profits of those parties? I suspect I'm painting it too simple, but it feels like the extreme ends are the government abuses the funds and guts the healthcare, or doesn't touch them at all but lets others abuse the funds to inflate prices and line pockets.
Quote


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)