Thursday, August 18, 2016

? dependant upon the whims and market?

the long-desired Left-wing dream of a 100% Government health care system across the USA. In doing so he re-stated a core belief of Left-wingers everywhere,.
In my view, the provision of health care cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private insurance companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible
The horror. The horror. One commentator had some fun with this stupidity:
In my view, the provision of gasoline cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private energy companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of housing cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private realty companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
In my view, the provision of bread cannot continue to be dependent upon the whims and market projections of large private food companies whose only goal is to make as much profit as possible.
 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 
Griff (13,957 comments) says:
August 18th, 2016 at 9:18 am

You could instead point to the different costs and outcomes around the globe and think about what is best
Or you could try and answer the question that lies at the core: why is healthcare different that profit screws it up?
The USA has a system very much closer to free market profit based system than us.
Their healthcare public/private spend is about 50:50 – whereas NZ’s is about 80:20. This is a huge difference to you? Having half of a market place occupied by government is “close” to a free-market or worse, Dikensian laissez faire?
That means they have a more efficient cheaper system that result in better outcomes right ?
Nobody would describe the US system as “efficient” – but according to you the degree of government involvement in that market, from almost endlessly prescriptive regulations that try to tell doctors, hospitals and insurers exactly what they can and cannot do, to all that government spending that screws any price signals trying to get through the fog. BTW – all insurer’s premium prices have to approved by state boards – something not heard about when those premiums jump by double digits in one year.
And actually – on actual healthcare outcomes like cancer, surgeries and other stuff that makes people’s lives better – the US has better outcomes than the NZ system, let along the godforsaken NHS in Britain.
Don’t tell me – life expectancy and infant mortality?
Most first world nations have mostly public systems and spend around 10 % of gdp in health care .
We spend 11% in NZ
The USA spends around 17% of its much higher gdp.
Their measurable outcomes are not significantly higher than ours.
In fact in a lot of them they are very much lower
life expectancy
infant mortality…
Ding, ding, ding, ding……. You’re not a Lefty but you repeat classic Lefty talking points rather than thoughtful analysis.
Life expectancy is vastly more impacted by such “public healthcare” as water treatment, sewerage systems and clean food than the healthcare of hospitals and clinics, which is why there was such a jump in life expectancy when the former were developed. Besides which we’re talking about tiny differences between the US and other parts of the West. Margin of error stuff.
As far as infant mortality is concerned there are huge fudge factors involved because of the definition of a “live birth”, which in the US is far more tightly measured than in say – Cuba! Moreover, infant mortality appears to be more affected by demographics, which is why Utah – operating under the same horrible “private” US healthcare system – has infant mortality rates every bit as good as the likes of Western Europe.
Yes the rich in the usa can afford lots of expensive testing and better cancer care in old age.
The non-rich can “afford” this too because they have private healthcare insurance.
The poor rely on charity for even basic service if it is available.
Crap – and has been crap at least since the start of Medicaid by good old LBJ in 1965: a government-funded healthcare system for the poor. If it does not cover them then it can be expanded – and has been. Charity is been a minor and shrinking component of healthcare for the poor ever since 1965.
I will point out that a huge study completed just a few years ago, that tracked a large sample of US poor over many years (almost a decade I think) who used Medicaid compared to those who did not and had no healthcare insurance,revealed the counter-intuitive truth that the latter had better health outcomes. The authors of the study did not expect this and have since been involved in trying to figure out how to tweak Medicaid to avoid this rather terrible result.
The number one cause of bankruptcy in the USA is medical bills.
Another Left-wing talking point based upon a study that failed to track healthcare insurance coverage timing and failed to consider the other factors that had led to bankruptcy. It “chose” healthcare expenses because it was less a study than a narrative.

 tom hunter (7,956 comments) says: 

And if anybody wants to see what government healthcare in action in the US you have four to look at:
1. Medicare:
For the elderly who no longer have employer health insurance coverage and/or cannot afford private. The system works but is effectively out of control on budgets. The government cannot cut because the oldies will kill them: the system cannot keep going as it is without chewing up almost every dollar the government has within a decade. A third rail created by LBJ.
2. Medicaid:
For the poor who can’t jobs with healthcare insurance and cannot buy it themselves. See above. This one can have spending cut by the government. Unfortunately the doctors who provide services then drop out. Another growing healthcare crisis.
3. Veterans Health Administration:
Pimped by Jon Stewart and other lefties endlessly during the Obamacare debate: “Should we not provide the same level of superb healthcare to everybody that we provide to our veterans?” (cure huge, liquid eyes). This system is the closest the USA has to NZ or the UK: government-owned hospitals and clinics with government-employed doctors and nurses, funded by government tax.
It’s fucking awful. So awful that even the Democrats finally yielded on ideology and offered the poor bastards using the system, actual cash they can use to avoid and evade if they’re not getting the medical care they need. Like every such system it’s rationed by command and control rather than price – which is why hundreds of vets have died waiting for treatment and why there have been resignations at the highest levels over lies being told about the queues, as well as punishment of whistle blowers. But many doctors and aministrators who connived in this are still on the job, since the VHS cannot afford to fire them.
4. Obamacare:
A pathetic attempt to screw the private sector system into doing what the government thinks is right via almost endless, prescriptive regulation and rigging the price outcomes. The result has been a small increase in the number of poor covered by health insurance, but with tens of millions still not covered – and at the cost of vast increases in medical costs, premiums, excess (your average struggling family has to spend thousands before the insurance kicks in, even on the lowest “Bronze” plan).
Almost every criticism of Obamacare is turning out to be correct, and if the remaining boast is that more poor people have been covered than before – well that could have been done with vastly less pain, screaming and government idiocy by just expanding the program that already existed for the purpose: Medicaid.
The reason it was not, the reason Obamacare never even tried to attack the problem of employer insurance capture or reduced competition leading to screwed prices and service, is that it was never meant to – since the Left don’t think that “Profit”, or the private sector, should be a major part of the system.
That was an ideological choice, not one based on “real world data to drive policy”.

multiculturalism is inverse of racism and so is intolerant,diversity "favouring" working class

Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 

Odakyu-Sen at 7.49….
Interesting comments. Tolerance, IMHO, is a good quality.
Multiculturalism, which is intolerant of non-multiculturalism, as in Japan and China, is the inverse of racism, which is also intolerant. 

Both want to dictate racial composition.
Odakyu-sen (3,281 comments) says: 
Is it wrong for a society to dictate its racial composition?
Is it more acceptable for some societies to dictate their racial composition than for others to do so?
If so, then which societies would get a “free pass” from the MSM for doing so? And which societies would be ridiculed?
Jack5 (9,428 comments) says: 
Odaky-sen at 8.04
I think societies have the right to decide the racial composition of their societies, but provided they do this in a civilised, humane, and tolerant way – not in the way the Nazis or for example, the Bhutanese, set out to do.
I think further that societies which don’t rationally, coolly, and unemotionally discuss the racial composition they would prefer have the composition set for them by folreigners or by an activist minority, some of whom benefit from change. In NZ’s case this is the small group of real estate agents, immigration consultants, and the liberal-pacifist-religious fanatic minority.
construction building industry, educational language institutions, parties seeking more voters.
Do  other sectors of society get to discuss and have and input?
Inandout (2,513 comments) says: 
Odakyu-sen 7.49: You will note ‘diversity’ in city suburbs almost invariably favours the more working class areas, because working class residents are relatively powerless to fight against their suburbs being overwhelmed by alien cultures. Look toward Parnell, Takapuna, Devonport, Remuera and there will be a sprinkling of multiculturalism, but I can’t imagine those suburbs turning into Mt Roskill type shitholes. The city planners need their escape routes to the leafy streets, whilst the rest of Auckland can bask in the joys of diversity. Ponsonby does have a mosque, but then some rather strange people reside there.