Forums >Off the Beaten Path>A practical application of socialist ideas
Good Bad & The Monkey
A friend posted this on facebook today, and I never thought the example could be this easy to understand. An economics professor at a local college ... no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
A friend posted this on facebook today, and I never thought the example could be this easy to understand.
An economics professor at a local college ... no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Interesting.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Is our government capable of doing this?
There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.
We are always running for the thrill of it
Always pushing up the hill, searching for the thrill of it
Prince of Fatness
Put a man on the moon, back when people thought things were possible instead of being cynical about everything.
I'm not cynical about everything, but one of the things that I am cynical about is how the government manages my money. Guilty as charged there.
And it's too bad, because if the government did manage money well, said money would really go to help our fellow countrymen and not be scarfed up by all of the hands in the cookie jar.
Not at it at all.
Beware, batbear...
That is remarkable... I often wonder how much of China's "success" is truly autocracy and some of the worst capitalist wage slavery in the world.
2014 Goal -- Run 5X per week, pain-free (relatively) by end of summer.
Feeling the growl again
Other nations with universal healthcare are not struggling to keep their system afloat.
With all due respect Ilene, the fact that you would say this indicates that you are not very close to those systems. It's part of my job, I've met with the decision and policy makers of several such systems personally in the last couple years, and they certainly ARE struggling with the budget of their systems, as well as the ethical issues surrounding the need to ration and/or deny care in order to make those systems work.
When budget is a fixed figure, do you treat a cancer patient to extend their life by 1 year or send them to hospice so you can treat 40 diabetics with that same money? These are the kinds of decisions they must make.
This is the ugly truth a lot of Americans don't understand. Universal care is a tradeoff; it does not mean everything for everyone. It means everyone gets some level of service but certain things are rationed or denied. There is literally a value given to a year of human life; if a therapy is too expensive it's denied. If you do not have the money to pay for those services out of pocket, you can't get them. I don't know the current state but when I lived in the Detroit area there were several types of services advertised (MRIs come to mind) and targeted not at US citizens but Canadians, so they could come across the border and pay out of pocket so they wouldn't have to wait months and months to work their way to the front of a waiting list.
Look up breast cancer survival rates and overall survival in the UK. The statistics will speak for themselves.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Best Present Ever
I brought the paper up to show that things are never as simple as we like to think they are, and that the issues are almost never solved by the obvious answers. It's easy to say "There's a housing crisis, so we need to provide safe, affordable housing." I'm curious as to how you would propose doing so. Where is the housing built? How do we support the housing, in terms of maintenance? Are we building new, or adapting existing? What are the effects going to be on the local areas? Do we add residential zoning, or do we remove industrial/business zoned areas and change them to residential? There is already a surplus of homes on the market, and will be for a number of years. The problem is that these homes tend to be in areas where no one wants to live because there are no jobs. On one hand, home ownership helps to develop ties to a community. On the other hand, it acts as an anchor, preventing people from being able to follow the work. In other words, it ends up being a bit of a Catch-22.
I brought the paper up to show that things are never as simple as we like to think they are, and that the issues are almost never solved by the obvious answers. It's easy to say "There's a housing crisis, so we need to provide safe, affordable housing." I'm curious as to how you would propose doing so. Where is the housing built? How do we support the housing, in terms of maintenance? Are we building new, or adapting existing? What are the effects going to be on the local areas? Do we add residential zoning, or do we remove industrial/business zoned areas and change them to residential?
There is already a surplus of homes on the market, and will be for a number of years. The problem is that these homes tend to be in areas where no one wants to live because there are no jobs. On one hand, home ownership helps to develop ties to a community. On the other hand, it acts as an anchor, preventing people from being able to follow the work. In other words, it ends up being a bit of a Catch-22.
I think for the population I'm talking about, home ownership isn't the answer. there's nothing wrong with rental housing per se. The solution is different in different places. Where I am, there are too many single family homes on the market, but almost no where for a single mom with two kids making $30,000 to live. The solutions are varied, and often aren't that expensive -- many people don't need fully subsidized rent for a long time, they need help getting into housing to start with (first and last month's rent, moving expenses, utlity deposits). In any case, my point wasn't that I know a lot about housing policy -- I don't. But it is true that housing is a basic need. Without safe housing, people are at risk for a lot of health problems, among other things. If you are poor, or near poor, living someplace decent is very very difficult. This is a problem I would like to see lots of money put into. As a homeowner with a substantial household income, I get a huge government subsidy in the form of a mortgage tax write off, but when I work with a battered woman trying to find a safe place for her and her kids on her housekeeper's salary, there's nothing? how is that ok?
Where's the best place to look these up....just google?
This is the ugly truth a lot of Americans don't understand. Universal care is a tradeoff; it does not mean everything for everyone. It means everyone gets some level of service but certain things are rationed or denied.
Yes.
But this is true in any capitated healthcare environment. So the question one could ask is this: who is best to make decisions about who gets healthcare resources and who does not? Should the answer be market forces? Insurance companies? Government?
It won't ever be doctors or patients because this is what they are likely to want:
everything for everyone
(That, of course, is an exaggeration; many doctors and patients do likely recognize when care for care's sake does not improve or extend life. However, many do not.)
If you are poor, or near poor, living someplace decent is very very difficult. This is a problem I would like to see lots of money put into. As a homeowner with a substantial household income, I get a huge government subsidy in the form of a mortgage tax write off, but when I work with a battered woman trying to find a safe place for her and her kids on her housekeeper's salary, there's nothing? how is that ok?
I'm not fully against this in principle, but it's in creating incentives to get people off the public dole that I get hung up. There would need to be a good carrot or a good stick. I know one couple who is hard-working and struggling to keep their house but who do not believe in taking any taxpayer money; my wife and I have personally helped them financially in a rough spot or two (the inefficient gov't is not needed when you have a good, tight community). However, I'm aware of another woman locally who quit her (decent paying) job and faked disability (I'll leave out the drama details here), she went on some form of public assistance and they promptly moved her into a bigger house than she had been able to afford on her own, on the taxpayer dime.
I agree with you that housing is a more basic need than healthcare, but I'm a strong believer that (most) people's actions are directly coupled to their incentives, so any taxpayer-funded programs need to be tied to strong incentives to use them to improve one's condition, and then get off...or else.
Yes. But this is true in any capitated healthcare environment. So the question one could ask is this: who is best to make decisions about who gets healthcare resources and who does not? Should the answer be market forces? Insurance companies? Government? It won't ever be doctors or patients because this is what they are likely to want: (That, of course, is an exaggeration; many doctors and patients do likely recognize when care for care's sake does not improve or extend life. However, many do not.)
Well, I think most people would not like it when money (and decided by the gov't) or availability (rationing) is the deciding factor. Rationing also reduces overall quality of care/outcomes as services may not be used at the time they are most impactful (an MRI is of little use in a diagnosis is the injury is no longer correctable by the time the patient gets their MRI).
I don't claim to have the answer....there is not usually a clear answer with these things and it comes down to what benefits you value most and what trade-offs you are willing to accept...but I'd rather see it done on the free market where there are real incentives for innovation and efficiency. This is not meant to say I don't believe in rational regulation to prevent mistreatment of patients or abusive profit motives. Deregulation can be very dangerous; there is a place for them.
Regarding the article, I have read it and it's very good. I agree that, even in less dire circumstances, we over-use healthcare resources in this country. This is why I believe everyone should have enough financial exposure to costs -- you can adjust that for income level -- to make them THINK and want to use those resources efficiently.
I've seen them several times via some of my secondary feeds that I monitor but I do not recall the primary place of publication...so yeah, try google.
rationing
Yeah, see, that's the kicker. Today, there is already substantial rationing for certain high risk, high end services. But right now, the rationing is typically done by commercial payors, without transparency.
Interval Junkie --Nobby
I know National Geographic is a leftist pr0n rag and all, but:
Cost of Healthcare vs Longevity
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
Or Reuters: "U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
Or #OccupyWiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States
My question is always, why do we think the USA has good healthcare? Certainly, we have the top surgeons in the world. And I had lots of cash, I'd hire one. Unfortunately, the likelihood that I will see a top 0.001% thoracic surgeon is nil, unless I happen to have a very interesting heart. More my question would be, how good is the care that I, as a well-insured and hard working citizen, am going to get?
I don't think Universal or For-Profit healthcare is going to change a lot, but why does our healthcare suck so much, and why do we stridently believe it's better?
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
I agree, but is it better for the same thing to be done by the gov't on a much broader scale?
Well, federal and state governments, and Department of Defense divisions such as the VA already do this now, and they do it well. And the process is relatively transparent, and there is a fair appeals process.