1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Aged people are by far the biggest cost on a public health system. Unless it is to become unaffordable, hard choices have to  be made.

What happens when AI means most young people will never work a proper job? "Do you want fries with that" is not going to fund much ( minimum wage ).

There is currently a royal commission into aged care in Australia. Residential nursing homes and the like.

 

Surpise surpise, they are privately run and some are doing an awful job looking after vulnerable pensioners. 

 

Part of the public policy conundrum is keeping older people active for longer. That means building incentives for employers to hold on to older workers who still want to work beyond retirement age. 

 

While costs will get higher from an aging population some of that will be offset by people remaining healthier for longer.

 

And while Australia doesn’t have a National Insurance scheme like the Europeans do (medical care is paid out of the Medicare levy charged to taxpayers and general revenue) a former PM has proposed that maybe we institute NI levy, one that kicks in to help you in your 80s to provide the extra funding that will probably be needed.

On 2/26/2019 at 2:57 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

The Democrats only introduced it because they know it doesn't have a chance in hell of passing.

Maybe, but as they continue to push this issue and more people debate it, eventually even the most DENSE Republican will see how Medicare for all actually LOWERS the cost and IMPROVES the quality of care.

Edited March 2, 20197 yr by quandow

I think one of the biggest problems with society is you have people who have no experience whatsoever, and they are the ones making the decisions. Let the senators go a year or so with no health care, and let's see how they vote at that point.

 

The people who make our decisions need to have some actual perspective. Yet, the reality is, they all drive home in their escalades and have absolutely no understanding of what people are going through. What follows is then uninformed decisions. 

Edited March 2, 20197 yr by direction BANGKOK

24 minutes ago, direction BANGKOK said:

I think one of the biggest problems with society is you have people who have no experience whatsoever, and they are the ones making the decisions. Let the senators go a year or so with no health care, and let's see how they vote at that point.

 

The people who make our decisions need to have some actual perspective. Yet, the reality is, they all drive home in their escalades and have absolutely no understanding of what people are going through. What follows is then uninformed decisions. 

Its even worse than that. 

 

Its like the rest of the developed world has learned to use the wheel. It works well, is efficient and does what it is supposed to do.

 

For some reason, you have a very vocal and well funded group of people there in the US saying ‘wheels won’t work here! They are evil and contrary to our way of living. We’d rather carry things ourselves than use those strange foreign ideas’

7 hours ago, samran said:

Its even worse than that. 

 

Its like the rest of the developed world has learned to use the wheel. It works well, is efficient and does what it is supposed to do.

 

For some reason, you have a very vocal and well funded group of people there in the US saying ‘wheels won’t work here! They are evil and contrary to our way of living. We’d rather carry things ourselves than use those strange foreign ideas’

I totally agree. Whatever the case, I still believe strongly if you are going to write legislation/regulations about the homeless for instance, people who have been homeless should be on the panel. It should not just be a bunch of rich people who drive escalades home. Same with the news... why in the world should i care what Newt Gingrich thinks about health care for poor people... until he is poor, I do not think his opinion even matters. Or, more correctly, his opinion does matter, but it should be balanced out by people who have actual experiences in the areas in question. 

Edited March 2, 20197 yr by direction BANGKOK

On 2/27/2019 at 5:26 AM, webfact said:

It is unlikely to gain the support of any Republicans in the House or the Senate, who have derided single-payer healthcare as a socialist policy and oppose government interference in healthcare. It also remains unclear whether Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will bring the legislation up for a vote.

My friends in Venezuela can tell you all about socialism.  You want fairness in medicines?  Ok, they have none in Venezuela.  No one gets medicine.  That's fair.

53 minutes ago, Otis Cribelcoblis said:

My friends in Venezuela can tell you all about socialism.  You want fairness in medicines?  Ok, they have none in Venezuela.  No one gets medicine.  That's fair.

My friends in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland etc. seem pretty happy with their government's socialist policies.  They seem happy even though they don't live in the greatest  country God ever made. It's hard to understand how that could be so.

1 hour ago, Otis Cribelcoblis said:

My friends in Venezuela can tell you all about socialism.  You want fairness in medicines?  Ok, they have none in Venezuela.  No one gets medicine.  That's fair.

Here's a graph comparing health care costs and effectiveness in developed western countries.  

 

It plots cost of health care  against amenable mortality.  " Amenable mortality" is the number of deaths from causes like infectious disease, diabetes, and so on that are preventable by current health care methods, but have not been  through lack of availability or other health care deficiencies. Therefore the lower the amenable mortality the more effective the health care has been.

 

You will see a group of countries whose health care cost and effectiveness is all grouped approximately together, and whose amenable mortality is also close and goes down rapidly as more money is spent.

These are European countries and Canada. 

 

There is one outlier. Its cost per person is double all the others. Its amenable mortality (deaths that could be prevented but haven't been) is also twice as high as all the others.  It's the US of course. 

 

Costs huge and effectiveness low. The profit motive in medicine: its effects are plain to see.

 

 

The health care industries have not opposed single payer, only the drug companies and owners of hospitals!

15 hours ago, Otis Cribelcoblis said:

My friends in Venezuela can tell you all about socialism.  You want fairness in medicines?  Ok, they have none in Venezuela.  No one gets medicine.  That's fair.

*Deleted posts edited out*

 

Awww bless...

 

Instead of facts and figures to rebut arguments all they can muster is screaming ‘Venuzeala! Socialism! Illegal immigrants!!’ 

 

No doubt they will then turn to Cuba! and how it is all Obama’s fault. Then they will avail us with stories about how the rest of the world want to come to America for the medical care (hint...we don’t).

 

The poor souls. Generations of brainwashing propaganda against something that would give you more, and cost you less. And that is not anywhere near ‘socialist’.

 

Had this been 70 years ago they would have been railing against the introduction of Medicare like Ronnie Regan did. 

 

No doubt today they are fairly happy recipients. 

 

 

Edited March 3, 20197 yr by Scott

Troll posts removed.