The true cost of paradise.

[abrahamzvi]

17 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Nobody forced him to have the treatment!

His money, his choice ..... but with only a 14% chance of surviving 5 years, not money well spent.

What you are saying is not only incorrect but inhuman. Most normal people want to live and depending on individual circumstances, costs for saving life, even if for few years, or even months, are justified. Only this morning, I was really moved by listening to Chris Cuomo interviewing a young woman who was given 2% of survival due to a cancer metastasis. She is still alive and flourishing and singing like a beautiful bird.  I suggest you try to listen to this interview on CNN.

[BritManToo]

10 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

interviewing a young woman who was given 2% of survival due to a cancer metastasis.

Young woman and old man .......... completely different situations.

[caughtintheact]

4 hours ago, abrahamzvi said:

I would accept and apologize for my adjective, if people can prove that they have the means to be uninsured, which would mean having vast reserves, as with advancing age, medical costs can and mostly do substantially increase, even at government hospitals.

Seems to me that the definition of "vast reserves" should be no more than meeting the minimum requirements of an insurance policy that satisfies the government.  For example, if someone is required by the government to have B400,000 insurance coverage, then the requirement for those vast reserves should be no more than B400,000 for those who choose not to get insurance. That money could be put in an interest bearing account.  If the owner has to use that account for medical expenses it would have to be replenished.  Does it seem equitable for someone to pay more than an insurer for what is essentially self insurance? 

[caughtintheact]

On 6/22/2021 at 4:12 PM, BritManToo said:

In any civilised world, health care would be free to all.

Really?  How would those who provided that  "free" health care be compensated for their time and effort?  

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, caughtintheact said:

Really?  How would those who provided that  "free" health care be compensated for their time and effort?  

I would suggest they cut their military budgets in order to provide health care.

Stop spending on killing foreigners, start spending on your healing your citizens.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BritManToo

[caughtintheact]

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I would suggest they cut their military budgets in order to provide health care.

Stop spending on killing foreigners, start spending on your healing your citizens.

And how is that going to provide "free" health care to all?

[BritManToo]

Just now, caughtintheact said:

And how is that going to provide "free" health care to all?

You're too stupid to debate, or just a troll, so I'll just put you on ignore.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BritManToo

[caughtintheact]

12 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're too stupid to debate, or just a troll, so I'll just put you on ignore.

You can't answer a simple question and you are calling someone else stupid?  That's funny.

[jomtienisgood]

4 hours ago, caughtintheact said:

Really?  How would those who provided that  "free" health care be compensated for their time and effort?  

I would agree with the " Free ".... Nowhere free .... Everywhere a part of your ' hard-worked for ' salary is deducted. And even then in a lot of cases there is a certain amount that's left at your own cost.... So  " Free " ???????

[caughtintheact]

26 minutes ago, jomtienisgood said:

I would agree with the " Free ".... Nowhere free .... Everywhere a part of your ' hard-worked for ' salary is deducted. And even then in a lot of cases there is a certain amount that's left at your own cost.... So  " Free " ???????

It is more than that. If healthcare were free, who would pay those providing the care? Healthcare has to be paid for by the individuals, the insurers or the government and it is the individuals who pay the insurance companies and it is the taxes of individuals that the government uses to fund government healthcare programs.  And if government prints more money to fund its healthcare programs, everyone pays more over time because of inflation. For anyone who thinks that there can be truly free healthcare, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, the only free lunch is the one someone else pays for. 

[jomtienisgood]

18 minutes ago, caughtintheact said:

It is more than that. If healthcare were free, who would pay those providing the care? Healthcare has to be paid for by the individuals, the insurers or the government and it is the individuals who pay the insurance companies and it is the taxes of individuals that the government uses to fund government healthcare programs.  And if government prints more money to fund its healthcare programs, everyone pays more over time because of inflation. For anyone who thinks that there can be truly free healthcare, to paraphrase Milton Friedman, the only free lunch is the one someone else pays for. 

How philosophical......But very correct

[caughtintheact]

12 minutes ago, jomtienisgood said:

How philosophical......But very correct

Just very basic economics.

[RafPinto]

On 6/18/2021 at 8:08 AM, BritManToo said:

You'd need to say what was wrong with him before I could comment.

If he has cancer why bother with treatment?

If it was an ingrowing toe nail, he's been overcharged.

 

It's unwise to give hospitals a blank check, because they'll cut you and start pulling parts out, even if it isn't really needed or cost effective.

hey'll cut you and start pulling parts????

<deleted>, went in for a prostate check up and left hospital with "fire hose" and a leg amputated.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

43 minutes ago, caughtintheact said:

Just very basic economics.

The economics is correct but one can question the morality of not having free health care for all. The fact is some people getting free health care will be lazy people who don't deserve it but many, say in America or Thailand, will be low paid hard workers or people who hit hard times or have mental or physical issues beyond their control. I think taxation to fund a basic level of free health care can be consistent with a capitalist point of view. It can be argued health care is different to other government largesse. 

[abrahamzvi]

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I would suggest they cut their military budgets in order to provide health care.

Stop spending on killing foreigners, start spending on your healing your citizens.

The Thai government provides free basic insurance to its citizens. For obvious and justified reasons, this is not free for non Thais, unless they pay for social security which provides a better, more than basic, medical cover. I really know of no country providing free medical aid to non-citizens, and most countries, that I know, or know of, provide medical cover only for people paying for the social security, irrespective of their nationality.

[caughtintheact]

25 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The economics is correct but one can question the morality of not having free health care for all. The fact is some people getting free health care will be lazy people who don't deserve it but many, say in America or Thailand, will be low paid hard workers or people who hit hard times or have mental or physical issues beyond their control. I think taxation to fund a basic level of free health care can be consistent with a capitalist point of view. It can be argued health care is different to other government largesse. 

When anyone gets healthcare that they do not pay for, then someone else is paying for it.  It is not free. If there were any way to provide free healthcare to all, and still pay those who provide everything needed for excellent healthcare enough to keep them in their professions, I'd sure like to know hw it would work.  Morality: How much morality is involved when government runs healthcare and has to ration it because of budget problems?  What is the morality in letting people die waiting for healthcare even if they have  money to pay but  are not allowed to pay for treatment?  How much morality is involved when corruption in government wastes even some of the funds that were supposed to be for healthcare?  How much morality is  involved in letting people die waiting for decades for government approval of life-saving medicines because government officials are afraid to be less than perfect and won't even let dying volunteers try the medicines at their own risk?  

I do not believe that there is anything that can be called government largesse, because the money going to government has to come from some place. No money originates in government, except when government gets the printing presses rolling, and when that happens it causes inflation, which should be called a tax and which harms the poor the most.  

[jomtienisgood]

25 minutes ago, caughtintheact said:

When anyone gets healthcare that they do not pay for, then someone else is paying for it.  It is not free. If there were any way to provide free healthcare to all, and still pay those who provide everything needed for excellent healthcare enough to keep them in their professions, I'd sure like to know hw it would work.  Morality: How much morality is involved when government runs healthcare and has to ration it because of budget problems?  What is the morality in letting people die waiting for healthcare even if they have  money to pay but  are not allowed to pay for treatment?  How much morality is involved when corruption in government wastes even some of the funds that were supposed to be for healthcare?  How much morality is  involved in letting people die waiting for decades for government approval of life-saving medicines because government officials are afraid to be less than perfect and won't even let dying volunteers try the medicines at their own risk?  

I do not believe that there is anything that can be called government largesse, because the money going to government has to come from some place. No money originates in government, except when government gets the printing presses rolling, and when that happens it causes inflation, which should be called a tax and which harms the poor the most.  

I agree, I even used to say the only things for free in life are: time and the air I breathe. At this present moment even air is not free anymore, masks, etc,etc......

[BritManToo]

38 minutes ago, abrahamzvi said:

The Thai government provides free basic insurance to its citizens. For obvious and justified reasons, this is not free for non Thais, unless they pay for social security which provides a better, more than basic, medical cover. I really know of no country providing free medical aid to non-citizens, and most countries, that I know, or know of, provide medical cover only for people paying for the social security, irrespective of their nationality.

Where did I say every country should provide free health care to non-citizens?

I posted .............

"Stop spending on killing foreigners, start spending on your healing your citizens."

 

My Mil and 2 kids get free health care in Thailand, and they've never paid a dime in tax or ss.

I'm putting you on ignore for lacking comprehension skills.

Edited June 24, 2021 by BritManToo

[Fat is a type of crazy]

9 minutes ago, caughtintheact said:

When anyone gets healthcare that they do not pay for, then someone else is paying for it.  It is not free. If there were any way to provide free healthcare to all, and still pay those who provide everything needed for excellent healthcare enough to keep them in their professions, I'd sure like to know hw it would work.  Morality: How much morality is involved when government runs healthcare and has to ration it because of budget problems?  What is the morality in letting people die waiting for healthcare even if they have  money to pay but  are not allowed to pay for treatment?  How much morality is involved when corruption in government wastes even some of the funds that were supposed to be for healthcare?  How much morality is  involved in letting people die waiting for decades for government approval of life-saving medicines because government officials are afraid to be less than perfect and won't even let dying volunteers try the medicines at their own risk?  

I do not believe that there is anything that can be called government largesse, because the money going to government has to come from some place. No money originates in government, except when government gets the printing presses rolling, and when that happens it causes inflation, which should be called a tax and which harms the poor the most.  

The term largesse was used with a hint of cynicism for the reason you give - that all benefits have to be paid for. 
The system you describe sounds like an extreme  system where there is only govt healthcare and no private option. Not relevant to most big health care systems including Thailand. 

I think Australia has a reasonable if imperfect system whereby there is free healthcare with certain incentives for those on a middle to higher income to get cover. There are delays sometimes but it works fairly well. 

There is a lot to criticise Thaksin for but his universal healthcare is not one of them in my opinion. Impressive in a country with low rates of taxation. You have money then you can still get private cover. 

I concur with aspects of what you say but I just think healthcare is different. Would you let those who can't afford cover die? Morality and fairness can and should play a role in society. You might say 'who's morality' so as not to have to deal with the issue. It might be worth a percentage or three extra tax to fund a decent healthcare so the working poor, disabled and others can get care. Yes some people who should have saved but ride the system get it too. 

 

As an aside I think government's can do some things well. They privatised trains, power, and other utilities in Australia and it was supposed to lead to huge efficiencies but, in my opinion, it just made certain people get rich and fees go up..e.g. what we call gold plating the power system. 

Govt and private enterprise can each do what they do well. 

[caughtintheact]

4 minutes ago, jomtienisgood said:

I agree, I even used to say the only things for free in life are: time and the air I breathe. At this present moment even air is not free anymore, masks, etc,etc......

True.  And when I hear people saying that they should get free healthcare, what they are really saying, intentionally or not, is that they want someone else to pay for their healthcare.  I wish there were a way to get cured of all illnesses in a painless second or two by waving a magic wand,  and maybe some day we will get to something like that, but getting there won't be free. 

[caughtintheact]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The system you describe sounds like an extreme  system where there is only govt healthcare and no private option. Not relevant to most big health care systems including Thailand. 

I think Australia has a reasonable if imperfect system whereby there is free healthcare with certain incentives for those on a middle to higher income to get cover. There are delays sometimes but it works fairly well. 

There is a lot to criticise Thaksin for but his universal healthcare is not one of them in my opinion. Impressive in a country with low rates of taxation. You have money then you can still get private cover. 

I concur with aspects of what you say but I just think healthcare is different. Would you let those who can't afford cover die? Morality and fairness can and should play a role in society. You might say 'who's morality' so as not to have to deal with the issue. It might be worth a percentage or three extra tax to fund a decent healthcare so the working poor, disabled and others can get care. Yes some people who should have saved but ride the system get it too. 

 

As an aside I think government's can do some things well. They privatised trains, power, and other utilities in Australia and it was supposed to lead to huge efficiencies but, in my opinion, it just made certain people get rich and fees go up..e.g. what we call gold plating the power system. 

Govt and private enterprise can each do what they do well. 

"The system you describe sounds like an extreme  system where there is only govt healthcare and no private option."  It could refer to a hybrid system or a government monopoly. I was just pointing out that when government is in control one needs to consider the impacts of government policies on everyone over the long term, not just the target group in the short term.  I understand that many think healthcare is "different" than other goods and services, but isn't it really a collection of services and tools that people have to provide to other people and be compensated for?  

"Would you let those who can't afford cover die?" My answer is try to keep them alive, but we needed to be aware that the costs and time and effort in saving some of them means that others will not get treatment and can pay. It may sound crass, but consider that if a doctor and nurses are treating one patient, they cannot treat another patient at the same time, and if one patient cannot pay due lack of cover, someone else is going to have to foot the bill. 

"They privatised trains, power, and other utilities in Australia and it was supposed to lead to huge efficiencies but, in my opinion, it just made certain people get rich and fees go up"

I do not know much about the Australian privatization, but from what you are saying it sounds like government policies may have had something to do with the problems. I might look into that one of these days.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/23/2021 at 6:50 PM, abrahamzvi said:

I would accept and apologize for my adjective, if people can prove that they have the means to be uninsured, which would mean having vast reserves, as with advancing age, medical costs can and mostly do substantially increase, even at government hospitals.

A week in ICU would, I'm sure, bankrupt many expats without insurance.

An accident that causes major life threatening medical problems can happen to any of us the instant we leave our homes, and in some cases such even happen while in our abode.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/24/us/miami-building-collapse

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, caughtintheact said:

"They privatised trains, power, and other utilities in Australia and it was supposed to lead to huge efficiencies but, in my opinion, it just made certain people get rich and fees go up"

Which would, IMO have been the point of the exercise. For those that believe it was to improve the service for the user I have a bridge for sale.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, caughtintheact said:

from what you are saying it sounds like government policies may have had something to do with the problems.

Never underestimate the ability of the bureaucracy to take a good idea and ruin it.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 6/23/2021 at 5:36 PM, possum1931 said:

What insurance company does not use a lot of legal jargon that you would need a law degree to completely understand? and of course not forgetting the small print.

Never forget that many politicians started out as lawyers.

[NoshowJones]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Never forget that many politicians started out as lawyers.

Yes, but why is a guy with only a Military Academy education, who was never voted in by an electorate become the PM? There can't have been lawyers involved, Oh! Wait!! Or maybe you are referring to western countries politicians.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, possum1931 said:

Yes, but why is a guy with only a Military Academy education, who was never voted in by an electorate become the PM? There can't have been lawyers involved, Oh! Wait!! Or maybe you are referring to western countries politicians.

Ah, yes, western politicians, but for all I know it may also apply to Thai politicians.

[NoshowJones]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, yes, western politicians, but for all I know it may also apply to Thai politicians.

Lawyers voting for this "unelected' PM?? As I said "Oh! Wait!!

[abrahamzvi]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A week in ICU would, I'm sure, bankrupt many expats without insurance.

An accident that causes major life threatening medical problems can happen to any of us the instant we leave our homes, and in some cases such even happen while in our abode.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/06/24/us/miami-building-collapse

 

This is indeed a big tragedy and a disaster of a practically unknown dimensions.

 

However, ignoring disasters of such a nature, must should be insured or have vast reserves to care for the expected and most certainly for the unexpected. anywhere, including Thailand.

[abrahamzvi]

22 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Where did I say every country should provide free health care to non-citizens?

I posted .............

"Stop spending on killing foreigners, start spending on your healing your citizens."

 

My Mil and 2 kids get free health care in Thailand, and they've never paid a dime in tax or ss.

I'm putting you on ignore for lacking comprehension skills.

I am happy for your Lady and kids. But, you have not contradicted anything I said. As a matter of fact, you are contradicting your own statements. In one post you are saying that the government should stop spending money on..... and spend more on... and then you confirm that Thais (I assume that your Lady and kids are Thais) enjoy free health insurance without paying taxes, which just confirms what I said.