CEO buys AIDS drug and jacks up the price by 4,100%

[Pleng]

If you want to do that, then you have to start charging the middle and upper class several thousand dollars a month. That would quickly destabilize the (already fragile) economy.

Btw, I'm in the lower class.

I don't know the details of how taxes are staggered in the US but, no, you don't. Nobody in the UK is paying several thousand dollars for their National Insurance (not unless they're earning hundreds of thousands a year, anyway...)

Because everybody is paying into it, the cost per head is lower to begin with. And many people who are paying in will have alternative healthcare arrangements anyway, and therefore won't make use of the free service. So you can further reduce the amount that needs to be collected. Even little poor old Jim is still paying in his 35cents a week or whatever.... and of course he may never even get sick (after all of our worrying..!) and therefore not need the service - and all those Jims out there paying their 35 cents.... they all add up.

 

[JoostinOnline]

I don't know the details of how taxes are staggered in the US but, no, you don't. Nobody in the UK is paying several thousand dollars for their National Insurance (not unless they're earning hundreds of thousands a year, anyway...)

Because everybody is paying into it, the cost per head is lower to begin with. And many people who are paying in will have alternative healthcare arrangements anyway, and therefore won't make use of the free service. So you can further reduce the amount that needs to be collected. Even little poor old Jim is still paying in his 35cents a week or whatever.... and of course he may never even get sick (after all of our worrying..!) and therefore not need the service - and all those Jims out there paying their 35 cents.... they all add up.

I think that maybe you don't understand how great poverty has become since Obama went into office. We're at the highest point in 50 years. With a large portion paying almost nothing, everyone else has to pick up the slack.

 

[Pleng]

Ah so you're against free health care because it's an Obama policy. At least that shows why your arguments aren't making any sense.

Anyway.... I can promise you that poverty over here is much more rife. And the Thai government have managed to implement a free healthcare system. And that's in a country where pretty much NOBODY seems to be paying any tax.

So that, combined with the (far from perfect, I'll give you that) NHS system in the UK, are proof that it can be done.

 

[Foxi4]

An interesting theory in principle. But isn't medication in the US, which traditionally hasn't has government subsidised health care, generally a lot more expensive than it is in the UK - where health care is provided by the tax payer?

Firstly, are we sure that John is not a child? And what if he is?

Secondly, and more seriously, how is insurance any different? It works on exactly the same principle... more people will be paying INTO it than are claiming FROM it. Insurance simply wouldn't work if there was more money coming out that going in. So, by choosing to pay for health care, you are buying into the exact same system of paying for other people's illnesses (or benefiting from other people's payments if you are unfortunate enough to get seriously ill) that you are protesting about. The only difference with government-funded health care is that those living on the breadline, who can't afford to pay for insurance, are also able to benefit.

It's hard to quantify the cost as the statistics I usually see don't count the average per capita cost of NHS into the equation, just the cost of procedures, which is misleading. There's also the matter of quality of service - public healthcare is not a competitive space and it shows, private healthcare is.

As for insurance versus taxation, the difference is that one is mandatory and one is not - I can choose to take a gamble in life and not insure myself, I cannot stop paying taxes.

There's also competitiveness - I have a choice of various insurance agencies providing various levels of coverage, but only one tax with one kind of cover.

Your theory about John paying much less than his boss is nice, however doesn't take into account the fact that wealth is accumulated in a small percentage of the populace - there's 100 Johns every Richard. Ultimately, Johns collectively pay more than any Richard, plus Johns have substantially less wealth, so it's a bigger burden.

John also cannot be a child in this context because children are not taxpayers - they are covered by the insurance/healthcare plan of their parents, therefore they are irrelevant in our debate.

 

[Pleng]

It's hard to quantify the cost as the statistics I usually see don't count the average per capita cost of NHS into the equation, just the cost of procedures, which is misleading. There's also the matter of quality of service - public healthcare is not a competitive space and it shows, private healthcare is.

As for insurance versus taxation, the difference is that one is mandatory and one is not - I can choose to take a gamble in life and not insure myself, I cannot stop paying taxes.

There's also competitiveness - I have a choice of various insurance agencies providing various levels of coverage, but only one tax with one kind of cover.

Your theory about John paying much less than his boss is nice, however doesn't take into account the fact that wealth is accumulated in a small percentage of the populace - there's 100 Johns every Richard. Ultimately, Johns collectively pay more than any Richard, plus Johns have substantially less wealth, so it's a bigger burden.

You can choose to take a gamble but in the end you end up being a burden to somebody if you get seriously ill; unless you really have no friends and family who care about you. So your little gamble could end up bankrupting your entire family. Seems like a good system...

You can talk about competitiveness and choice of covers and the burden on the Johns but the fact is I came from a country where helthcare was considered a basic human right; much like water and shelter. I now live in a country where I could register for free health care but, being in a privileged position as I am, I choose to pay for my health care.

The amount I pay for my healthcare alone is nearly half of my entire UK tax bill. People on and even just above the breadline in the UK don't pay tax at all - and they still get free health care. So no, it's proven that the Johns don't have to feel the burden for free health care. Any more than they have to feel the burden for having their trash collected, their education (next debate - make education optional and force people to pay for that??), or having the potholes in the road dealt with.

 

[Vipera]

I think that maybe you don't understand how great poverty has become since Obama went into office. We're at the highest point in 50 years. With a large portion paying almost nothing, everyone else has to pick up the slack.

Hold on... What do you mean by "poverty"?
I checked the threshold, according to the US government.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh14.xls

Almost all the families with children are bs if you ask me. Do you really need 24k per year to raise a family of 4? Unless this graph doesn't include taxes, I don't think it's right. I want to believe that the USA has the same, if not cheaper, euro stores we got here.
But even if it were right, why are you having so many kids when you can't afford them? Are all those people below those threshold eligible for welfare? Might as well find some chick and have 3-4 babies. There is no way I'll ever find a job that puts me above the line of poverty at that point.

 

[Foxi4]

You can choose to take a gamble but in the end you end up being a burden to somebody if you get seriously ill; unless you really have no friends and family who care about you. So your little gamble could end up bankrupting your entire family. Seems like a good system...

I never said that not being insured is a good choice, it should however be an option.

You can talk about competitiveness and choice of covers and the burden on the Johns but the fact is I came from a country where helthcare was considered a basic human right; much like water and shelter. I now live in a country where I could register for free health care but, being in a privileged position as I am, I choose to pay for my health care.

I also come from a country with free healthcare and I was dissastisfied with the coverage, thus most of my dental was done privately since due to lack of competition the public dental services sucked dick.

The amount I pay for my healthcare alone is nearly half of my entire UK tax bill. People on and even just above the breadline in the UK don't pay tax at all - and they still get free health care. So no, it's proven that the Johns don't have to feel the burden for free health care. Any more than they have to feel the burden for having their trash collected, their education (next debate - make education optional and force people to pay for that??), or having the potholes in the road dealt with.

See, this is the core problem. I too live in the UK now, you're cool with having half of your earning being taken away, I am not, especially if it's not beneficial to me in any way and merely exists to cover healthcare needs of Johns who do not contribute to the greater good by not paying taxes.

This is not to say that healthcare should not be provided in life-threatening situations - that's covered by the Hippocratic Oath, it just shouldn't be national because I don't feel comfortable with my wealth being forcibly taken away from me Robin Hood style, regardless of whether it's for a good or bad cause. Sorry, but the NHS is crazy-inefficient, much like every single public healthcare system, and you would know that if you were not priviledged to the point of not having to use it, as you mentioned above. Citizens should be in charge of their wealth and control its spending as they deem fit, they should only be taxed for public utilities that they actually use.

 

[Pleng]

This is not to say that healthcare should not be provided in life-threatening situations - that's covered by the Hipocratic Oath

So who's going to pay for this treatment in life-threatening situations? An oath doesn't have a bank account.

, it just shouldn't be national because I don't feel comfortable with my wealth being forcibly taken away from me Robin Hood style, regardless of whether it's for a good or bad cause. Sorry, but the NHS is crazy-inefficient, much like every single public healthcare system, and you would know that if you were not priviledged to the point of not having to use it, as you mentioned above. Citizens should be in charge of their wealth and control its spending as they deem fit, they should only be taxed for public utilities that they actually use.

I used the NHS for years before I moved away. As did, and still do, my family. For every horror story you hear, there's tens of thousands of perfectly happy customers. No, it's not perfect, but it's for 'free' (which it is to those who can't afford to pay taxes) and I don't begrudge any of my tax money going towards helping out the needy. It's far better than the 80% of your 'efficient' policy premiums that are going towards keeping rich lawyers rich; as they are the ones who generally profit out of any kind of insurance.

It's all very well having an 'opt-out' system but where does it stop? Do you want to 'opt-out' of Education? There are a lot of people who have very little chance of making it through to graduate school. So maybe they should just go straight into work and not be given the chance of an education; unless they want to pay for it, of course? What about rubbish collection? Should we just not pay per bag of rubbish we generate (and conveniently forget about how to deal with the fly-tipping problem it would create) and not be taxed for that? I have no intention of having children... therefore I want to claim back my x percentage of tax that's going towards building playgrounds that are of no use to me. That's fair, right?

 

[JoostinOnline]

Hold on... What do you mean by "poverty"?
I checked the threshold, according to the US government.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/thresh14.xls

Almost all the families with children are bs if you ask me. Do you really need 24k per year to raise a family of 4? Unless this graph doesn't include taxes, I don't think it's right. I want to believe that the USA has the same, if not cheaper, euro stores we got here.
But even if it were right, why are you having so many kids when you can't afford them? Are all those people below those threshold eligible for welfare? Might as well find some chick and have 3-4 babies. There is no way I'll ever find a job that puts me above the line of poverty at that point.

1. For this discussion, an important part of defining "poverty" is that you don't pay any taxes. Everyone who makes more than the threshold is carrying your entire weight.
2. Read this http://www.wisegeek.org/who-is-eligible-for-welfare-in-the-united-states.htm
   
3. I have no clue what you mean about families with children being BS.
4. What you want to believe has no effect on things.

 

[Foxi4]

So who's going to pay for this treatment in life-threatening situations? An oath doesn't have a bank account.

Who pays for bankrupcies? It's a very simple economic question - such care either turns into debt payable in instalments once the individual is capable of payment or, in the worst-case scenario (aka when no bank wishes to purchase the debt) is subsidized from other taxes, which is not the same as public healthcare.

I used the NHS for years before I moved away. As did, and still do, my family. For every horror story you hear, there's tens of thousands of perfectly happy customers. No, it's not perfect, but it's for 'free' (which it is to those who can't afford to pay taxes) and I don't begrudge any of my tax money going towards helping out the needy. It's far better than the 80% of your 'efficient' policy premiums that are going towards keeping rich lawyers rich; as they are the ones who generally profit out of any kind of insurance.

So lawyers are despicable and profit on insurance, but politicians are lovable and profit on taxes? Okay. Sorry, but any government-ran system is just a bag of red tape and lacks accountability - the private sector is the exact opposite.

It's all very well having an 'opt-out' system but where does it stop? Do you want to 'opt-out' of Education? There are a lot of people who have very little chance of making it through to graduate school. So maybe they should just go straight into work and not be given the chance of an education; unless they want to pay for it, of course? What about rubbish collection? Should we just not pay per bag of rubbish we generate (and conveniently forget about how to deal with the fly-tipping problem it would create) and not be taxed for that? I have no intention of having children... therefore I want to claim back my x percentage of tax that's going towards building playgrounds that are of no use to me. That's fair, right?

Did you not read my post? Utilities that are factually used should be taxed. Do you have rubbish? Pay for collection. Do you have a car? Pay road tax. Do you or your children go to school? Pay the education tax. It's really not rocket science.

 

[Nightwish]

I never said that not being insured is a good choice, it should however be an option.

And that's how the US ended up with the most expensive system with the shittiest care in the first place, isn't it?

 

[Pleng]

So lawyers are despicable and profit on insurance, but politicians are lovable and profit on taxes? Okay. Sorry, but any government-ran system is just a bag of red tape and lacks accountability - the private sector is the exact opposite.

No, politicians are *not* lovable but the the fact is that tax money paid into the NHS *does* go towards funding health care for those less fortunate than you and I. Yes there are politicians creaming off the top but at least some of it is used for the greater good. A private insurance ensures the rich stay rich and the poor stay sick.

Do you have rubbish? Pay for collection.

I can see that working out very well. Fly tipping is already a big issue in the UK - now you want to give people the opportunity to opt out of paying for collection?

Do you or your children go to school? Pay the education tax.

Which will severely dilute the intelligence level of your country as you're giving the option of not paying and therefore not learning.

And that's how the US ended up with the most expensive system with the shittiest care in the first place, isn't it?

Boom

 

[Foxi4]

No, politicians are *not* lovable but the the fact is that tax money paid into the NHS *does* go towards funding health care for those less fortunate than you and I. Yes there are politicians creaming off the top but at least some of it is used for the greater good. A private insurance ensures the rich stay rich and the poor stay sick.

Except you have less poor to deal with because the government doesn't take almost half their income to fund an inefficient system with no accountability that oversees itself, therefore is not subject to critique and is artificially outside of the economy. You also spoke of NHS horror stories and how for every shoddy experience you get a thousand great ones - poor argument, because in the health sector you focus on outliers. A murderer isn't an okay guy because he met a thousand people and only killed one - accountability is important.

I can see that working out very well. Fly tipping is already a big issue in the UK - now you want to give people the opportunity to opt out of paying for collection?

Yes, because tipping is a criminal offense either way.

Which will severely dilute the intelligence level of your country as you're giving the option of not paying and therefore not learning.

I'm of the opinion that my money should go to the educational outlet of my choosing with shit ones going out of business and good ones staying afloat instead of diluting the funds across the board to create an overall mediocre system.

Boom

Not really - decisions have consequences. If you choose not to be insured, you pay the price in the event of health issues or accidents. The state is not your nanny.

 

[Hungry Friend]

I saw this on Facebook and felt it had a place here

Who was that addressed to?

Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.

Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.

EDIT: Also, you seem to think I'm coming from a purely black & white point of view but sometimes, as I said earlier, over-regulation is the problem like when dealing with the issue of drug prohibition. Private, unregulated prisons play a big part as well but I'll save you that rant.

In the US, until we can get at least most of the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. Corruption will always exist because of human nature but at the very least bribery(fundraising) should be illegal or at least seriously limited to very small contributions. what we have now is basically a feudal system, billionaire VS billionaire with politicians being marionettes.

 

[Foxi4]

Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.

Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.

EDIT: Also, you seem to think I'm coming from a purely black & white point of view but sometimes, as I said earlier, over-regulation is the problem like when dealing with the issue of drug prohibition. Private, unregulated prisons play a big part as well but I'll save you that rant.

In the US, until we can get at least most of the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. Corruption will always exist because of human nature but at the very least bribery(fundraising) should be illegal or at least seriously limited to very small contributions. what we have now is basically a feudal system, billionaire VS billionaire with politicians being marionettes.

I have a completely opposite point of view - being a politician should not be considered a job - it didn't use to and I think we were better off. Political campaigns should be ran exclusively from the politician's own pocket and fundraising, not a public pot-o-money and every politician should do their duties for free - they all have their own businesses anyways. Minimal government with minimal regulations, half the current taxation gone, especially income tax (aka the "penalty for work" tax) and the less representatives the better.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I have a completely opposite point of view - being a politician should not be considered a job - it didn't use to and I think we were better off. Political campaigns should be ran exclusively from the politician's own pocket and fundraising, not a public pot-o-money and every politician should do their duties for free - they all have their own businesses anyways. Minimal government with minimal regulations, half the current taxation gone, especially income tax (aka the "penalty for work" tax) and the less representatives the better.

I would think the more reps the better, that way you actually get a better cross-section of the people you're representing...

 

[Foxi4]

I would think the more reps the better, that way you actually get a better cross-section of the people you're representing...

It's a tough balance to strike - the more representatives and the more parties the harder it is to get a majority decision on anything and thus legislature and reform sits at a standstill. On the other side of the coin there's the situation where you don't have enough parties or representatives, thus the interests of all classes of society are not properly represented. A good government sits somewhere in between, leading to faster compromises and less public spending. I think that the government should be comprised of a large number of parties presenting different views, from the furthest left to the furthest right and a lot in-between, but the parties themselves should be relatively small - variety is superior to number in this case. That way, you won't get situations where a big party is stonewalling or artificially pushing legislature due to its sheer size.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

It's a tough balance to strike - the more representatives and the more parties the harder it is to get a majority decision on anything and thus legislature and reform sits at a standstill. On the other side of the coin there's the situation where you don't have enough parties or representatives, thus the interests of all classes of society are not properly represented. A good government sits somewhere in between, leading to faster compromises and less public spending. I think that the government should be comprised of a large number of parties presenting different views, from the furthest left to the furthest right and a lot in-between, but the parties themselves should be relatively small - variety is superior to number in this case. That way, you won't get situations where a big party is stonewalling or artificially pushing legislature due to its sheer size.

I suppose that's reasonable, but in most situations I would almost rather not much getting done over something being hastily passed without any consideration for other parties

 

[JoostinOnline]

Personally attacking me will neither piss me off nor change my point of view, or at least I assume it was directed at me since you've been following me around. Capitalism in certain fields, like healthcare, namely when taken to the extreme is a bad thing. I support the individual right to starts businesses, profit from them etc but deceptive practices, price gouging and a million other things could be improved. Making silly, blanket statements that come from goofy stereotypes doesn't strike me as particularly constructive.

Naturally when it comes to regulations you can't just say "regulate capitalism" because different industries and even different sectors of the same industry need to be treated separately.

EDIT: Also, you seem to think I'm coming from a purely black & white point of view but sometimes, as I said earlier, over-regulation is the problem like when dealing with the issue of drug prohibition. Private, unregulated prisons play a big part as well but I'll save you that rant.

In the US, until we can get at least most of the money out of politics, nothing is going to change. Corruption will always exist because of human nature but at the very least bribery(fundraising) should be illegal or at least seriously limited to very small contributions. what we have now is basically a feudal system, billionaire VS billionaire with politicians being marionettes.

I'm getting pretty tired of you trying to discredit my logical statements as attacks. The picture wasn't directed at anyone. I just said "it has a place in this thread." I don't know what you mean by "following you around", but that sounds paranoid. I have been following this thread, but afaik that's the only contact we've had. I may be in other threads that you're also in, but I assure you that's because I'm a regular on this forum, as well as HD and WH. Just look at my post count. I like helping people. On very rare occasions I get involved in debates, but you'll find most of my posts are either offering or asking for help.

 

[Nightwish]

Not really - decisions have consequences. If you choose not to be insured, you pay the price in the event of health issues or accidents. The state is not your nanny.

Well, either the state let's people die, many times for minor stuff (it's not like most people can afford insurance), or they treat them in the ER, which is much more expensive. Meanwhile, american hospitals had a huge incentive to jack up the prices of minor things since insurers will just pay anyway and they had to pay the costs for the uninsured themselves.

Read about it, it was seriously messed up (I don't know how it improved with OC). Market fairies don't work in healthcare, and I'd argue in many other vital areas.