Patently stupid
Patently stupid
Posted Oct 12, 2012 3:01 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313)In reply to: Patently stupid by cortana
Parent article: The Patent, Used as a Sword (New York Times)
In a pure government run system, paying for treatment yourself is not allowed.
That's why I said that government run systems only work when you have the option to not rely on them.
for all that people have been claiming that medical care in the US is a disgrace and behind the rest of the world, when people with money really need treatment, they come to the US to get it (except when the AMA has not blessed the treatment, then the people with money go where the AMA doesn't block new treatments)
This indicates that while the 'health care system' may not be what you want, the medical care available is what you want.
the problem is trying to find a way to solve the problems without loosing the advantages.
Posted Oct 12, 2012 7:58 UTC (Fri)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (6 responses)
You're saying that in a fully governmental medical system, there's a risk that a few people who get only good care, but could avoid paying out-of-pocket for excellent care, are worse off. Countries with universal healthcare don't typically have any rules prohibiting buying additional care for yourself though, so this is largely a strawman.
I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.
Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:14 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 12, 2012 8:49 UTC (Fri)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link] (4 responses)
A lower middle-class person who gets sick with no health-insurance, risks losing the small amount of wealth he has, and to have the income of the family drop to welfare levels. A person with essentially zero wealth, and income which is already at welfare-levels is immune to financial woes of this sort.
According to CNN, medical debt is involved in 60% of the personal bankruptices that occur. I'm guessing that's mainly people who are neither wealthy nor dirt-poor.
Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:23 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:44 UTC (Fri)
by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link] (1 responses)
You can lose your credit rating! This means you will pay significantly more for any kind of credit for many, many years in the future.
Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:18 UTC (Fri)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
A) If you're "really poor", your credit rating is likely to be poor to catastrophic already.
B) It's still a larger loss to loose large fractions of your income, and all of your wealth, and your credit-rating, instead of losing only your credit-rating.
C) If you're "really poor", then there's very few situations where getting credit will help you, it will help short-term, but at a cost of additional pain longer term. The exception is if the short-term cost is for something that gives you additional income longer-term. (say buying a used car, to be able to commute to a new job you got)
Posted Oct 13, 2012 0:56 UTC (Sat)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link]
My Insurance gives me a statement for each transaction that shows what the medical provider billed, what the 'negotiated' rate that the Insurance company is actually going to pay based on, and how much of that I owe.
I's very common for the insurance rate to be a 60% or larger discount of the price that an individual would have to pay. I've seen quite a few cases where what the provider accepts as 'payment in full' is a 90% discount off of what they would charge someone without insurance.
And it doesn't matter if the Insurance company is going to pay the bill, or if I am going to have to pay the bill (part of the deductable, past the limit for the year, etc)
If I could pay the same rates that the Insurance companies pay, I would not need to have any insurance beyond a 'catastrophic event' policy that wouldn't kick in without an event over say $10,000
Posted Oct 12, 2012 9:42 UTC (Fri)
by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:10 UTC (Fri)
by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
[Link] (1 responses)
Does that answer the question?
Posted Oct 12, 2012 10:43 UTC (Fri)
by cortana (subscriber, #24596)
[Link]
Posted Oct 12, 2012 14:23 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (1 responses)
I might also point out that in the UK at least, most people who can afford private medicine still don't use it because they trust the NHS more. (The NHS is one of the most trusted organizations in the country, certainly far more so than the politicians who are its nominal bosses). In any case, as I mentioned above, particularly serious or complex conditions would probably get bounced to an NHS facility and NHS staff in any case, because only they have the scale to deal with them.
The NHS has lots of problems, including perennial shortage of funds, but I don't see how you could say that it only works because of the existence of private facilities. Indeed when the NHS recently tried to rely on private facilities to do some of its more routine surgical work for it, it generally didn't work, with contracts mandating payment for operations whether or not they are ever carried out, a frighteningly high percentage of botched operations, and so forth. (This caused a pretty big scandal and a lot of severely indebted NHS trusts.)
Posted Oct 12, 2012 22:33 UTC (Fri)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link]
For the two remaining readers let me revisit for a moment drag's nth edition of the libertarian credo:
The same works for patents: we have fought software patents in Europe successfully before, we should keep doing it (more and better), and spread the word to other not so lucky countries. We have many powerful friends, and we have to fight hard to win. Software patents have done no good to software development, ever; like slavery, half-measures are no good; total abolition is the only way.
And now let me roll down my banner and drift away.
Patently stupid
Right. The paradox that nix outlines above is that in countries with universal health care, often it is the public service the one that provides for the most expensive or advanced treatments, while private insurance excels at primary health care.
Universal health care
I've not seen anyone claim that the medical care available to those with money in USA is a disgrace. The part that is disgraceful is at the other end of the scale.
I have read that the worst part of the spectrum at the USA is not either rich people (who are well cared for) nor poor people (who have Medicaid), but the middle classes.
Universal health care
That is a real shame. I have a brother who received a kidney transplant from the public health care system, and I am aware that my family might have gone bankrupt if it had happened in the US. Having to choose between death and poverty is very sad and a bit dickensian; you need a writer that exposes such a shameful situation to the world, or something.
Universal health care
Universal health care
Universal health care
Universal health care
Patently stupid
Patently stupid
They are required to provide a certain level of care to be allowed to provide the required insurance. There are things the GKV ("Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung" - the state organized insurance) provides which the PKVs ("Private Krankenversicherungen" - (partially) profit oriented insurances) don't have to, but I know of none that are life critical. Many of the things not necessarily payed by PKVs are in the somewhat affordable range.
Patently stupid
Sorry for perpetuating this off-topic thread (remaining relevance to patents: basically nil).
Patently stupid
In a pure government run system, paying for treatment yourself is not allowed.
Are there any such systems in the Western world? I'm not aware of any. For a long time the NHS had a rule that if you augmented NHS treatment with private treatment, you had to get the lot privately. The idea was to ensure a level playing field, but it caused a sufficiently large political storm when the policy came to light that it was revoked shortly afterwards.
That's why I said that government run systems only work when you have the option to not rely on them.
I don't see how you can come to that conclusion in the absence of any examples of your 'pure government-run systems' in modern economies. You are fighting against a man made not of straw but of vacuum.
To bring back some semblance of relevance to software patents: yes, government-run services can be efficient and work well enough. No, not all government employees (or even politicians) are evil, stupid, greedy or megalomaniacal; many of them just want to do some public good, are hard-working and provide excellent services when allowed to do so.
Patently offtopic
Unfortunately if it Is true that certain essential services like 'health care' and other tasks can only be properly done by government... then all I can say that we are well and truly screwed because the governments, essentially all governments and especially the USA one, are ran by either evil men and/or incompetent morons.
The emphasized (by me) sentence is not only untrue, but actively harmful: that there are evil and moronic people in the government should not hide the fact that there are also many hard-working, upright people, and even more important: that evil and moronic people are not a necessary evil. We want good governments, we should fight for them, not give up. I won't tell you how, but there are plenty of obvious solutions; from the easy (voting) to the hardest (devoting your life to politics).