Health Insurance is Rigged to Kill.

[Morilore]

Because my intention was not to say that insurance doesn't deny care, it was to attack the position that profits shouldn't exist in the healthcare industry.

That's my meaning of the word "slanted". Its adopting a stance that's too radical, too far to the left.

If you want to attack the conclusions of the article, attack its premises or logic, not the political smell of the result.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. What the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

Because while the current model is broken, there is no reason to take the other ideological extreme, which is profit-taking should not exist in the healthcare industry?

Since you chose to completely ignore the question in your response, let me ask you again: just what the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Yes. What the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

Because while the current model is broken, there is no reason to take the other ideological extreme, which is profit-taking should not exist in the healthcare industry?

Since you chose to completely ignore the question in your response, let me ask you again: just what the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

I catch a distinct whiff of fear on the wind, Mike; perhaps that's the reason for Painrack's unwillingness to answer?

[PainRack]

Yes. What the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

Because while the current model is broken, there is no reason to take the other ideological extreme, which is profit-taking should not exist in the healthcare industry?

Since you chose to completely ignore the question in your response, let me ask you again: just what the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

I apologise for the miscommunication.

My use of the word "slanted" was to purely demonstrate that the stance for profit in medicine is an extreme position that isn't neccesary. The problem of solving inadequate access does not require the abolishment of for profits in healthcare in its ENTIRITY.

[PainRack]

If you are going to allow for a two tier system where you have private and public sector system, likely the private sector will make money, but not the public sector. Of course, the private healthcare is only for the rich and not the poor.

Actually, public hospitals can and do run in the black as well.

You're simply confusing the public ownership of hospitals with the public payment of bills. The NHS can be broke, but one of its individual facillity can be in the black.

Quebec argument against private ownership is that it takes away resources and expertise from the government run facillities, not that its causing the public hospitals to go bankrupt.

[PainRack]

"Ideological extreme"? Pfft. Just removing profiteers from where they fail. That's not "ideological" and not "extreme", it's just a constatation of the failure of the profit model and it's removal and replacement with a better system. The fact that what you called "ideological extreme" works better than the currently existing system seems to avoid you. That's not replacing two equivalents, that's replacing the worse with the better.

And pray tell, why can't there exist private hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and etc? Your argument is against insufficient access, due to the high cost of entry.

Now, another ABC - there's rationalism, which does not care whether an idea is "ideologically extreme" or not, it cares for practical implementation and looks at the one idea which produces better results, then exchanges them.

Which argues against entirely denying private ownership of facillities. If all medical facillities are government run, that means all source of funding for creating those facillities come from government sources.

If a private corporation choose to create a medical service, it draws upon private funds to do so whether in the forms of savings, loans or stock.

If you think total insurance is the way to go, fine, that well may be a reasonable position. Show the evidence that it's the best of healthcare models, or produces the best results with the resources given compared to the "ideological extreme" of a non-profit universal healthcare system when advocating such a system.

Because Australia shows that a two tier system works. Therefore, arguing that a system which uses private funds will fail is nonsensical, since we have a working example right here. Australia system is different in the sense that private healthcare is an optional add-on to the basic government safety net and access to that is paid for by the citizens, not the state. Nevertheless, it argues against "private facillities can't function in a state owned industry"

Seems profit healthcare does not have lower costs, so by including profiteers into the system, you raise the cost, not lower it. The ability of corporate profit? Why should that be of any importance to a healthcare system, which has the task of healing the people regardless of expense, universally?

So, why should that matter if access by the populace is increased? Remove the access problem by making bills payable by the state and you can then go on to other issues.

[K. A. Pital]

Your argument is against insufficient access, due to the high cost of entry.

Not only. It's also against pharmaceutical company abuse, regulation loopholes and drug access, as well as the necessity to waste funds on profits of healthcare companies when healthcare success is explicitly non-profit measured. Profit of healthcare companies is most certainly not a necessity for a healthcare system; neither is that a meaningful indicator of how well a healthcare system works, of it's efficiency.

If all medical facillities are government run, that means all source of funding for creating those facillities come from government sources.

So?

Because Australia shows that a two tier system works.

The question is not whether it "works", but whether it would be preferrable to a non-profit system.

And praytell, where did I say that private healthcare is non-functional? It's functional allright; what is questioned is the basic principles on which it is built; that is, that healthcare companies should be allowed to measure their successes by profit, and whether that would increase the NHS efficiency compared to a purely non-profit system.

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm. I don't understand what's the point:

If all medical facillities are government run, that means all source of funding for creating those facillities come from government sources.

If a private corporation choose to create a medical service, it draws upon private funds to do so whether in the forms of savings, loans or stock.

Best world Universal Healthcare systems, percentage of expense funded by government:
Australia 67.5
Canada 69.9
France 76.3
Germany 78.2
Japan 81.0
Sweden 85.2
UK 85.7

Well, what was that about? Australia's system which you cite as an example of "two-tiered", has most of the expense - 67% provided by the government, in fact, it's just little less than Canada's (70%). Japan which has arguably a world-best system, has 81% funded by government. What is your point then?

[Darth Wong]

Because while the current model is broken, there is no reason to take the other ideological extreme, which is profit-taking should not exist in the healthcare industry?

Since you chose to completely ignore the question in your response, let me ask you again: just what the fuck do you think "slanted" means, moron?

I apologise for the miscommunication.

My use of the word "slanted" was to purely demonstrate that the stance for profit in medicine is an extreme position that isn't neccesary. The problem of solving inadequate access does not require the abolishment of for profits in healthcare in its ENTIRITY.

You still don't seem to recognize that when you accuse someone of producing a "slanted" or "biased" argument, you are basically accusing them of dishonesty, because that's what a "slanted" or "biased" presentation is: one where the person has been dishonest and unfair. Simply saying that you disagree with their position is NOT a justification for accusing them of dishonesty.

[PainRack]

Not only. It's also against pharmaceutical company abuse, regulation loopholes and drug access, as well as the necessity to waste funds on profits of healthcare companies when healthcare success is explicitly non-profit measured. Profit of healthcare companies is most certainly not a necessity for a healthcare system; neither is that a meaningful indicator of how well a healthcare system works, of it's efficiency.

Of course not. However, my point was that you don't need a healthcare system to be exclusively government owned to provide good healthcare.

So?

Therefore, its an argument against all healthcare services must be publicly owned.

And praytell, where did I say that private healthcare is non-functional?

And as I seem to be saying, my argument is that you don't need a healthcare system to be entirely publicly owned in order for it to function well.

The standards by which it should be judged is based on entirely different standards, such as access, effectiveness and comprehensive services.

You still don't seem to recognize that when you accuse someone of producing a "slanted" or "biased" argument, you are basically accusing them of dishonesty, because that's what a "slanted" or "biased" presentation is: one where the person has been dishonest and unfair. Simply saying that you disagree with their position is NOT a justification for accusing them of dishonesty.

I again apologise for that term.