Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • There's no evidence that universal health care is a good thing; indeed, there is more hard evidence against it than for it, as it tends to screw an economy, hurt jobs, decrease the average quality of care, and thereby lower the overall national "well being."

    Where is your hard evidence to support the above statement? In the absence of such evidence I guess you are stating an opinion as well.

    The reports I have seen indicate that the United States spends more as a percent of GDP than Canada and yet leav

    • Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.

      I am not saying the U.S. is necessarily better than Canada, although I prefer our system. I am talking about broader principles, e.g. private vs. public dollars and the impact on the economy. Our health care system produces more for the economy, employs more people, produces more wealth. Because the government is involved less, the market can more efficiently use the money involved. etc.

      if you judge by the UN's ranking of the best countries to live in.

      I never would. :-)
      • I never would. :-)

        I knew that was too good a setup to ignore. ;)

        Yes, more is spent here, but mostly in private dollars, which helps the economy as a whole (as well as provides a greater quality of care, which you somewhat concede to). I am not sure how a high percentage of GDP makes it bad for the economy, unless it is the government spending all that money, which it isn't.

        Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus

        • Perhaps I am being slow, but a dollar spent is a dollar spent is it not? What does it matter if it is a private citizen versus a government agency that is doing the spending?

          There's several problems. First, if the government pays for it, *I* am paying for it, whether I want to or not, which hurts the market and drags on the economy. Second, the government always sets some sort of price controls, whether explicit or implicit, which hurts the market. Third, the government is usually less efficient, not j
          • I can't agree. I can't see how it is "best" to -- to pick an extreme example, but you speak in absolutes, so it is fitting -- spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a quadruple heart bypass for a deathly overweight 90-year-old homeless person. If a deathly overweight 90-year-old person has the money to pay for that themselves, fine, but it is insane to posit that we should spend all that public money on someone in that condition.

            That is a lovely straw man there.

            If performing the heart bypass me

            • That is a lovely straw man there.

              Rubbish. I took what you said to its logical conclusion. You can feel free to amend what you said, but don't attack *me* for taking your words at face value.

              If performing the heart bypass means another patient more suitable for the procedure (ie younger, healthier, etc) cannot receive the same treatment then that is not acceptable.

              No, that would hold true for a transplant. For a bypass, it is not about availability, it is about cost.

              But otherwise it should be perf
              • Rubbish. I took what you said to its logical conclusion. You can feel free to amend what you said, but don't attack *me* for taking your words at face value.

                Here is what I said:

                In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.

                First explain how that is speaking in ab

                • First explain how that is speaking in absolutes.

                  No. You explain how "best possible care to all that require it" is *not* absolute.

                  IE it should not be performed if he is going to die soon anyway.

                  We're all going to die soon.

                  Personally I would prefer to leave that decision to the doctors.

                  Not when it's my money involved, no.

                  I agree that there should be limits, and I have never said there should not be.

                  You mentioned only one limit: where that care would prevent someone else more "worthy" of gettin
                  • No. You explain how "best possible care to all that require it" is *not* absolute.

                    In the end, the best health care system would be one that provides the best possible care to all that require it, regardless of economic standing. I think neither the Canadian or the American system would pass that simple test and perhaps no single system could. Tradeoffs are necessary.

                    Isn't context a wonderful thing?

                    We're all going to die soon.

                    So why perform bypass surgery for anyone? What's the point?

                    You me

                    • So why perform bypass surgery for anyone? What's the point?

                      You answer that, since you're the one who said "he's going to die soon" is the reason he should not get treatment.

                      Read what I wrote again: ... If the homeless man is not suitable for the operation due to other health concerns it should not be performed.

                      But that does not apply. There's nothing wrong with the surgery, and if it can be paid for, there's no reason not to do it (unlike a transplant).

                      Explain to me how you can take this to mean I
                    • You answer that, since you're the one who said "he's going to die soon" is the reason he should not get treatment.

                      I have already done so: I would personally leave it up to the medical professionals to determine the approximate lifespan left to the patient.

                      But that does not apply. There's nothing wrong with the surgery, and if it can be paid for, there's no reason not to do it (unlike a transplant).

                      I completely agree. If there's nothing wrong with the surgery it should be done. You are the one that ca

                    • I have already done so: I would personally leave it up to the medical professionals to determine the approximate lifespan left to the patient.

                      So you retract your previous statement that the 90-year-old homeless person should not get the surgery. OK.

                      I completely agree. If there's nothing wrong with the surgery it should be done.

                      I didn't say that. I said it should be done if it can be paid for.

                      You are the one that came up with the straw man of a deathly overweight homeless man

                      YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM.

                      I
                    • So you retract your previous statement that the 90-year-old homeless person should not get the surgery. OK.

                      You should work on your reading comprehension.

                      Wow. "I will agree that the minority of people are being forced, but how can you say it is forced?" I dunno, how can YOU say it is forced?

                      Ok, fine then. Any democratic system forces the will of majority on the minority.

                      You can't reasonably compare the two systems in simplistic terms like percentage of GDP, because they are too different.

                      Then how

                    • You should work on your reading comprehension.

                      Riiiiight. You didn't say, "it should not be performed if he is going to die soon anyway." Gotcha.

                      Oh wait, yes you did!

                      Never mind.

                      Any democratic system forces the will of majority on the minority.

                      Yes, but in most cases that will is not expressed against the individual so directly as actually going in and taking something that belongs to you.

                      Then how do you compare them?

                      In terms of raw dollars spent? You don't. You can compare them in terms of lib
                    • The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."
                    • When you keep asking for what has already been provided, you just make yourself look like a tool.
                    • Your definition of hard evidence is interesting. I envy your self confidence.
                    • You yourself conceded that there is hard evidence of decreased care quality in Canada, in your very first post, and now you say no such evidence exists? I envy your ... well, no, I don't.
                    • The bottom line is that I am still waiting for some hard evidence proving that universal health care screws the economy, hurts jobs, decreases the average quality of care, and the overall national "well being."

                      There are problems with the Canadian system, including wait times and a lack of specialized equipment.

                      Once again your definition of hard evidence is interesting if you include a statement of opinion from someone who would readily admit to not being fully informed. My opinion is based on report

        • If Canada spends less (as a percentage of GDP, which I though a fair metric to use) on healthcare than the US how can it be screwing the economy? Doesn't that leave more money to be spent on other goods and services?

          You have committed the broken window fallacy [gmu.edu]. Note that I am not arguing that it is necessarily true or false that such a change in spending would leave more money to be spent on other goods and services. Simply pointing out that your reasoning is incomplete; as pudge mentioned, the money

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • I'm afraid I don't understand how this applies. I am saying that less is being spent on health care leaving more to be spent on other things.

            The broken window fallacy applies when I say that it is good that a situation was created because it creates economic opportunity while ignoring the opportunity cost of the situation. What is lost by spending less money on health care?

            It seems that the reverse is true, saying that the US spending more per GDP is a good thing because it is good for the economy ig