Socialized Health Care

[Winchester]

http://angrytownhall.com/

Links to a site that compares things like fire departments to socialized health care.

Apart from the difference in health care vs. maintaining infrastructure (one could use the same argument for socialized food provision for all), I should point out that most firefighters are volunteer, although most people are served by paid departments. I should also point out that the average firefighter makes far less than a doctor and has far less money invested in schooling. Same with police and roadworkers. Most departments are constantly trying to maintain decent manpower (and can't), but somehow I'm supposed to believe that socialized health care will not result in the same thing.

I'd like to know how much money it would cost per capita, but I haven't seen that number in any pro-socialized health care argument.

HFD is 4000 strong in a city of 2,400,000 (rounding down). 167 dollars per capita. Most of those are making in the 40k range gross pay. That's 1 firefighter for every 6000 people.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 December 2009 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1260584286' post='2018758']
[url="http://angrytownhall.com/"]http://angrytownhall.com/[/url]

Links to a site that compares things like fire departments to socialized health care.

Apart from the difference in health care vs. maintaining infrastructure (one could use the same argument for socialized food provision for all), I should point out that most firefighters are volunteer, although most people are served by paid departments. I should also point out that the average firefighter makes far less than a doctor and has far less money invested in schooling. Same with police and roadworkers. Most departments are constantly trying to maintain decent manpower (and can't), but somehow I'm supposed to believe that socialized health care will not result in the same thing.

I'd like to know how much money it would cost per capita, but I haven't seen that number in any pro-socialized health care argument.

HFD is 4000 strong in a city of 2,400,000 (rounding down). 167 dollars per capita. Most of those are making in the 40k range gross pay. That's 1 firefighter for every 6000 people.
[/quote]

Hey, we [i]all [/i]benefit from healthcare for all. It's for the common good. How can you possibly oppose it?

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

So you have an answer, or not?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 December 2009 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1260586412' post='2018788']
So you have an answer, or not?
[/quote]
I think he is willing to pay for your families health care.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1260586822' post='2018793']
I think he is willing to pay for your families health care.
[/quote]
Like he has a job.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 December 2009 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1260586412' post='2018788']
So you have an answer, or not?
[/quote]

Who cares how much it costs? Who cares about the practical ramifications of the legislation? They have the [i]authority[/i] to make that decision. It's for the common good!

~Sternhauser

Edited December 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 December 2009 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1260587064' post='2018795']
Like he has a job.
[/quote]
You mean he doesn't work as a non-violence trainer for the state of California!

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1260586822' post='2018793']
I think he is willing to pay for your families health care.
[/quote]

For the greater common good! Victory Welfare!

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='11 December 2009 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1260587221' post='2018798']
You mean he doesn't work as a non-violence trainer for the state of California!
[/quote]

Jobless/non-violence trainer for the State of California. Is there a difference?

~Sternhauser

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 December 2009 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1260587426' post='2018801']
Jobless/non-violence trainer for the State of California. Is there a difference?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Actually . . . you are right, there is no difference.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='11 December 2009 - 11:09 PM' timestamp='1260587384' post='2018800']
For the greater common good! Victory Welfare!
[/quote]


[img]http://rameyafb.org/images/allucan.jpg[/img]

~Sternhauser

Edited December 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-percent-of-the-us-population-do-doctors-comprise.htm

According to this site, it's about 1 doctor for every 300 people. So Houston would have 80,000 doctors. That's 20 times the number of firefighters. Assuming expenses to be the same, that's 3,340 dollars per capita. I paid around that for my entire family for our HMO this year. But per capita will mean 10,020 for my family for the government to maintain the normal percentage of doctors, but only with a per doctor expense comparable to that of the fire department. This expense includes equipment and salaries. 80% of a fire department's budget goes to payroll, typically.

Addendum: I don't know how much my employer contributes to the health plan. Presumably, the government would pay the same percentage.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Winchester

[Nihil Obstat]

I used to be at least marginally in favour of socialized healthcare, seeing as how the system actually works fairly decently in Canada.
Recently I attended a talk though, by a health care economist, where I found out that the cost of this socialized healthcare actually increases very dramatically with each generation. The first generation got it free, which was many years ago, and now we're up to my generation which is, at this current rate, projected to come out roughly equal. Our children though, and the next few generations down the line, get a pretty raw deal because over their lifetimes they'll actually experience a net loss of money through taxes to pay for our ever-increasing elderly population. For my children's generation, it's something like a $30000 'birth tax' if I remember correctly.
I find this to be unfair and unacceptable, so it's starting to look like even though the system has worked so far in practice, it's unsustainable over the very long term, and flawed in theory.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 December 2009 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1260588147' post='2018815']
. . . Our children though, and the next few generations down the line, get a pretty raw deal because over their lifetimes they'll actually experience a net loss of money through taxes to pay for our ever-increasing elderly population. For my children's generation, it's something like a $30000 'birth tax' if I remember correctly.
I find this to be unfair and unacceptable, so it's starting to look like even though the system has worked so far in practice, it's unsustainable over the very long term, and flawed in theory.
[/quote]
I am sure that the government will bring the cost down by instituting a euthanasia program.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='11 December 2009 - 11:22 PM' timestamp='1260588147' post='2018815']
I used to be at least marginally in favour of socialized healthcare, seeing as how the system actually works fairly decently in Canada.
Recently I attended a talk though, by a health care economist, where I found out that the cost of this socialized healthcare actually increases very dramatically with each generation. The first generation got it free, which was many years ago, and now we're up to my generation which is, at this current rate, projected to come out roughly equal. Our children though, and the next few generations down the line, get a pretty raw deal because over their lifetimes they'll actually experience a net loss of money through taxes to pay for our ever-increasing elderly population. For my children's generation, it's something like a $30000 'birth tax' if I remember correctly.
I find this to be unfair and unacceptable, so it's starting to look like even though the system has worked so far in practice, it's unsustainable over the very long term, and flawed in theory.
[/quote]

Efficacious? Practical? Fair? Bah. The real question: do they have the [i]authority[/i] or not?

~Sternhauser

Edited December 12, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

What makes no sense to me is that medicare and -aid, which is most of the people paying for some of the people is going bankrupt, but all of the people paying for all of the people is going to work.

[Pomak]

We got it here in Australia but I am not sure how it works exactly. Doctors are not paid a salary per se but the doctors who bulk bill charge the govt rather than the individual. (it only applies to GPs not specialists). But yeah its not cheap, but its about putting priorities on each person at least having the opportunity to go and see a doc when he gets sick.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

[quote name='Winchester' date='11 December 2009 - 10:18 PM' timestamp='1260584286' post='2018758']I'd like to know how much money it would cost per capita, but I haven't seen that number in any pro-socialized health care argument.[/quote]

It's impossible to predict how much it will much because govt-funded medical care will lead to an upsurge in demand that wouldn't have happened otherwise. If health care is "free" people will have more incentive to demand gold-plated treatments for every small ailment. This is a big reason why health care is so expensive already: reliance on third-party payers, private or government, has led to inflated demand and no price competition. This would become even worse in a fully govt-funded system. Estimates of cost are skewed too low by failing to take into account how govt subsidies encourage higher demand and higher prices in and of themselves.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Pomak' date='11 December 2009 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1260589038' post='2018824']
We got it here in Australia but I am not sure how it works exactly. Doctors are not paid a salary per se but the doctors who bulk bill charge the govt rather than the individual. (it only applies to GPs not specialists). But yeah its not cheap, but its about putting priorities on each person at least having the opportunity to go and see a doc when he gets sick.
[/quote]
We already have that, though. The amount of care those who will not work receive is staggering, here.