Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2009-11-10 21:53:33
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Not necessarily.  It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical).  We all understand the idea of cooperation and concentration of resources.  Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models.
No, he isn't even using the efficiency of scale argument. What he said:

Aussiereaper wrote:

Not every single person will visit a doctor in the year. They may not visit the doctor for a number of years.

How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service (and in many cases NEED to use the service) get it for free?

When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math...
If you only read the last line the reasonable assumption is he is using the economics of scale to make his case, but you read what he wrote above that and he is saying a cost spreading model lowers the cost.
The cost is lowered when the tax dollars input of the system is greater than the amount it takes to run, so that extra money can be invested into better services, medical research, which omg will lower the cost of the services and/or improve those services. Unless that is too complex for you to work out.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 21:54:06
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

The cost is lowered for the individual, they pay less of their tax dollars towards the health care because it is spread throughout the entire population. I'm still just repeating myself though...

Can you offer any reason why the user pay system is superior?
See Ken?

The cost is lowered for the individual if they go more than their fair share. The cost is raised if they go less than their fair share. How is that lowered cost?

Why would I present my argument for private healthcare for you?
2009-11-10 21:54:18
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6997|132 and Bush

Macbeth wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


Not necessarily.  It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical).  We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources.  Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.
What works in Australia's small, homogenous population may not work well in America's large, diverse population.  People in other nations often forget that fact
Yup Yup, then we have all those illegals that don't pay into the system and such.
You've got plenty of homegrown Americans exploiting the system too.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2009-11-10 21:55:04
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

The cost is lowered when the tax dollars input of the system is greater than the amount it takes to run, so that extra money can be invested into better services, medical research, which omg will lower the cost of the services and/or improve those services. Unless that is too complex for you to work out.
Hahaha nooooo, you don't get to use this argument until you rescind your last one.
2009-11-10 21:55:16
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

See Ken?

The cost is lowered for the individual if they go more than their fair share. The cost is raised if they go less than their fair share. How is that lowered cost?

Why would I present my argument for private healthcare for you?
"fair share" =/= paying you're own way and fuck everybody else in the country.

Sorry if you don't agree with those morals. lol
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 21:55:30
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6843|Chicago, IL

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:


What works in Australia's small, homogenous population may not work well in America's large, diverse population.  People in other nations often forget that fact
Yup Yup, then we have all those illegals that don't pay into the system and such.
You've got plenty of homegrown Americans exploiting the system too.
My neighbor only needed his cane when people were looking...
2009-11-10 21:56:32
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5982

S.Lythberg wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


Yup Yup, then we have all those illegals that don't pay into the system and such.
You've got plenty of homegrown Americans exploiting the system too.
My neighbor only needed his cane when people were looking...
Just sayin, 12-20 million straight off the bat then add the lazy U.S. citizens. Scary.
2009-11-10 21:57:18
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

See Ken?

The cost is lowered for the individual if they go more than their fair share. The cost is raised if they go less than their fair share. How is that lowered cost?

Why would I present my argument for private healthcare for you?
"fair share" =/= paying you're own way and fuck everybody else in the country.

Sorry if you don't agree with those morals. lol
I didn't say it did. I am not even advocating one over the other. I am saying that the aggregate cost is the same, regardless of how society chooses to pay for it. For some reason you look at the people that use more than the average healthcare and say "look healthcare got cheaper!" and ignore the other side of the median that healthcare "got more expensive" for.
2009-11-10 22:04:04
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did. I am not even advocating one over the other. I am saying that the aggregate cost is the same, regardless of how society chooses to pay for it. For some reason you look at the people that use more than the average healthcare and say "look healthcare got cheaper!" and ignore the other side of the median that healthcare "got more expensive" for.
Who did healthcare get more expensive for, those who don't use it but still pay for it by taxes...?

The benefits of a healthy society is more than just financial. But cause someone is supporting someone else you think that's a socialist and evil system and punishment for those who don't need to pay for health care simply because they aren't sick.

Yeah good argument that one...

If you can't see the benefits someone has for paying health care tax even when they don't use the system you're just too narrow minded.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 22:08:32
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did. I am not even advocating one over the other. I am saying that the aggregate cost is the same, regardless of how society chooses to pay for it. For some reason you look at the people that use more than the average healthcare and say "look healthcare got cheaper!" and ignore the other side of the median that healthcare "got more expensive" for.
Who did healthcare get more expensive for, those who don't use it but still pay for it by taxes...?
Last time I checked something in taxes is more than $0 privately.

Aussiereaper wrote:

The benefits of a healthy society is more than just financial. But cause someone is supporting someone else you think that's a socialist and evil system and punishment for those who don't need to pay for health care simply because they aren't sick.

Yeah good argument that one...

If you can't see the benefits someone has for paying health care tax even when they don't use the system you're just too narrow minded.
Still don't get to use a different argument until you renounce your old one.
2009-11-10 22:11:13
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Still don't get to use a different argument until you renounce your old one.
Whys that, you haven't come up with an argument for any form of health care so far. Other than "I am not even advocating one over the other".
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 22:13:08
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85
I am not arguing for a form of healthcare. My argument is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Healthcare is not free, public healthcare is not cheaper because it merely spreads the cost, and I still want to know what the real cost is for you to do something on that price list.
2009-11-10 22:15:52
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6894

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Healthcare is not free,
i haven't paid for an Rx in five years.
2009-11-10 22:24:00
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6843|Chicago, IL

burnzz wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Healthcare is not free,
i haven't paid for an Rx in five years.


taxes?
docked pay?

you (or someone richer who despises your existence, if you're that poor) has paid for it.

Oxygen and dirt is free, everything else costs money
2009-11-10 22:25:56
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6894

S.Lythberg wrote:

Oxygen and dirt is free, everything else costs money
what a coincidence! my prescription is fresh air, and to go outside!
2009-11-10 22:27:58
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7028|949

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did. I am not even advocating one over the other. I am saying that the aggregate cost is the same, regardless of how society chooses to pay for it. For some reason you look at the people that use more than the average healthcare and say "look healthcare got cheaper!" and ignore the other side of the median that healthcare "got more expensive" for.
Who did healthcare get more expensive for, those who don't use it but still pay for it by taxes...?

The benefits of a healthy society is more than just financial. But cause someone is supporting someone else you think that's a socialist and evil system and punishment for those who don't need to pay for health care simply because they aren't sick.

Yeah good argument that one...

If you can't see the benefits someone has for paying health care tax even when they don't use the system you're just too narrow minded.
You are turning real short term costs (paying money in the form of taxes to directly support the collective healthcare industry) into possible social/ethical benefits.  It's not necessarily that it's evil it's just that there are net winners and losers - some people will pay their tax and not use the system, some people will use more than they pay for. 

Personally I don't care about throwing a few dollars into a healthcare system for my fellow humans but FM seems to have a Seqouia up his ass about it.  FM, how much in taxes have you paid so far this year?
2009-11-10 22:28:55
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|6095

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Personally I don't care about throwing a few dollars into a healthcare system for my fellow humans but FM seems to have a Seqouia up his ass about it.  FM, how much in taxes have you paid so far this year?
Ahahaha. I c wat u did thar.
2009-11-10 22:29:14
S.Lythberg
Mastermind
+429|6843|Chicago, IL

burnzz wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Oxygen and dirt is free, everything else costs money
what a coincidence! my prescription is fresh air, and to go outside!
I assume your doctor is my old gym coach, and the prescription was "walk it off you fucking pansy" then?
2009-11-10 22:30:42
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85
like $400 I think?
2009-11-10 22:33:09
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7028|949

You want me to paypal that $20 you spent on some scummer in the hospital?
2009-11-10 22:33:10
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6894

S.Lythberg wrote:

I assume your doctor is my old gym coach, and the prescription was "walk it off you fucking pansy" then?
almost - i have thalassemia, so the less i spend in front of my pc, the better. cya.
2009-11-10 22:36:47
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You want me to paypal that $20 you spent on some scummer in the hospital?
If you're stupid enough to then yeah, I would. Thanks.

Of course you're not going to...why? Because the $20 is meaningful, and you're not going to throw it away.

If jerking off to all the good you're doing for other people is worth the money you're paying for it then great, but don't pretend you aren't getting anything in return.
2009-11-10 22:37:03
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6549|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Healthcare is not free
I haven't said health care is free, we tackled that little moan of yours in the first couple of pages, remember?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

public healthcare is not cheaper because it merely spreads the cost
Public health care is cheaper for the individual, as I already explained, because the burden of cost is spread even if you pay for healthcare and don't use it the benefits of a healthy society outweigh that cost, and any extra taxes into the system that isn't used are invested into the health care anyway to further improve the system.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and I still want to know what the real cost is for you to do something on that price list.
And again as I have already explained the real cost for me to do anything on that list upfront is zero, in taxes minimal (it's spread remember?) and to see a doctor for any of those an out of work, homeless, jobless man could use any of the services and pay absolute zero because he isn't paying tax minus any goods and service tax which for someone in that position wouldn't be much.

If you can explain how the costs for a health care service such as ear wax removal when charged per person somehow lowers the cost than by all means do so.

It's not like there's going to be competition in the market so Doctors will be forced to lower prices or make no sale. Healthcare doesn't work like that.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-11-10 22:43:01
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|7103|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Healthcare is not free
I haven't said health care is free, we tackled that little moan of yours in the first couple of pages, remember?

what AR hasn't said wrote:

I could get most of those listed on that board for free, right now, with Australia's free health care system.

I walk into the local GP centre, show them my Medicare card and could get any of those check ups, diagnosis and shots for free. The treatment stuff as well. Even the ear wax removal would be free.
So this is incorrect?

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

public healthcare is not cheaper because it merely spreads the cost
Public health care is cheaper for the individual, as I already explained, because the burden of cost is spread even if you pay for healthcare and don't use it the benefits of a healthy society outweigh that cost, and any extra taxes into the system that isn't used are invested into the health care anyway to further improve the system.
So, public healthcare is not cheaper merely because it spreads the cost. You are still trying to introduce extra arguments that weren't present before, but what I just said is correct yes?

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and I still want to know what the real cost is for you to do something on that price list.
And again as I have already explained the real cost for me to do anything on that list upfront is zero, in taxes minimal (it's spread remember?) and to see a doctor for any of those an out of work, homeless, jobless man could use any of the services and pay absolute zero because he isn't paying tax minus any goods and service tax which for someone in that position wouldn't be much.

If you can explain how the costs for a health care service such as ear wax removal when charged per person somehow lowers the cost than by all means do so.

It's not like there's going to be competition in the market so Doctors will be forced to lower prices or make no sale. Healthcare doesn't work like that.
Haha the cost is exactly upfront, the government has to foot the bill right off the bat.

"wouldn't be much" - I want a number.

You keep trying to get me to make an argument - I don't need to. That's not what I'm talking about.

Yeah, there is competition. What is going to keep a doctor in-state when they have student loans to pay off and the state income just doesn't cut it?
2009-11-10 22:43:25
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,991|7028|949

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

You want me to paypal that $20 you spent on some scummer in the hospital?
If you're stupid enough to then yeah, I would. Thanks.

Of course you're not going to...why? Because the $20 is meaningful, and you're not going to throw it away.

If jerking off to all the good you're doing for other people is worth the money you're paying for it then great, but don't pretend you aren't getting anything in return.
No I wouldn't paypal you because you clearly are a heartless bastard with no care for the human condition.  I don't go prancing around with a ribbon and a hat telling everyone how great it is that I pay into the social contract.  I don't care - life is good enough for me to really care about whether or not people are cheating the system.  I'm more concerned with how the system is being exploited than the people that are exploiting the sytem.   

Fix the system or find a better alternative to minimize waste and corruption.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard