Senate passes 800 billion dollar stimulus without 1 member readind the actual bill!!!

[newusername 10+ year member]

I wonder if there is a 3 dimension comparison with population, % of GDP spent on healthcare, and health outcomes. I am certain that countried with lower populations are able to spend less as a % of GDP simply because they have less people. Another item, which I am certain about, is a particular's societial choices towards healthy eating, smoking excercise, etc. How to measure those "choices" is incredibly difficult.

That is what I want to see. The argument that I have in support of the US's health care vs GDP vs outcomes, is that though we may have more GDP per capita, and better health outcomes, and less spent on healthcare, the per capita aspect may be less integral because it seems very possible to me that the size of the US population means a lot more overhead and infrastructure, which means less GDP per capita can be utilized for healthcare, which means poorer outcomes, etc. Very hard to provide a definitive answer.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

That is what I want to see. The argument that I have in support of the US's health care vs GDP vs outcomes, is that though we may have more GDP per capita, and better health outcomes, and less spent on healthcare, the per capita aspect may be less integral because it seems very possible to me that the size of the US population means a lot more overhead and infrastructure, which means less GDP per capita can be utilized for healthcare, which means poorer outcomes, etc. Very hard to provide a definitive answer.

Once again, we arrive at similar conclusions with completely different vectors. I am not certain how that happens.

But yes, the infrastructure issue is what I was getting at. The graph in my mind would show a stair-step...as population increased, % spend on healthcare would increase, health outcomes would decrease. There would have to be a "k" that would would derive to equate health outcomes across populations , requiring a greater and greater % because of population.

However, I think a more pragmatic approach is limited choices to limit costs. (Sounds crazy from a capitalist, huh) Reason being is that the general public is not smart enough to link types of consumption, exercise, and substance abuse with low health outcomes. If we could create a cultural shift towards a more healthly lifestyle, we could spend far less. I fear that if our current culture is presented with a "backstop" of free high quality healthcare, they may not as be as cautious about a healthly lifestyle...increasing costs dramatically. It's a giant moral hazaard.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

The moral hazard argument is always a mixed-bag for me.

For example, we have relatively little abuse of healthcare here despite the fact that it is free. Is it possible that it could be abused? Yes. Is it right to implement premature limitations because of the potential for abuse? Instinct says no, but then we can draw an analogy with regulated lending that makes it considerably more debateable.

The problem is, especially with health, how one defines necessary and unnecessary health care, and how one determines the cause-effect relationship between actions and your resultant health.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

The moral hazard argument is always a mixed-bag for me.
For example, we have relatively little abuse of healthcare here despite the fact that it is free. Is it possible that it could be abused? Yes. Is it right to implement premature limitations because of the potential for abuse? Instinct says no, but then we can draw an analogy with regulated lending that makes it considerably more debateable.

The problem is, especially with health, how one defines necessary and unnecessary health care, and how one determines the cause-effect relationship between actions and your resultant health.

I am more cynical about the culture of the US. We'd abuse a free handout for arsenic.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

I am more cynical about the culture of the US. We'd abuse a free handout for arsenic.

pretty much that^^^

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I think that it is very possible that you can design a system to provide the necessary health care while limiting abuse, but then I think of the cost and political games associated with that type of oversight.

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I am more cynical about the culture of the US. We'd abuse a free handout for arsenic.

Yes we would. I am with ya there.

 

[Banana Balls 5,000+ posts]

Ok, so the system might work with the right people. The question: can a democracy provide the right people for your system?

I have no idea. I've never lived in a democracy.

There was a great book I read a while ago about how the US will never be what it wants to be because it is democratic and the voters are too stupid.

The US is not a democracy. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

few people use the word in its strict sense anymore

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

 

[Banana Balls 5,000+ posts]

few people use the word in its strict sense anymore

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/fyi.gif.9f1f679348da7204ce960cfc74bca8e0.gif

I use words as they are defined. Anything else is retarded.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

I use words as they are defined. Anything else is retarded.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

i do think its misuse is misleading and not defensible, but the use of the word in common language has really changed.

 

[2001dime 10+ year member]

The United States is a republic.

That dictionary is wrong...lol.

 

[Banana Balls 5,000+ posts]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Thank you. What's your point? Changing the definition of words doesn't make a person or group of people right.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

as i said the common usage of the word has changed in every day language. I hear political science professors refer to our country as a democracy on a daily basis. George Bush said we were bringing democracy to Iraq, but what has been created is a parliamentary republic.