Poll
Question:
Should The Start Pay All The Costs Of Delivering A Baby?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 17
Option 2: No
votes: 11
'Inspired' by this article about the differing costs of delivering babies in different countries:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31052665 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31052665)
QuoteHow much do women around the world pay to give birth?
By Mariko Oi
BBC News, Singapore
Money should be the least of your concerns when you are in labour.
But when I was about to push my baby out I noticed that the epidural was running low, and before asking my doctor to top it up I thought to myself: "Would that be another $500?"
Three days later I was presented with three different hospital bills; one for myself, another for our baby daughter and a third one, which I cannot even remember.
Mine was five pages long, detailing every item that I used during my two-night stay. Hers was not much shorter.
In total our first child's birth cost us just under $9,000 Singapore dollars ($6,650; £4,400). If you include all the pre-natal check-ups, the bill was well over S$10,000.
So my question is should the state pay all the costs of delivering a new baby into the world?
Quote from: mongers on February 13, 2015, 04:27:29 PM
So my question is should the state pay all the costs of delivering a new baby into the world?
Maybe you should put that in the title of your thread then, TimmayUK!
Quote from: mongers on February 13, 2015, 04:27:29 PM
So my question is should the state pay all the costs of delivering a new baby into the world?
Yeah, of course.
The start should pay for everything.
I don't think the state should subsidise baby deliveries. If the demand for baby orders increases, the price of baby deliveries should go up. Invisible hand of the market.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2015, 04:31:07 PM
The start should pay for everything.
Well, it pays for Mono, so...
Wouldn't this just fall under the debate for and against universal health care? :huh:
Nope. If the state isn't allowed to fund abortions, it shouldn't be allowed to fund births. Fuck that shit, I'm not paying twice, because you skipped the whore pills I was more than happy to fund with my tax dollars, but nooooo, you had to be a slut.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 04:32:51 PM
Nope. If the state isn't allowed to fund abortions, it should be allowed to fund births. Fuck that shit, I'm not paying twice, because you skipped the whore pills I was more than happy to fund with my tax dollars, but nooooo, you had to be a slut.
That's what I always say to those bitches who insist on getting a seat on a bus because they are pregnant/with a baby.
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
That's what I always say to those bitches who insist on getting a seat on a bus because they are pregnant/with a baby.
That's got nothing to do with state-funded care, though. That's just you being a breeder-hating fag cunt. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 04:35:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
That's what I always say to those bitches who insist on getting a seat on a bus because they are pregnant/with a baby.
That's got nothing to do with state-funded care, though. That's just you being a breeder-hating fag cunt. :lol:
I never let my politics get ahead of my pettiness. :P
Funny the two bleeding hearts saying: teh teachers! teh children! in the 'death to unions' thread are suddenly singing a different tune :P
Um...not sure. It might be a really good idea, but it comes down how much it costs everybody. We lucked out that my wife's insurance was amazing and covered every penny, that was a big load off our minds.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Funny the two bleeding hearts saying: teh teachers! Teh children! In the 'death to unions' thread are suddenly singing a different tune :P
It's actually pretty consistent. We are both proponents of a Plato-like-republic. Just take the children away from the breeders (who should be sent to re-education camps) while the wise men instil our values in the young minds. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 04:41:27 PM
Just take the children away from the breeders (who should be sent to re-education camps)
That is the thanks I get for my mighty production of sperm :angry:
And we also have to pay the doctor before being sent to said camps. Talk about adding insult to injury.
You would notice that I have consistently supported policies that would effectively eliminate inheritance, parental authority and privilege by birth. :P
In order to evolve, we need to transcend the biological and the genetical. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 04:43:29 PM
In order to evolve, we need to transcend the biological and the genetical. :cool:
Evolution transcends the biological and genetical? :hmm:
As for the starting question: mine already does.
Quote from: celedhring on February 13, 2015, 04:49:12 PM
As for the starting question: mine already does.
Yet hardly any babies are made. :hmm:
This seems like a failed policy.
Well, the problems usually come once said baby is already in the world.
No. Some costs sure why not, but all costs seems excessive.
NO
Pay for mine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 13, 2015, 06:24:18 PM
Pay for mine.
We all should, they're not just going to see you through your dotage (next month start?) , your kids are the future.
So society as a whole should help them and their parents out, a bit.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 04:39:11 PM
Funny the two bleeding hearts saying: teh teachers! teh children! in the 'death to unions' thread are suddenly singing a different tune :P
I support paying birth control and whore pills so I don't have to pay costs for delivering little Pla-Doh Fun Factories of Shit.
Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.
I'd go for not.
I don't know if we should be paying for people who can't afford to have kids to have more kids.
Of course they should, just like they should any other medical condition
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.
Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.
But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2015, 09:02:19 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.
Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.
But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.
We do pay according to wealth. It is called a progressive tax system. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 09:28:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2015, 09:02:19 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 13, 2015, 09:04:28 PM
Yes. Obviously. Cradle to grave.
Breaking the British Unity here, but I think it should depend on wealth. Above a certain income you should be expected to contribute to your treatment up to a capped proportion of your income. And giving birth is still, obviously enough, a form of treatment.
But since that's not an option in this poll, I'm one of the "yes" men.
We do pay according to wealth. It is called a progressive tax system. ;)
Then double
everyone's tax rates instead; as it is, with permanent "protection" (thanks to politics) and permanent cost increase (due to population growth and improving care increasing lifespans) the NHS as currently funded and constituted is a millstone around the country's finances negatively affecting every other department.
As the tax system is now either people above a certain income are going to have to start directly contributing (rather than indirectly via a progressive taxation system) or the rates levied have to increase generally. I know which I'd prefer, but the "cradle to grave" mantra stifles debate.
There's no reason why the NHS shouldn't be means tested the way other benefits funded from general taxation are. And, in fact, in some aspects already is. Prescriptions are not free save for certain designated categories. Nor are eye tests and the associated expense of spectacles. Nor even is dentistry.
But the UK spends less on health care than most western countries.
I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2015, 10:01:15 AM
There's no reason why the NHS shouldn't be means tested the way other benefits funded from general taxation are. And, in fact, in some aspects already is. Prescriptions are not free save for certain designated categories. Nor are eye tests and the associated expense of spectacles. Nor even is dentistry.
You are conflating two concepts. One is the determination of what should be covered under universal coverage. That is an important aspect of controlling costs. The other concept is whether there should be a means test for coverage of those services which are covered under universal coverage.
Means testing isn't a panacea. My problems with it are:
1) a new level of red tape is created which must assess who is in what categorie and who must pay what - I am not convinced the costs and inefficiencies associated with such a system result in a net benefit.
2) Where does one draw the line between those who obtain free care and those who must pay. Draw that line too low and you do real harm in terms of people not being able to afford health care which in the long run results in even more costs as people who may have been easily treated or proactively dealt with don't seek medical attention until their condition becomes more serious. Draw the line too high and you receive no real benefit because the people who are caught are probably already seeking out private health care options.
3) Perhaps most significantly I think you run the risk of creating a tiered system within what is supposed to be a universal system. People who pay directly for medical services will come to demand more for that payment and I think it is inevitable that people who do not pay directly will receive lesser treatment.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.
No point, as you'd dismiss them as anecdotal evidence anyway.
What about this metric?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
QuoteList by the World Health Organization (2012)
Overall rank Country Overall.exp Male exp. Female exp.
1 Japan 84.6 85 87.3
2 Andorra 84.2 80.8 87.6
3 Singapore 84 82 87
.......
11 Canada 82.5 80.4 84.6
12 Spain 82.5 79.5 85
....
17 France 81.5 78 85
.....
22 Germany 81 78.5 83.5
28 United Kingdom 81 79.5 82.5
......
32 Lebanon 80.5 78.9 82.5
.......
36 United States 79.8 77.4 82.2
......
I vote no, to me it depends on the national healthcare scheme. Not all countries use one where the State is the sole payer, I think that the laws should be structured such that no parent is out significant out of pocket money for delivery of a baby. In a system without say, the sickness funds ala Germany but more of an NHS style system, then yes the State should pay the full costs.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2015, 10:44:52 AM
No point, as you'd dismiss them as anecdotal evidence anyway.
You'd be wrong on that. That's what qualitative research is darling and it is something that I get paid to do. :)
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2015, 10:44:52 AM
QuoteList by the World Health Organization (2012)
Overall rank Country Overall.exp Male exp. Female exp.
1 Japan 84.6 85 87.3
2 Andorra 84.2 80.8 87.6
3 Singapore 84 82 87
.......
11 Canada 82.5 80.4 84.6
12 Spain 82.5 79.5 85
....
17 France 81.5 78 85
.....
22 Germany 81 78.5 83.5
28 United Kingdom 81 79.5 82.5
......
32 Lebanon 80.5 78.9 82.5
.......
36 United States 79.8 77.4 82.2
......
I guess that's good though I'm not sure that's the best measure / certainly not one that I would use personally to think about healthcare for myself.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 10:32:37 AM
3) Perhaps most significantly I think you run the risk of creating a tiered system within what is supposed to be a universal system. People who pay directly for medical services will come to demand more for that payment and I think it is inevitable that people who do not pay directly will receive lesser treatment.
Isn't that what often happens anyway? Those with money find a way to get better care?
Quote from: Tyr on February 14, 2015, 10:03:08 AM
But the UK spends less on health care than most western countries.
Given the deficits many of them are running, is that surprising?
Funding Healthcare is just another part of the general benefits crisis the west seems to be facing - how to pay for an increasingly costly population.
I may have exaggerated the "doubling" bit, but something has to give. Particularly if we are in a long term depression akin to the one of the late nineteenth century and can't hope for high economic growth to paper over the cracks.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.
You can tick that one off your bucket list.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/an-american-doctor-experiences-an-nhs-emergency-room/
Quote from: Tyr on February 14, 2015, 07:50:15 AM
Of course they should, just like they should any other medical condition
It's elective, though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 11:10:09 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.
You can tick that one off your bucket list.
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/an-american-doctor-experiences-an-nhs-emergency-room/
Okay, thanks. :)
Though of course I do have to add the qualifier that I don't think speck of dirt in eye is exactly what I was thinking about on the healthcare front. :D :P -_-
Given that the state seems to treat people as property and insist on its right to tax "citizens" who have no way to escape a given jurisdiction, I'd say ponying up for childbirth costs is the least they can do.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 14, 2015, 11:16:55 AM
Given that the state seems to treat people as property and insist on its right to tax "citizens" who have no way to escape a given jurisdiction, I'd say ponying up for childbirth costs is the least they can do.
:huh:
I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 10:32:37 AM
1) a new level of red tape is created which must assess who is in what categorie and who must pay what - I am not convinced the costs and inefficiencies associated with such a system result in a net benefit.
Most of the information required to run such a scheme is already collected and available - the database for tax credit payments (the unnecessary system Gordon Brown introduced) for example. Additional costs can be minimal with appropriate legislation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 10:32:37 AM2) Where does one draw the line between those who obtain free care and those who must pay. Draw that line too low and you do real harm in terms of people not being able to afford health care which in the long run results in even more costs as people who may have been easily treated or proactively dealt with don't seek medical attention until their condition becomes more serious. Draw the line too high and you receive no real benefit because the people who are caught are probably already seeking out private health care options.
Drawing the line too high has no drawbacks (and, in fact, given that a number of very well off people do actually use the NHS would probably still provide a net benefit.)
Drawing it too low could be an issue, but since I was talking about both levying a charge as a proportion of the income and capping the maximum contribution possible, not so much of a one. People might be paying in full for smallscale treatments but never in full for expensive and longterm treatments.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 10:32:37 AM3) Perhaps most significantly I think you run the risk of creating a tiered system within what is supposed to be a universal system. People who pay directly for medical services will come to demand more for that payment and I think it is inevitable that people who do not pay directly will receive lesser treatment.
I fail to see why that would be so in a system which relies on one universal provider. Or, more precisely, in a system that relies on a universal price setter. Nobody in the actual system itself can directly benefit from providing a better service to a customer paying 5% of his costs compared to one paying 0% of his costs.
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 11:18:48 AM
:huh:
I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship. ;)
The state's taxation kicks in way before that's an option. Look at sales tax. Not only are you taxed for the privilege of buying goods in your state, but sales tax follows you, as a citizen of that state, to other states, regardless of what their own tax policies are. So for a minor, you're literally taxed with no choice in the matter no matter where you go.
Note, I'm not anti-tax, I'm against the state's practice of using its citizens to collect sales tax on purchases it has no jurisdiction over. I get that it happened as a response to people hopping borders like PA or NJ to DE, but I think it was the wrong solution.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 14, 2015, 11:24:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 11:18:48 AM
:huh:
I don't really see how the state treats its citizens like property / you can freely escape taxation from your state. Just give up your citizenship. ;)
The state's taxation kicks in way before that's an option. Look at sales tax. Not only are you taxed for the privilege of buying goods in your state, but sales tax follows you, as a citizen of that state, to other states, regardless of what their own tax policies are. So for a minor, you're literally taxed with no choice in the matter no matter where you go.
Note, I'm not anti-tax, I'm against the state's practice of using its citizens to collect sales tax on purchases it has no jurisdiction over. I get that it happened as a response to people hopping borders like PA or NJ to DE, but I think it was the wrong solution.
Are you talking about said "use taxes"? How many people ever pay those?
Also, who cares about minors? You pretty much have no control over most matters as a minor so seems irrelevant.
The corollary question is who should pay if the state mistakenly delivers a baby to Otto's house and then refuses to collect it.
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2015, 05:05:51 PM
The corollary question is who should pay if the state mistakenly delivers a baby to Otto's house and then refuses to collect it.
:lol:
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2015, 10:44:52 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:13:39 AM
I've never heard great testimonials about the NHS.
No point, as you'd dismiss them as anecdotal evidence anyway.
What about this metric?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
QuoteList by the World Health Organization (2012)
Overall rank Country Overall.exp Male exp. Female exp.
1 Japan 84.6 85 87.3
2 Andorra 84.2 80.8 87.6
3 Singapore 84 82 87
.......
11 Canada 82.5 80.4 84.6
12 Spain 82.5 79.5 85
....
17 France 81.5 78 85
.....
22 Germany 81 78.5 83.5
28 United Kingdom 81 79.5 82.5
......
32 Lebanon 80.5 78.9 82.5
.......
36 United States 79.8 77.4 82.2
......
When the health debate comes up here, people talk about "UK/NHS! Canadian universal health care!"...sheesh, why not Japan?
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 14, 2015, 05:49:20 PM
When the health debate comes up here, people talk about "UK/NHS! Canadian universal health care!"...sheesh, why not Japan?
Lack of knowledge? Misappreciation of how the system works due to the prevalence in anime and Japanese dramas of "family hospitals" with the son or daughter going to medical school because they are the heir and expected to inherit, an alien practise to the west? Bigotry? A belief that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy naturally so this discrepancy is not due to the health care system? A belief that the Japanese diet is healthier?
Could be for a lot of reasons - I've only just read the Wikipedia article to get a basic idea how it works myself. Now, from a costs perspective, I wish we had the same here (although we probably couldn't make it work as well.)
Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at. I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe? No idea. I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such :P
Fish are healthier than Cheetos.
In japan the life expectancy is definitely down to genetics, diet, etc... And not the health system
Healthcare in japan is a backwards mess
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at. I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe? No idea. I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such :P
I thought this is because they eat sushi and are post-Hiroschima mutants, not some pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. :unsure:
I figured it might be all the sex going on in hospitals there. I've heard there are videos on the internet showing that. :whistle:
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2015, 06:51:14 AM
I figured it might be all the sex going on in hospitals there. I've heard there are videos on the internet showing that. :whistle:
I thought there was that survey that showed the Japanese having a low desire to have sex (particularly women).
Quote from: garbon on February 15, 2015, 09:44:19 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on February 15, 2015, 06:51:14 AM
I figured it might be all the sex going on in hospitals there. I've heard there are videos on the internet showing that. :whistle:
I thought there was that survey that showed the Japanese having a low desire to have sex (particularly women).
He is talking about pr0n. :secret:
Quote from: Agelastus on February 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 14, 2015, 10:32:37 AM
1) a new level of red tape is created which must assess who is in what categorie and who must pay what - I am not convinced the costs and inefficiencies associated with such a system result in a net benefit.
Most of the information required to run such a scheme is already collected and available - the database for tax credit payments (the unnecessary system Gordon Brown introduced) for example. Additional costs can be minimal with appropriate legislation.
That only accounts for the cost of identifying income levels. Next all the systems needed to use that information and collect the fees has to be created and staffed.
Quote
Drawing it too low could be an issue, but since I was talking about both levying a charge as a proportion of the income and capping the maximum contribution possible, not so much of a one.
A few decades ago this Province implemented a $5 dollar user fee. The thought was that the fee was low enough that it would not stop anyone who really needed medical care but it would stop people from abusing the system. There was no actual evidence of abuse, this was simply based on a belief there was abuse. The fee was removed after a few years because the cost of health care actually rose as a result of people putting off visits until matters had gotten worse.
QuoteI fail to see why that would be so in a system which relies on one universal provider. Or, more precisely, in a system that relies on a universal price setter. Nobody in the actual system itself can directly benefit from providing a better service to a customer paying 5% of his costs compared to one paying 0% of his costs.
To some extent it depends on the kind of method used to implement the collection of fees. I suppose if a system is created where sometime after the person leaves the clinic/hospital they receive a bill from a central NHS office which collects all fees that will provide some protection but I think you are still discounting the impact that payors will have regarding demanding better services in the facilities near them for the extra amount they are paying.
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at. I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe? No idea. I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such :P
Probably because we all talk about the health care systems we know about, so we talk about the systems in the UK, US, and Canada, with a smattering European countries thrown in. Nobody here has serious experience with the Japanese health care system.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 01:13:26 PM
That only accounts for the cost of identifying income levels. Next all the systems needed to use that information and collect the fees has to be created and staffed.
But the basic systems are already in place for billing as well (even if we don't seem to use them, see this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10022601/NHS-counts-900-million-cost-of-treating-EU-visitors.html) for both EU and non-EU citizens. Pricing is already in place, as is the record of all treatments. Expansion is (or should be) a lot cheaper than starting from scratch.
Collection systems may cost something depending on the method used; but since the majority of the people who would pay a contribution to the cost of their treatment would be either salaried workers or wealthy retirees then the simplest method of collecting would be garnishing wages (with a special "NI" levy, possibly) and state pension payments (which is taxable income.) Leave collection mainly as a function of HMRC's taxation functions. For the high earning self-employed issuing a statement to them and making them include the payment as part of their tax calculation might work as well.
QuoteA few decades ago this Province implemented a $5 dollar user fee. The thought was that the fee was low enough that it would not stop anyone who really needed medical care but it would stop people from abusing the system. There was no actual evidence of abuse, this was simply based on a belief there was abuse. The fee was removed after a few years because the cost of health care actually rose as a result of people putting off visits until matters had gotten worse.
I would think that the people most likely to put off visits would be the poorer, less educated members of society - the ones who would not have to make a contribution anyway under the rules I'm suggesting. Universal fees are often self-defeating. Targeted fees are a much better idea.
QuoteTo some extent it depends on the kind of method used to implement the collection of fees. I suppose if a system is created where sometime after the person leaves the clinic/hospital they receive a bill from a central NHS office which collects all fees that will provide some protection but I think you are still discounting the impact that payors will have regarding demanding better services in the facilities near them for the extra amount they are paying.
I disagree for the simple reason that if they really, really want a better service (or what they think is a better service) they can use BUPA or an alternative private healthcare provider instead.
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at. I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe? No idea. I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such :P
Probably because we all talk about the health care systems we know about, so we talk about the systems in the UK, US, and Canada, with a smattering European countries thrown in. Nobody here has serious experience with the Japanese health care system.
Well this is self-evidently wrong and further is nonsensical. Why would Canadians and Americans have less experience with Japan or China than they do with Germany? It is certainly not because we have more German immigrants these days than Chinese ones. It is certainly not because we have closer economic ties with them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2015, 06:56:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 01:19:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2015, 07:03:22 PM
Health Care systems in Asia are just never really looked at. I suppose maybe it makes sense that you compare cultures more similar to yours maybe? No idea. I have certainly heard anybody ever say 'Nips just live longer because they are Asiatic savages' or a more PC version of such :P
Probably because we all talk about the health care systems we know about, so we talk about the systems in the UK, US, and Canada, with a smattering European countries thrown in. Nobody here has serious experience with the Japanese health care system.
Well this is self-evidently wrong and further is nonsensical. Why would Canadians and Americans have less experience with Japan or China than they do with Germany? It is certainly not because we have more German immigrants these days than Chinese ones. It is certainly not because we have closer economic ties with them.
Because we have had the benefit of posters who know something about the German system telling us about it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 06:58:12 PM
Because we have had the benefit of posters who know something about the German system telling us about it.
Ah. As 'we' I meant the public discussion over here. I have never heard anybody put up the Japanese system as a model we should follow. But we have heard Mono discuss the Hong Kong health care system, seems its very similar to the UKs, and we have had posters who have spent time over in Japan who can say something about it.
One more benefit, if the State provided funding then presumably the chances of an undocumented birth would decrease.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2015, 06:56:35 PM
Well this is self-evidently wrong and further is nonsensical.
Easy there big feller :lol:
QuoteWhy would Canadians and Americans have less experience with Japan or China than they do with Germany? It is certainly not because we have more German immigrants these days than Chinese ones. It is certainly not because we have closer economic ties with them.
... I don't know about you, but the online places I have hung out on have had more Germans explain how the health system works in their country than Chinese and Japanese. And that's what I was talking about.
As it happens, I do have some experience and knowledge of the Chinese health care system, but it hasn't really seemed worthwhile to bring it up when we've discussed health care. It's not something I'd suggest the US emulate, either.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 16, 2015, 07:34:47 PM
One more benefit, if the State provided funding then presumably the chances of an undocumented birth would decrease.
It wouldn't have any impact in the case in consideration though.
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 07:39:49 PM
As it happens, I do have some experience and knowledge of the Chinese health care system, but it hasn't really seemed worthwhile to bring it up when we've discussed health care.
Why not?
QuoteI don't know about you, but the online places I have hung out on have had more Germans explain how the health system works in their country than Chinese and Japanese. And that's what I was talking about.
Yeah I was thinking you meant something besides online places :blush:
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2015, 07:40:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 16, 2015, 07:39:49 PM
As it happens, I do have some experience and knowledge of the Chinese health care system, but it hasn't really seemed worthwhile to bring it up when we've discussed health care.
Why not?
It hasn't seemed germane, and while I'm passingly familiar it's not enough to withstand in depth questioning.
But I can give you the brief overview, as I understand it:
Everyone gets an account with a certain amount of money to be spent on medical services, including pharmacy stuff. It's fairly generous for most uses, but if you exceed it you're going to have to pay out of your own pocket. I'm not sure what happens if you exceed the costs due to something terrible happening (cancer, serious accidents, etc) - I suppose there's a provision, but I don't know.
Most people do not use their annual allotment - but fear not, the free market has provided a solution. You can spend your health-care allotment in pharmacies, so now there are many pharmacies whose main trade is all kinds of goods you might find useful but that are otherwise not particularly health related. So you can spend your allotment there.
You can also pay out of your own pocket for fancy places and better care, if you're rich, of course. And I'm sure there are hospitals associated with the PLA and other organizations where you can get taken care of if you have the right connections.
Most doctors, whatever their area of practice, are associated with a hospital. So for most things you'd go to a family doctor or specialist for, you'd go to the hospital to get sorted.
In addition, many if not most people go to Traditional Chinese Medicine doctors and pay cash (much less). Funny thing about those is that there's no privacy... like... you go with your whole family and when it's your turn you go to a table where the doctor sits and he asks you about your bowel movements and pulse and whatever else. Not only is your family there, but so is a random assortment of other patients and their families, all listening to you rattle off your symptoms and answering the doctor's questions.
I discuss my bowel movements...with everybody.
How are we supposed to fight the Russians if the birth rate falls because a baby costs ten thousand goddamn dollars?
There are obviously traitors in the medical establishment.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 16, 2015, 07:59:10 PM
I discuss my bowel movements...with everybody.
I put that bit in just for you :hug:
You know, I may have misjudged China to some extent.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2015, 08:28:01 PM
You know, I may have misjudged China to some extent.
It is still basically a third world country. I wouldnt trust the drugs i get in most places there, regardless of the government subsidy.