EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
Quick note: Those are government subsidized flu shots you're getting at those businesses. Surprise! You've just been injected with socialism
I know you're being somewhat facetious here, but I would argue that subsidizing flu shots is an example of a decidedly non-socialist government intervention (as distinguished from providing universal healthcare, which is a more socialist policy).
Unless you define socialism as "any government intervention in the economy," then we need some kind of principled way to distinguish socialist intervention from non-socialist intervention. I would argue that non-socialist economic interventions should be defined as those interventions that are designed to improve the operation of a market economy by correcting one or more identifiable market failures, whereas a socialist intervention is designed to supplant or replace some existing market function.
So single-payer universal healthcare is a socialistic policy because it is replacing market buyers and sellers with a government-only buyer. It's the government taking over a market function.
So what kinds of regulations are non-socialistic? One example would be emissions regulations. When a factory spews a bunch of pollution, it creates costs on society (health costs, environmental costs, unsightly smog) but the factory owner isn't forced to bear those costs by the market. He or she gets to avoid the downside when polluting. Non-socialist pollution controls would attempt to quantify the cost the factory owner is imposing on society, and would tax the owner equal to that total cost. Economically speaking, the pollution is called a "negative externality," and the tax or penalty imposed by the government is causing the polluter to "internalize the externality" and pollute less in proportion to the cost. Externality internalization is not a function the market is capable of performing, so the government is not usurping a market function by imposing pollution controls.
Ok, so what about flu shots? In addition to the personal benefits one gets from a flu shot, society as a whole benefits from "herd immunity." This herd immunity is a positive externality. It's like the opposite of pollution; instead of a cost that the individual doesn't bear, it's a benefit that the individual doesn't reap. So it's economically efficient for the government to reward people for getting a flu shot by paying them in proportion to the herd immunity value that each shot provides to society. (They don't hand people money directly, but they "pay" them by reducing the cost of the shot). Again, this is correcting a market failure, not usurping a market function, so it's a non-socialist regulation.
(We could obviously get into a debate about what exactly "socialism" means, but my point is that we can draw a principled economic distinction between certain health subsidies versus single-payer healthcare.)
Does herd immunity come into play with the flu vaccine? I was under the impression that such effects are negligible when the vaccine rate is far below the herd immunity threshold, which flu vaccination always is.
@Bitterroot - don't take me too seriously I was just kidding. I just wanted to mention that there is a complex array of subsidies and programs behind the vaccines we get, I don't actually think it's 'socialism', at least not in the technical sense of the word.
Does herd immunity come into play with the flu vaccine? I was under the impression that such effects are negligible when the vaccine rate is far below the herd immunity threshold, which flu vaccination always is.
That's a complicated question. The short answer is that herd immunity is relevant in any vaccination program, because herd immunity thresholds are more goalposts than actual success/fail thresholds.
The longer answer is that vaccination rates for the Flu is low because it's one of the few diseases adults get vaccinated for annually. You're not actually being vaccinated for 'the Flu', either, you're being vaccinated for a variety of different strains they expect to affect us. Since it affects so many people, and most people will be okay regardless, it's more important that at-risk populations (those more likely to get hospitalized from the Flu, usually young children and the elderly) get vaccinated than the general population, and that people who live or work with these populations do so as not to bring it in.
Ah, I thought that the threshold was when you expect the spread rate to be negative (people get better faster than they spread it). Below that threshold, the infection would still spread throughout the population, although potentially at a slower rate.
The picture on the Wikipedia page (perhaps not the most reliable source) certainly seems to suggest that this is the case.
@Bitterroot - don't take me too seriously I was just kidding. I just wanted to mention that there is a complex array of subsidies and programs behind the vaccines we get, I don't actually think it's 'socialism', at least not in the technical sense of the word.
Does herd immunity come into play with the flu vaccine? I was under the impression that such effects are negligible when the vaccine rate is far below the herd immunity threshold, which flu vaccination always is.
That's a complicated question. The short answer is that herd immunity is relevant in any vaccination program, because herd immunity thresholds are more goalposts than actual success/fail thresholds.
The longer answer is that vaccination rates for the Flu is low because it's one of the few diseases adults get vaccinated for annually. You're not actually being vaccinated for 'the Flu', either, you're being vaccinated for a variety of different strains they expect to affect us. Since it affects so many people, and most people will be okay regardless, it's more important that at-risk populations (those more likely to get hospitalized from the Flu, usually young children and the elderly) get vaccinated than the general population, and that people who live or work with these populations do so as not to bring it in.
That's fascinating, I hadn't given much thought to the way herd immunity works in this specific context.
And while I recognized your post was a joke, I think it provided a great springboard for the point I wanted to make. Often in these threads we get two groups. One says "the government needs to completely take over healthcare (or whatever the subject of the debate may be)" and the other says "no, the government is bad, we need smaller government and less socialism." I'm trying to point out that this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, and we can recognize different types of government intervention as fundamentally distinct in terms of their economic impacts.
That's fascinating, I hadn't given much thought to the way herd immunity works in this specific context.
Yeah, the difficulty with the Flu is that most people don't realize how deadly it is for other people. You're not necessarily getting a flu shot to protect yourself, being a young health guy it's doubtful you'll be hospitalized (with the exception of strains like H1N1 that cause an overwhelming immune response - making healthy people at higher risk). You're getting it to protect Grandma. Most healthcare institutions mandate the Flu shot because of the risk of spreading it to patients, not the risk to the healthcare workers themselves (although Flu working it's way through a hospital can be particularly devastating because of staffing shortages, too). We know many people won't get the Flu shot, but we still aim high with the goal that we at least get the gatekeeper to the higher risk and the high risk individuals themselves.
To be fair, I work on Public Health Emergencies, so my knowledge of this is largely ancillary, as all my work involves when that stuff goes to crap and we've got a Pandemic.
And while I recognized your post was a joke, I think it provided a great springboard for the point I wanted to make. Often in these threads we get two groups. One says "the government needs to completely take over healthcare (or whatever the subject of the debate may be)" and the other says "no, the government is bad, we need smaller government and less socialism." I'm trying to point out that this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, and we can recognize different types of government intervention as fundamentally distinct in terms of their economic impacts.
That's fair, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think subsidies are socialist. I didn't want to misrepresent my views by accident because I made a joke poking fun at my Fluffy Buddy.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
Which is why a lot of businesses will provide flu shots on site. I was able to literally walk up stairs and get a flu shot (took 5 minutes) one day at work. If that was not the case I would probably never get one. I've always had insurance but until I worked where I currently do I had never once gotten a flu shot.
Quick note: Those are government subsidized flu shots you're getting at those businesses. Surprise! You've just been injected with socialism
Indeed, we may have a bunch of Sons of Birch here, but the original Sons of Birch were anti-psychiatry, anti-fluoridation, and anti-vaccine because communism. I actually first thought "Poe's law" referred to "purity of essence".
Even worse, vaccines work best if everyone who can get them does so. If only you got a vaccine, it would be pretty ineffective, TBH. It might not even take. OTOH, even if your vaccine doesn't take, someone else who would've given you something's vaccine might. That sounds awful collectivist there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
So everyone should have free/cheap healthcare because they'll live longer, and we can tax them longer?
That doesn't even make actuarial sense, because as people live longer their healthcare liabilities go up. The elderly almost always cost more than they pay in taxes - frequently much more. If all we wanted was the most profitable tax base, we'd euthanize everyone at age 55 or so. (Similarly, cigarettes and obesity actually lower healthcare costs on average because they kill people before they get old.) We as a society want to prolong life because we value life, not because we value money.
EDIT: That said, it does make financial sense to ensure that young people are healthy. If all your twenty- and thirty-somethings are coming down with the flu, a lot of work doesn't get done.
I'm pretty sure Slave doesn't actually believe in what he wrote, and wrote it simply to trip me up (or something like that) because he has a very mistaken view of my beliefs.
I'm pretty sure magickware99 doesn't actually believe in what he wrote, and wrote it simply to trip me up (or something like that) because he has a very mistaken view of my beliefs.
Hyuk.
To be serious for a minute > cigarette's and obesity have a detrimental effect on the body in so many ways that doesn't kill.
In my honest opinion as a healthcare worker, being morbidly obese is worse for you than smoking or drinking to excess.
Cigarette's, Alcohol & Obesity is responsible for massive amounts of money being spent in the healthcare system in my country, I can only imagine what it might be like in the USA. It would be convenient to say they don't live long enough to sap the system, but it's just not true....
It's very hard to debate in this thread, because it seems like there are two different claims flying around, and I'm not sure which of the two we're discussing at any given point:
1. Healthcare is a basic human right that all people are entitled to. If a country (large or small, rich or poor) does not provide healthcare to all its citizens, it is violating their human rights and behaving in a fundamentally unethical way.
2. The US, based on its current economic and geographical circumstances, ought to provide free single-payer healthcare to its citizens because the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right.
People should try to make clear which of these claims (or both) they're endorsing.
Point 2 for me. Because I think its the right thing to do.
I don't believe someone with a completely treatable condition should be forced to live life, or perish, just because they are unable to raise the cash.
That's draconian, medieval talk people. Surely we've moved on from those dark days?
It's very hard to debate in this thread, because it seems like there are two different claims flying around, and I'm not sure which of the two we're discussing at any given point:
1. Healthcare is a basic human right that all people are entitled to. If a country (large or small, rich or poor) does not provide healthcare to all its citizens, it is violating their human rights and behaving in a fundamentally unethical way.
2. The US, based on its current economic and geographical circumstances, ought to provide free single-payer healthcare to its citizens because the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right.
People should try to make clear which of these claims (or both) they're endorsing.
Point 2 for me. Because I think its the right thing to do.
I don't believe someone with a completely treatable condition should be forced to live life, or perish, just because they are unable to raise the cash.
That's draconian, medieval talk people. Surely we've moved on from those dark days?
Great, so you're making the claim that the benefits of providing government healthcare outweigh the costs in the US. You've given an example of a benefit. You haven't given any examples of costs, nor have you made any attempt to show that the magnitude of the benefits are greater than the magnitude of the costs. You have to address all three parts of the argument if that's the claim you're making.
Cigarette's, Alcohol & Obesity is responsible for massive amounts of money being spent in the healthcare system in my country, I can only imagine what it might be like in the USA.
It would be convenient to say they don't live long enough to sap the system, but it's just not true....
It really, actually, objectively, measurably is true. "In our study, lifetime costs for smokers can be calculated as $72,700 among men and $94,700 among women, and lifetime costs among nonsmokers can be calculated as $83,400 and $111,000, respectively." (Link) It's not that a 30-year-old smoker costs less than a 30-year-old nonsmoker; obviously he costs more. But he's also got a lower life expectancy. And the cost difference between a 30-year-old smoker and a 30-year-old nonsmoker is much less than the difference between an 75-year-old nonsmoker and a corpse. That's how the math works, dude. And I only mentioned this as an illustration of my larger point, which was that, contrary to your argument, increasing life expectancy increases healthcare costs.
Now will you please, please stop spouting unsupported and uninformed claims? Your "honest opinion as a healthcare worker" does not excuse you from doing even cursory research.
Point 2 for me. Because I think its the right thing to do.
Did you even read what bitterroot wrote? The words "No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right" do not seem particularly difficult to understand.
Point 2 for me. Because I think its the right thing to do.
Did you even read what bitterroot wrote? The words "No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right" do not seem particularly difficult to understand.
I'm trying to interpret "I think it's the right thing to do" charitably, and so I assume Slave is saying "there are huge benefits to providing free healthcare."
Ok, I'm on board with that statement. There are definitely some significant benefits. There would also be huge benefits to giving every person in America a free house, but we don't do it because the costs outweigh the benefits.
So now it's time to talk costs and do a cost/benefit comparison for universal healthcare.
Now will you please, please stop spouting unsupported and uninformed claims? Your "honest opinion as a healthcare worker" does not excuse you from doing even cursory research.
This thread asked for opinions from outside the USA. Didn't say a thing about facts.
So I offered up opinions and got knit-picked for them. So be it, we all have a different perspective.
If you guys wanna have a closed shop argument just between people inside the USA go ahead. Feel free to use whatever links support your claims, even if other research that is commonly accepted says otherwise.
This thread asked for opinions from outside the USA. Didn't say a thing about facts.
So I offered up opinions and got knit-picked for them. So be it, we all have a different perspective.
No, nit-picking would be pointing out that it's spelled "nit-picking". When you make a factual claim like "smoking increases overall healthcare costs", and that claim is false, that demonstrating its falsehood is a rebuttal. This isn't a matter of "different perspective". No matter where you stand, your perspective is not going to make $72,700 greater than $83,400. So relativist whining is not going to do you any good here. You have two options: you can demonstrate how the cited research is flawed; or you can own that what you said was wrong.
If you guys wanna have a closed shop argument just between people inside the USA go ahead. Feel free to use whatever links support your claims, even if other research that is commonly accepted says otherwise.
Oh, for the love of...
You say you've got "other research that is commonly accepted"? Don't just say that; freaking post the research. I would be ecstatic if you did. When have I ever indicated that I have a problem with you not being an American? I have a problem with you making factual assertions that are unsupported and untrue. If you were posting these things from Cleveland, Ohio, I would be saying exactly the same thing to you. And there are other non-Americans in this thread whose arguments I welcome enthusiastically, even if I don't always agree, because I know they are informed, back up their statements with facts, and make a serious effort to understand the position of the other side. The problem here isn't your nationality, it's you - your baseless assertions, your sanctimonious platitudes. And now, instead of owning that and trying to improve your behavior, you're pretending that I'm at fault by accusing me (without the slightest shred of evidence, mind) of disingenuous citation and bigotry. You. Ought. To. Be. Ashamed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This thread asked for opinions from outside the USA. Didn't say a thing about facts.
This thread isn't titled "please make baseless assertions about healthcare and don't bother backing them up"
If it had been titled that, I'm pretty sure the topic would have been deleted or moved out of debate. A debate is this thing where you provide reasoning and facts to support your argument.
I know you're being somewhat facetious here, but I would argue that subsidizing flu shots is an example of a decidedly non-socialist government intervention (as distinguished from providing universal healthcare, which is a more socialist policy).
Unless you define socialism as "any government intervention in the economy," then we need some kind of principled way to distinguish socialist intervention from non-socialist intervention. I would argue that non-socialist economic interventions should be defined as those interventions that are designed to improve the operation of a market economy by correcting one or more identifiable market failures, whereas a socialist intervention is designed to supplant or replace some existing market function.
So single-payer universal healthcare is a socialistic policy because it is replacing market buyers and sellers with a government-only buyer. It's the government taking over a market function.
So what kinds of regulations are non-socialistic? One example would be emissions regulations. When a factory spews a bunch of pollution, it creates costs on society (health costs, environmental costs, unsightly smog) but the factory owner isn't forced to bear those costs by the market. He or she gets to avoid the downside when polluting. Non-socialist pollution controls would attempt to quantify the cost the factory owner is imposing on society, and would tax the owner equal to that total cost. Economically speaking, the pollution is called a "negative externality," and the tax or penalty imposed by the government is causing the polluter to "internalize the externality" and pollute less in proportion to the cost. Externality internalization is not a function the market is capable of performing, so the government is not usurping a market function by imposing pollution controls.
Ok, so what about flu shots? In addition to the personal benefits one gets from a flu shot, society as a whole benefits from "herd immunity." This herd immunity is a positive externality. It's like the opposite of pollution; instead of a cost that the individual doesn't bear, it's a benefit that the individual doesn't reap. So it's economically efficient for the government to reward people for getting a flu shot by paying them in proportion to the herd immunity value that each shot provides to society. (They don't hand people money directly, but they "pay" them by reducing the cost of the shot). Again, this is correcting a market failure, not usurping a market function, so it's a non-socialist regulation.
(We could obviously get into a debate about what exactly "socialism" means, but my point is that we can draw a principled economic distinction between certain health subsidies versus single-payer healthcare.)
That's a complicated question. The short answer is that herd immunity is relevant in any vaccination program, because herd immunity thresholds are more goalposts than actual success/fail thresholds.
The longer answer is that vaccination rates for the Flu is low because it's one of the few diseases adults get vaccinated for annually. You're not actually being vaccinated for 'the Flu', either, you're being vaccinated for a variety of different strains they expect to affect us. Since it affects so many people, and most people will be okay regardless, it's more important that at-risk populations (those more likely to get hospitalized from the Flu, usually young children and the elderly) get vaccinated than the general population, and that people who live or work with these populations do so as not to bring it in.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The picture on the Wikipedia page (perhaps not the most reliable source) certainly seems to suggest that this is the case.
That's fascinating, I hadn't given much thought to the way herd immunity works in this specific context.
And while I recognized your post was a joke, I think it provided a great springboard for the point I wanted to make. Often in these threads we get two groups. One says "the government needs to completely take over healthcare (or whatever the subject of the debate may be)" and the other says "no, the government is bad, we need smaller government and less socialism." I'm trying to point out that this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition, and we can recognize different types of government intervention as fundamentally distinct in terms of their economic impacts.
Yeah, the difficulty with the Flu is that most people don't realize how deadly it is for other people. You're not necessarily getting a flu shot to protect yourself, being a young health guy it's doubtful you'll be hospitalized (with the exception of strains like H1N1 that cause an overwhelming immune response - making healthy people at higher risk). You're getting it to protect Grandma. Most healthcare institutions mandate the Flu shot because of the risk of spreading it to patients, not the risk to the healthcare workers themselves (although Flu working it's way through a hospital can be particularly devastating because of staffing shortages, too). We know many people won't get the Flu shot, but we still aim high with the goal that we at least get the gatekeeper to the higher risk and the high risk individuals themselves.
To be fair, I work on Public Health Emergencies, so my knowledge of this is largely ancillary, as all my work involves when that stuff goes to crap and we've got a Pandemic.
That's fair, I just wanted to clarify that I don't think subsidies are socialist. I didn't want to misrepresent my views by accident because I made a joke poking fun at my Fluffy Buddy.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Indeed, we may have a bunch of Sons of Birch here, but the original Sons of Birch were anti-psychiatry, anti-fluoridation, and anti-vaccine because communism. I actually first thought "Poe's law" referred to "purity of essence".
Even worse, vaccines work best if everyone who can get them does so. If only you got a vaccine, it would be pretty ineffective, TBH. It might not even take. OTOH, even if your vaccine doesn't take, someone else who would've given you something's vaccine might. That sounds awful collectivist there.
On phasing:
I'm pretty sure magickware99 doesn't actually believe in what he wrote, and wrote it simply to trip me up (or something like that) because he has a very mistaken view of my beliefs.
Hyuk.
To be serious for a minute > cigarette's and obesity have a detrimental effect on the body in so many ways that doesn't kill.
In my honest opinion as a healthcare worker, being morbidly obese is worse for you than smoking or drinking to excess.
Cigarette's, Alcohol & Obesity is responsible for massive amounts of money being spent in the healthcare system in my country, I can only imagine what it might be like in the USA. It would be convenient to say they don't live long enough to sap the system, but it's just not true....
Point 2 for me. Because I think its the right thing to do.
I don't believe someone with a completely treatable condition should be forced to live life, or perish, just because they are unable to raise the cash.
That's draconian, medieval talk people. Surely we've moved on from those dark days?
Great, so you're making the claim that the benefits of providing government healthcare outweigh the costs in the US. You've given an example of a benefit. You haven't given any examples of costs, nor have you made any attempt to show that the magnitude of the benefits are greater than the magnitude of the costs. You have to address all three parts of the argument if that's the claim you're making.
It really, actually, objectively, measurably is true. "In our study, lifetime costs for smokers can be calculated as $72,700 among men and $94,700 among women, and lifetime costs among nonsmokers can be calculated as $83,400 and $111,000, respectively." (Link) It's not that a 30-year-old smoker costs less than a 30-year-old nonsmoker; obviously he costs more. But he's also got a lower life expectancy. And the cost difference between a 30-year-old smoker and a 30-year-old nonsmoker is much less than the difference between an 75-year-old nonsmoker and a corpse. That's how the math works, dude. And I only mentioned this as an illustration of my larger point, which was that, contrary to your argument, increasing life expectancy increases healthcare costs.
Now will you please, please stop spouting unsupported and uninformed claims? Your "honest opinion as a healthcare worker" does not excuse you from doing even cursory research.
Did you even read what bitterroot wrote? The words "No claim is being made as to whether healthcare is a basic human right" do not seem particularly difficult to understand.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm trying to interpret "I think it's the right thing to do" charitably, and so I assume Slave is saying "there are huge benefits to providing free healthcare."
Ok, I'm on board with that statement. There are definitely some significant benefits. There would also be huge benefits to giving every person in America a free house, but we don't do it because the costs outweigh the benefits.
So now it's time to talk costs and do a cost/benefit comparison for universal healthcare.
This thread asked for opinions from outside the USA. Didn't say a thing about facts.
So I offered up opinions and got knit-picked for them. So be it, we all have a different perspective.
If you guys wanna have a closed shop argument just between people inside the USA go ahead. Feel free to use whatever links support your claims, even if other research that is commonly accepted says otherwise.
Oh, for the love of...
You say you've got "other research that is commonly accepted"? Don't just say that; freaking post the research. I would be ecstatic if you did. When have I ever indicated that I have a problem with you not being an American? I have a problem with you making factual assertions that are unsupported and untrue. If you were posting these things from Cleveland, Ohio, I would be saying exactly the same thing to you. And there are other non-Americans in this thread whose arguments I welcome enthusiastically, even if I don't always agree, because I know they are informed, back up their statements with facts, and make a serious effort to understand the position of the other side. The problem here isn't your nationality, it's you - your baseless assertions, your sanctimonious platitudes. And now, instead of owning that and trying to improve your behavior, you're pretending that I'm at fault by accusing me (without the slightest shred of evidence, mind) of disingenuous citation and bigotry. You. Ought. To. Be. Ashamed.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This thread isn't titled "please make baseless assertions about healthcare and don't bother backing them up"
If it had been titled that, I'm pretty sure the topic would have been deleted or moved out of debate. A debate is this thing where you provide reasoning and facts to support your argument.