Announcement

Collapse

WCI Course Sale!

Fire Your Financial Advisor and Continuing Financial Education 2020 are on sale now through midnight MDT on July 13, 2020. Purchase either at 10% off and also get CFE2018, the Park City conference course, for FREE!
www.whitecoatinvestor.com/FYFASale
www.whitecoatinvestor.com/CFESale
See more
See less

Preparing (FINANCIALLY) for the possibility of socialized medicine

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
First Prev Next Last
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31













    From a public health perspective, having coverage is the least efficient means of ensuring proper health.  Policies that induce lifestyle changes are far more efficient.
    Click to expand…


    Gotta do both.
    Click to expand…


    I don’t disagree that both should be our aim.  But do you think the best and most efficient way to achieve the former is by putting the government in charge of all medical care?
    Click to expand…


    We have money to send our kids to distant lands to fight interminable, misguided wars. We spend money on fighter jets, cruise missiles, and foreign aid to countries. I think we can do a little less of that and guarantee medical care for all citizens, as a fundamental right as a citizen of this country. Common sense. When there’s a single payer, we can negotiate for lower prices, maybe instead of 10 different statins we’ll have one or two at an improved price, same goes for procedures and care that have not been shown to be beneficial (if you want to call that rationing then let’s ration). If, as a byproduct of this, an orthopod makes 500K instead of 600K and fatlittlepig makes 250 instead of 300 so be it.

    FLP
    Click to expand...


    How can you ration something that you call a fundamental right?  Do you ration free speech?  Do you ration reproductive rights?  Do you ration the right to a fair trial and protection against double jeopardy?

    Basically "free" health care defined as a "right" can only mean the absolute unlimited best for everyone, and a bottomless pit for taxpayers.

    Comment


    • #32
      This post just made me lol. I can only wish this was a scenario I needed to worry about.

      Comment


      • #33
        Memorizing patterns? Not sure if joking or maybe I'm just dense

        Comment


        • #34
          @Panscan,  recognizing patterns.   What you do every image you interpret.

          Comment


          • #35
            Or we could move to Australia, where docs are well-compensated in a socialized medicine system and don't have to deal with our medmal issues. Sounds like a sweet deal. Or Canada- plenty of well-paid docs there. And no venture capital or PE to deal with.

            Comment


            • #36













              From a public health perspective, having coverage is the least efficient means of ensuring proper health.  Policies that induce lifestyle changes are far more efficient.

               
              Click to expand…


              Gotta do both.
              Click to expand…


              I don’t disagree that both should be our aim.  But do you think the best and most efficient way to achieve the former is by putting the government in charge of all medical care?
              Click to expand…


              We have money to send our kids to distant lands to fight interminable, misguided wars. We spend money on fighter jets, cruise missiles, and foreign aid to countries. I think we can do a little less of that and guarantee medical care for all citizens, as a fundamental right as a citizen of this country. Common sense. When there’s a single payer, we can negotiate for lower prices, maybe instead of 10 different statins we’ll have one or two at an improved price, same goes for procedures and care that have not been shown to be beneficial (if you want to call that rationing then let’s ration). If, as a byproduct of this, an orthopod makes 500K instead of 600K and fatlittlepig makes 250 instead of 300 so be it.

              FLP
              Click to expand...


              I agree, I'd rather spend our money on health care for our citizens than spending money sticking our noses into every corner of the world where we're not wanted or needed. We can't afford both. However, we also cannot afford to give all of our citizens health care, while paying off all student loans debt, making college free, paying reparations, giving guaranteed incomes, etc. etc, but that's a rant for another day.

              Comment


              • #37


                However, we also cannot afford to give all of our citizens health care, while paying off all student loans debt, making college free, paying reparations, giving guaranteed incomes, etc. etc, but that’s a rant for another day.
                Click to expand...


                Good example of you can afford anything you want just not everything you want.

                Glad to see it works for nations as well as high income professionals.

                Comment


                • #38




                  I don’t know how something that costs money can be a right. Terminology is very important. We can say it’s a service we want to provide for people. I don’t think it’s a right.

                  Do people have a right to a home?
                  Click to expand...


                  Yes a country as wealthy as ours should guarantee health care as a right.

                  Comment


                  • #39




                    Wealth tax is not going to start at 50 million, no way. 1/10th of that if not less.

                    In reality will only hurt people who worked for their money as the others will structure their assets in a way to avoid the tax, like everything else
                    Click to expand...


                    who is proposing that?

                    Comment


                    • #40
















                      From a public health perspective, having coverage is the least efficient means of ensuring proper health.  Policies that induce lifestyle changes are far more efficient.
                      Click to expand…


                      Gotta do both.
                      Click to expand…


                      I don’t disagree that both should be our aim.  But do you think the best and most efficient way to achieve the former is by putting the government in charge of all medical care?
                      Click to expand…


                      We have money to send our kids to distant lands to fight interminable, misguided wars. We spend money on fighter jets, cruise missiles, and foreign aid to countries. I think we can do a little less of that and guarantee medical care for all citizens, as a fundamental right as a citizen of this country. Common sense. When there’s a single payer, we can negotiate for lower prices, maybe instead of 10 different statins we’ll have one or two at an improved price, same goes for procedures and care that have not been shown to be beneficial (if you want to call that rationing then let’s ration). If, as a byproduct of this, an orthopod makes 500K instead of 600K and fatlittlepig makes 250 instead of 300 so be it.

                      FLP
                      Click to expand…


                      How can you ration something that you call a fundamental right?  Do you ration free speech?  Do you ration reproductive rights?  Do you ration the right to a fair trial and protection against double jeopardy?

                      Basically “free” health care defined as a “right” can only mean the absolute unlimited best for everyone, and a bottomless pit for taxpayers.
                      Click to expand...


                      Incorrect. Guaranteeing health care as a right does mean guaranteeing wasteful care or care that has not been proven to be effective.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Well Warren says the above, 50mil and then an additional level at one billion. I'm just saying I highly doubt that will happen and if there ever was a wealth tax it would go much lower

                        Comment


                        • #42


                          Guaranteeing health care as a right does mean guaranteeing wasteful care or care that has not been proven to be effective
                          Click to expand...


                          The problem point is who gets to decide what is proven to be effective and covered and what is not?  Can the government do a better job then insurance companies?

                          Comment


                          • #43




                            Well Warren says the above, 50mil and then an additional level at one billion. I’m just saying I highly doubt that will happen and if there ever was a wealth tax it would go much lower
                            Click to expand...


                            wait, you think this is unlikely to come to pass but if it does you are sure that it would be different than what she is proposing?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I meant it would be highly unlikely to happen as claimed.

                              I do anticipate something like this happening in future, whether it is a wealth tax, tapping 401ks, I do anticipate the government accessing "wealthy" peoples money somehow that they aren't currently.

                              Her initial proposal has to be modest and not fundamentally radical in order to seem viable and thus gain traction, then can be further radicalized to make more money for government. If she initially came out and said 2 mil and above, that would be harder to get traction than the 50 plus 1 billion

                              Comment


                              • #45


                                Her initial proposal has to be modest and not fundamentally radical in order to seem viable and thus gain traction, then can be further radicalized to make more money for government. If she initially came out and said 2 mil and above, that would be harder to get traction than the 50 plus 1 billion
                                Click to expand...


                                Usually the opposite happens. They start extreme to get the fanatics and die hards fired up.  Then the politician wins and runs to the middle.   These things get watered down to pass a more moderate vote.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X