Hvorfor aksepterer vi apotekloven?

[1245112654122755325882462]

 

Det har jeg faktisk vært i en periode. I Norge hadde det utvilsom medført 100% i en 6-12 måneders periode. Jeg jobbet som før, men med klart mindre effektivitet.

 

Da er du ikke ufør, da er du delvis sykmeldt.

 

Kritiserer du et system du ikke kjenner til?

Endret 7. april 2013 av Priim

[Skatteflyktning]

Da er du ikke ufør, da er du delvis sykmeldt.

Vennligst klargjør forskjellen.

 

Kritiserer du et system du ikke kjenner til?

Må jeg være NAV-Kunde for å kritisere NAV-systemet?

 

Hvordan klarer du å kritisere ett fritt marked i helseforsikringer, uten Statlig deltagelse? Eller har du faktisk en privat forsikring, og ingen Statlig du også?

Endret 7. april 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[1245112654122755325882462]

Vennligst klargjør forskjellen.

 

 

Må jeg være NAV-Kunde for å kritisere NAV-systemet?

 

Hvordan klarer du å kritisere ett fritt marked i helseforsikringer, uten Statlig deltagelse? Eller har du faktisk en privat forsikring, og ingen Statlig du også?

 

Når du er sykemeldt er det planlagt at du skal tilbake i arbeid og du har 100% av din lønn i perioden inntil 1 år, kan være det er lengre dog.

 

Når du er ufør er det forventet at du innenfor en lengre periode ikke kan utføre arbeidet du gjor.

 

Nei, du kjenner ikke til systemet, det er noe helt annet at du ikke tar del i det.

[jjkoggan]

Du har muligens ikke lagt merke til dette men det dør daglig ca 200 personer i Norge, stort sett fordi de ikke fikk medisinsk behandling som forlenget livet deres.

Og mange mer ville dø i ditt ønsket systemet.

 

 

Beklagelig om forsikringsselskapet ikke oppfylte sin kontrakt, da burde deres selvfølgelig trekke det for retten.

Forsikringselskapet solgte den opprinnelig kontrakten til et annet forsikringselskap og fordi delstaten ikke regulerte slike handlinger det nye selskapet endret kontrakten og benektet medisinsk behandlingen,og det var helt lovlig. Det er meget få som klarer å trekke det for retten mot et stort forsikringselskap, det blir veldig dyrt, og penger er noe slike kunder mangler. Forsikringselskapene vet det og ofte truer sine kunder som truer dem.

 

 

1. Medical Expenses

A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.

Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills--bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/25/why-people-go-bankrupt-personal-finance-bankruptcy.html

Endret 7. april 2013 av jjkoggan

[Skatteflyktning]

Når du er sykemeldt er det planlagt at du skal tilbake i arbeid og du har 100% av din lønn i perioden inntil 1 år, kan være det er lengre dog.

 

Når du er ufør er det forventet at du innenfor en lengre periode ikke kan utføre arbeidet du gjor.

Grei avklaring på forskjellen byråkratene mener der er mellom ufør og sykemeldt.

 

Nei, du kjenner ikke til systemet, det er noe helt annet at du ikke tar del i det.

Nei, jeg kjenner ikke detaljene av reglene som avgjør hvilken merkelapp byråkratene må sette på ditt sykdomstilfelle. Det virker faktisk irrelevant for om helseforsikring best drives av det private eller offentlige.

[Skatteflyktning]

Og mange mer ville dø i ditt ønsket systemet.

Nei, den forventede dødeligheten i mitt system er akkurat den samme som i Norges system: 100%.

 

Eneste forskjellen er at de vil dø noe senere i gjenomsnitt i mitt system.

 

 

Forsikringselskapet solgte den opprinnelig kontrakten til et annet  forsikringselskap og fordi delstaten ikke regulerte slike handlinger det nye selskapet endret kontrakten og benektet medisinsk behandlingen,og det var helt lovlig.  Det er meget få som klarer å trekke det for retten mot et stort forsikringselskap, det blir veldig dyrt, og penger er noe slike kunder mangler.  Forsikringselskapene vet det og ofte truer sine kunder som truer dem.

Du har offentlig monopol på dommertjenester i USA, samt en regulering som er ute av kontroll innen helsetjenester.

 

 

 

1. Medical Expenses

A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.

Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills--bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not.

 

http://www.forbes.co...bankruptcy.html

OK, and ...?

Endret 7. april 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[1245112654122755325882462]

Grei avklaring på forskjellen byråkratene mener der er mellom ufør og sykemeldt.

 

 

Nei, jeg kjenner ikke detaljene av reglene som avgjør hvilken merkelapp byråkratene må sette på ditt sykdomstilfelle. Det virker faktisk irrelevant for om helseforsikring best drives av det private eller offentlige.

 

 

Du spurte, ikke bli lei deg for at eg bemerket det.

 

Men til å være pipeblåser så holdt du ganske lenge før du blei usakelig den gangen her

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Du har offentlig monopol på dommertjenester i USA, samt en regulering som er ute av kontroll innen helsetjenester.

 

Forsikringselskapene holder de fleste kortene, uten offentlig regulering ville deres makt blir enda stoerre.

 

 

 

OK, and ...?

 

Private helseforsikring er mye dyrere enn offentlig helsesystemer.

[Skatteflyktning]

Forsikringselskapene holder de fleste kortene, uten offentlig regulering ville deres makt blir enda stoerre.

De leverer kun det folk vil kjøpe i ett fritt marked.

 

Private helseforsikring er mye dyrere enn offentlig helsesystemer.

Staten er altså flinkere til å drive forretning enn private. Jøss, ja det har vi jo sett masse eksempler på ...

[1245112654122755325882462]

De leverer kun det folk vil kjøpe i ett fritt marked.

 

 

Staten er altså flinkere til å drive forretning enn private. Jøss, ja det har vi jo sett masse eksempler på ...

 

 

De leverer kun det di ønsker å levere, det skiller forsikringsselskap i fra mye annet, det er ingen som klarer å stille krav til dem.

 

Staten er ikke flinke til å drive forretning, velferdsstaten taper penger, fordi at det dekker mye goder som vi tar nytte av. Dessverre er det mange som er for bortskjemte til å være takknemelige

[Skatteflyktning]

De leverer kun det di ønsker å levere, det skiller forsikringsselskap i fra mye annet, det er ingen som klarer å stille krav til dem.

Høres nesten ut som staten, men for Statens del så er det jo forståelig ettersom ingen kjøper deres forsikring frivillig.

 

Det jeg ikke forstår er hvorfor folk skulle ville kjøpe en forsikring til en organisasjon som den du beskriver FRIVILLIG.

 

 

Staten er ikke flinke til å drive forretning, velferdsstaten taper penger, fordi at det dekker mye goder som vi tar nytte av. Dessverre er det mange som er for bortskjemte til å være takknemelige

Jeg forstår utmerket at endel personer drar nytte av dagens ordning, på bekostning av andre personer.

 

Det som hvirker noe overraskende er at de som drar nytte av "ordningen" forventer at de som betaler kalaset skal være takknemlige for at de ble tvunget til å betale.

[jjkoggan]

De leverer kun det folk vil kjøpe i ett fritt marked.

 

 

 

 

Staten er altså flinkere til å drive forretning enn private. Jøss, ja det har vi jo sett masse eksempler på ...

 

 

Det finnes ingen fritt marked eksempler i health care- her forklare nobelprisvinneren Krugman

 

 

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care. One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care — but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread. It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance. And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.” This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care. Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems. And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.

All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other. There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work. And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/why-markets-cant-cure-healthcare/

[1245112654122755325882462]

Høres nesten ut som staten, men for Statens del så er det jo forståelig ettersom ingen kjøper deres forsikring frivillig.

 

Det jeg ikke forstår er hvorfor folk skulle ville kjøpe en forsikring til en organisasjon som den du beskriver FRIVILLIG.

 

 

 

Jeg forstår utmerket at endel personer drar nytte av dagens ordning, på bekostning av andre personer.

 

Det som hvirker noe overraskende er at de som drar nytte av "ordningen" forventer at de som betaler kalaset skal være takknemlige for at de ble tvunget til å betale.

 

 

Så du mener staten leverer kun det di ønsker, kan du være litt mer konkret på hva du føler staten leverer?

 

 

Velferdsstaten er en helt annen diskusjon, men jeg synes den fungerer ganske bra.

[Skatteflyktning]

Det finnes ingen fritt marked eksempler i health care-  her forklare nobelprisvinneren Krugman

Krugman? You didnæt find any nonCommie enonomists?

 

 

There are two strongly distinctive aspects of health care.

Hardly distinctive at all, most insurance have same characteristics.

 

One is that you don’t know when or whether you’ll need care

True, any insirance requires that the event be unpredictable individually, but predictable withing the class.

 

— but if you do, the care can be extremely expensive. The big bucks are in triple coronary bypass surgery, not routine visits to the doctor’s office; and very, very few people can afford to pay major medical costs out of pocket.

Most sensible insurance concentrate on potential damage with low indivudual probability, but that could break the bank.Good, Krugman has figured out how any insurance works.

 

This tells you right away that health care can’t be sold like bread.

True, it would be sold more like care insurance, house insurance, etc. Strange isn't it_

 

It must be largely paid for by some kind of insurance.

IF you want insurance, yes.

 

And this in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy.

No actually you make that decision WHEN you buy the insurance.

 

Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care.

Unsubstantiated claim, aka nonsense.

 

And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.

Actually they are in the business for the health of their bottom line, does that mean you cannot trust them? Why are the politicians in this business? Are they MORE trustworthy than the insurance company? Are they better at running insurance companies than the executives that are there? Do you get to choose to take your business to the politician that YOU trust?

 

 

This problem is made worse by the fact that actually paying for your health care is a loss from an insurers’ point of view — they actually refer to it as “medical costs.”

The problem with Beer brewers is made worse by the fact that actually paying for water, barley, hops, manpower, etc is a loss from the brewers point of view, they actually refer to it as “production costs.”

 

 

This means both that insurers try to deny as many claims as possible

Extremely unlikey unsubstantiated claim: Would have could try to deny 100% to comply with Krugmans "as many claims as possible"

 

 

, and that they try to avoid covering people who are actually likely to need care.

Well, rather they tend to charge them more. Like the premiums of an old fart like me (risky) would be higher than a young healthy guy like you. Go figure!

 

 

Both of these strategies use a lot of resources, which is why private insurance has much higher administrative costs than single-payer systems.

They do? Really? Government is more efficient than private enterprise. So let them compete, they should win hands down. Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that the reason that they don't WANT to compete is because they know they can't compete?

 

 

And since there’s a widespread sense that our fellow citizens should get the care we need — not everyone agrees, but most do — this means that private insurance basically spends a lot of money on socially destructive activities.

Oh? Like paying doctors, and drugs?

 

 

 

The second thing about health care is that it’s complicated

Oh, the wonderful you can't understand it but I do-argument.

 

 

, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”)

That's what the insurance company, or, dread, the State should be doing for you, isn't it?

 

That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code

And I thought it had something to do with that Greek guy, I forget his name...

 

, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.

Actually I expect something different, not more.

 

 

You could rely on a health maintenance organization to make the hard choices and do the cost management, and to some extent we do. But HMOs have been highly limited in their ability to achieve cost-effectiveness because people don’t trust them — they’re profit-making institutions, and your treatment is their cost.

Thank good they are heavily regulated, so they have to spend much time on govt paperwork instead of finding you the best solution.

 

 

Between those two factors, health care just doesn’t work as a standard market story.

Really, did you ever see anything resembling a free market that you liked?

 

 

All of this doesn’t necessarily mean that socialized medicine, or even single-payer, is the only way to go. There are a number of successful health-care systems, at least as measured by pretty good care much cheaper than here, and they are quite different from each other.

Anything as long as it is not privately run?

 

 

There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market

No? And exactly how do you define succesful? Abolition of mortality?

 

 

, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work.

Hmm let me see, you wouldn't define "work" as abolition of mortality too by any chance would you?

 

 

And people who say that the market is the answer are flying in the face of both theory and overwhelming evidence.

Maybe, but we cannot possibly know that since you have presented absolutely no theory and no evidence here.

[1245112654122755325882462]

Du har jo til gode å bevise noe selv flyktning..

[Skatteflyktning]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

[1245112654122755325882462]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

 

Punani

 

Bare av rein nysgjerrighet, portugisisk?

Endret 7. april 2013 av Priim

[Skatteflyktning]

Latin: Den som fremsetter en påstand må bevise den, ikke den som fornekter den.

 

(Dårlig oversatt på direkten)

[1245112654122755325882462]

Latin: Den som fremsetter en påstand må bevise den, ikke den som fornekter den.

 

(Dårlig oversatt på direkten)

 

Men du har jo mange påstander.. har du ikke?

 

Forsto poenget

[Skatteflyktning]

Men du har jo mange påstander.. har du ikke?

 

Joda, men det er mer "jobb" å bevise, enn å benekte. See regulasjonstråden f.eks. og den er kun halvveis for å bevise EN enkelt påstand.