US Government shutdown

Looks like a decent system with it for New Zealand.

4 million people allow a decent amount of control of the politicians and bureaucracy. There are always going to be problems with people trying to get a free lunch and people trying to save money. If it is small enough both can be kept manageable.

Thank you for the example these are the things I like really to read about.

Thanks Again,
T2M

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

My reactionary nature motivates me to approve of the provision that limits most lawsuits for personal injury. However; after recently discovering my rat bastard step uncle's scheme to obstruct urgently needed safety improvements on a local road so that he can extort million$$$$$ for a new right of way across his otherwise worthless swamp land, I tend to believe that there are times people should be held accountable. If a school bus loaded with children were to get into a head on collision with a truck on that screwed up road, he would deserve to loose everything.

I agree. If liability falls to a third party, then it follows that responsibility also falls to a third party. That implies and to my mind almost certainly leads to less personal responsibility in more and more public activity. The government after all funds the scheme in various ways. Suits might be brought only to alter behaviour and the punative damages do not go the the damaged party in total.

This basically allows the government to benefit from suits that it brings to effect changes in public behavior. Government decide what behaviours are to be changed. This system might work for a relatively small resource pool that limits to the potential for graft, but I highly doubt it will work to manage the resources sufficient to address the harm done to 300 million people. Just weeding out the fraudulent claims of those 300 million people will require a huge bureaucracy. The potential for graft is just staggering.

The truth is that as large and wealthy as the US is, the temptation towards corruption is simply too large for someone not to be tempted. Not everyone will be, but enough immoral people will be. The sheer size of the programs the US manages will make profiting from graft relatively easy. The cost of ensuring no graft happens will also be too expensive to implement. So, the practical solution will undoubtedly be to only worry about sufficiently large examples of graft and waste. What waste and graft end up being allowed will undoubtedly benefit law makers and those with political pull in some way or another.

All this scheme would do is allow another pool of resources for politicians to use for political ends rather than to help those the funds are intended to help.

namelessfly wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

My reactionary nature motivates me to approve of the provision that limits most lawsuits for personal injury. However; after recently discovering my rat bastard step uncle's scheme to obstruct urgently needed safety improvements on a local road so that he can extort million$$$$$ for a new right of way across his otherwise worthless swamp land, I tend to believe that there are times people should be held accountable. If a school bus loaded with children were to get into a head on collision with a truck on that screwed up road, he would deserve to loose everything.

You still can sue, it just requires exemplary effects in the case. So you cant sue for coffee being spilt on you unless it causes you to crash into a building causing the building to fall down for example.....

As for the roads, we have the public utilities act which allows the government to take land and pay you what they believe its worth. they rarely do this, and usually only to the people who are deliberately beiing obtuse like your uncle, and they will get a valuer in and still pay a reasonable rate for your property, just not a hugely inflated rate. everyone else who asked for slightly more than current will usually get over the value, but hold them up and you may get exactly the value, or a tiny bit less.....

namelessfly wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:As a non American, what do Americans think of this as a health system style?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation

My reactionary nature motivates me to approve of the provision that limits most lawsuits for personal injury. However; after recently discovering my rat bastard step uncle's scheme to obstruct urgently needed safety improvements on a local road so that he can extort million$$$$$ for a new right of way across his otherwise worthless swamp land, I tend to believe that there are times people should be held accountable. If a school bus loaded with children were to get into a head on collision with a truck on that screwed up road, he would deserve to loose everything.

Serious Question.

Why did the US Federal Government have to do this? In your opinion.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:You're absolutely right. Obamacare is what the Democrats felt the could get the Republicans to let them vote through the Senate without a filibuster. IMHO this is because a large number of people hear the word "socialize" and immediately react with Cold War-era ideology rather than taking the time consider the options. Obamacare is not a solution, it's an attempt at a temporary fix that I think has very serious problems. The system before Obamacare was broken, Obamacare fixes some of the worst problems but creates others. Until people are willing to recognize that the insurance industry itself is parasitic and a non-value added process, a true solution will not happen.

I think the Federal government had to do this because the system is broken, the market wasn't fixing it, and almost none of the states were fixing it.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Serious Question.

Why did the US Federal Government have to do this? In your opinion.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:You're absolutely right. Obamacare is what the Democrats felt the could get the Republicans to let them vote through the Senate without a filibuster. IMHO this is because a large number of people hear the word "socialize" and immediately react with Cold War-era ideology rather than taking the time consider the options. Obamacare is not a solution, it's an attempt at a temporary fix that I think has very serious problems. The system before Obamacare was broken, Obamacare fixes some of the worst problems but creates others. Until people are willing to recognize that the insurance industry itself is parasitic and a non-value added process, a true solution will not happen.

I had to pay more than 3x that when both my wrists hurt so much I couldn't grip anything; and all that got me was 2 wrist braces and instructions to take Advil. And that was with insurance, though that only paid about $50. All that was for about 15 min of a nurse's time, 10 min of a doctor's time, and 5 min of a receptionist's time. My cousin was more help for free when he showed me some physical therapy exercises he learned after wrist surgery.

Spacekiwi wrote:I have paid about $45 in fees to my treatment provider in the last 7 years or so, so it works out pretty well.

Damn. Im glad i have the system we do here. For that $45, i have had approx 5 hours physio, 2 to 3 in a dentists, 3 hours in the doctors, several x rays, splints for my finger, stitches and a sling, a filling, and scrips for my medicine that discounted it to about $3 a scrip. and that $3 covered a month of meds, 2x a day too.

Donnachaidh wrote:I had to pay more than 3x that when both my wrists hurt so much I couldn't grip anything; and all that got me was 2 wrist braces and instructions to take Advil. And that was with insurance, though that only paid about $50. All that was for about 15 min of a nurse's time, 10 min of a doctor's time, and 5 min of a receptionist's time. My cousin was more help for free when he showed me some physical therapy exercises he learned after wrist surgery.

Spacekiwi wrote:I have paid about $45 in fees to my treatment provider in the last 7 years or so, so it works out pretty well.

T2M your comment about the US Federal Government shows up the contrast between the US and other developed countries. We want to have an effective national system that does stuff, where as your country appears to be defensive about the government having too much control.
Back to the medical situation, it is interesting that travel medical insurance has varying charges. For we Australians it is quite cheap if we are going to Western Europe and the UK, expensive in the second and third worlds, and very expensive in the US. Is this due to the greed of the medical fraternity, the lawyers regarding malpractice suing, or the inefficiency of your system? Whatever it does inhibit tourism, in that you can get a year's multi trip coverage for $X without the US but $X + $lots if you include the US.

Please Define broken?

IMO the Federal Government is much less functional than the medical system.

You commented earlier about how extremes on both sides are driving stuff from the link I posted. What I got out of it, the leaders are there to remain in power. To remain in power they have to keep there party in line or run in front of them.

T2M

Donnachaidh wrote:I think the Federal government had to do this because the system is broken, the market wasn't fixing it, and almost none of the states were fixing it.