SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Center for American Progress reports
Congress [just] passed a bill that could result in complete, national data on police shootings and other deaths in law enforcement custody.
Right now, we have nothing close to that. Police departments are not required to report information about police to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Some do, others don't, others submit it some years and not others or submit potentially incomplete numbers, making it near-impossible to know how many people police kill every year. Based on the figures that are reported to the federal government, ProPublica recently concluded that young black men are 21 times more likely to be killed by police than whites.
Under the bill awaiting Obama's signature, states receiving federal funds would be required to report every quarter on deaths in law enforcement custody. This includes not [only] those who are killed by police during a stop, arrest, or other interaction. It also includes those who die in jail or prison. [Additionally,] it requires details about these shootings including gender, race, as well as at least some circumstances surrounding the death.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:32PM
No LEO ever killed a person for burglarizing a house at 2pm if that person was busy at work on that day from 9am to 5pm.
Right, because no-one making pittance at their 9-5 ever struggled to provide for their family...
The insane state of medicare in the USA makes your claim even less convincing.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:34PM
Well, of course, if a 9 to 5 worker feels that he is not earning enough then he is definitely entitled to supplement his income with crime. </sarc>
Why would anyone think that they are entitled to better healthcare? There is no upper limit to that, short of complete rebuild of the body. Most countries on this planet cannot match even the medicare. Does anyone in the world owe something to a stranger from the very moment that stranger is born?
If someone thinks that healthcare is a natural right, such as right to breathe, then they are welcome to exercise that right in absence of medical personnel and equipment. They can have all the books about medicine, and they are strongly advised to practice it on themselves. However if, for some strange reason, a person wants someone else to work on their body, then the work and the tools and the facilities have to be paid for. You know, doctors and operating rooms aren't growing on trees. As healthcare becomes better, it also becomes more expensive. If that's not what you like, there are still witch doctors in Swaziland, they will be happy to help you in exchange for a chicken. As healthcare in remote African villages is very affordable, I guess they live longer and happier than any citizen of the first world.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 18 2014, @12:19AM
Why would anyone think that they are entitled to better healthcare?
For the simple reason that it's clear [huffingtonpost.com] that privatised healthcare is just an awful way to do things [cbsnews.com].
I do not sympathise with your strong advocacy for applying capitalism to healthcare or with your strong opposition to a welfare state. It simply hasn't shown to be an effective way to handle the issue of health in a society. Yes, this means higher taxes, even for those who happen to be healthy. I'm ok with paying those higher taxes, and yes, I believe it's right to impose those taxes on everyone. (Turns out that in real terms, people end up spending less on healthcare this way anyway.)
There is no upper limit to that
Of course. Fortunately, I'm not advocating an infinite budget for nationalised healthcare, any more than I'd advocate an infinite budget for policing, or anything else.
As healthcare becomes better, it also becomes more expensive.
For a given level of healthcare, the price can be expected to decrease with time, surely? The price of the greatest possible healthcare might increase with time, maybe... I really don't know, it's not self-evident.
If that's not what you like, there are still witch doctors [....]
This really isn't relevant... at all....
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday December 18 2014, @05:03AM
There are good and bad aspects of privatized and socialized healthcare. However the mode of ownership is irrelevant here, as every healthcare activity requires a worker (a doctor, a nurse) and location and equipment and materials. Someone has to pay for all that. Healthcare cannot be free. At best you can optimize it by replacing insurers with the government. This would do wonders, as government is always far more efficient than anyone else :-)
Very well; then I will stop working, and you will be paying for my healthcare and for all my other needs. Deal?
That's because the government, having no need to compete for the patients, will minimize its expenses. You will be treated by poorly trained doctors, in decrepit facilities, with old and unusable tools and with drugs that are not even fit for disposal. If, of course, you will live long enough to see a doctor. In UK many patients die in line; other die from poor treatment. USSR produced many doctors and paid them only a subststence salary; but at least you could see a doctor. The doctor would have no access to modern anything because... you know, it costs money. Do you know that in USSR a dentist was drilling your teeth without anesthesia? Do you know that in USSR a dentist was working alone, without a nurse? Do you know that the dental drills that were in use in USSR were straight from 1920's, judging by their technology? Do you know that there was no such job as dental hygienist? Have you any doubts now why so many Soviet people have bad teeth? But, it was all free - if your heart can survive the pain.
As you say yourself, a drug that was good and expensive 10 years ago may be cheaper today... but not so good anymore. Would you like a surgery, which remains an option, or perhaps you want this new and shiny drug that costs big bucks but requires no sharp objects anywhere near your bowels? The cost of healthcare invariably follows the money that the people are willing to pay. Nobody wants to be half-healed.
As you see, it is very much relevant. You get what you pay for. Any attempts to change that simple formula only result in forcing other people to pay for your needs. Even worse, they are forcing other people to pay for medical needs more than they intended to pay. Young people are healthier; at the same they are poorer. Older people need more money on healthcare... but they tend to have some saved away. The concept of taxing people for healthcare will result in overtaxing young graduates, who already have too much debt. And it will eliminate taxes on people who don't draw a salary anymore but are frequent visitors at the doctor. Essentially, it flips the pyramid of earnings and expenses; it depends on the government to take money from group A and to give some of it to group B (keeping the rest for themselves.) Why do you insist on paying the useless bureaucracy instead of just cutting a check to the doctor? All insurances operate for profit, and it is you who is paying for those profits. Government-assisted extortion will only cost you more, as it is already the case with ACA.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday December 18 2014, @02:45PM
At best you can optimize it by replacing insurers with the government.
Not true. The toxic insurer-patient relationship can be avoided completely. For instance, in a nationalised healthcare system, there is never a need to avoid medical tests in case they come back positive and drive up your insurance costs. Neither do you ever have to worry about being taken to the wrong hospital and having to pay the bill yourself. It is fundamentally different from a capitalistic insurance-based scheme.
This would do wonders, as government is always far more efficient than anyone else :-)
Well, yes, it is more efficient than the privatised approach. Brits pay less per-capita on healthcare, and on average get better treatment than Americans do.
Very well; then I will stop working, and you will be paying for my healthcare and for all my other needs. Deal?
All your other needs? That would be basic income [wikipedia.org], not nationalised healthcare. That's another topic.
That's because the government, having no need to compete for the patients, will minimize its expenses. You will be treated by poorly trained doctors, in decrepit facilities [falsities continue]
Again: Brits pay less per-capita on healthcare, and on average get better treatment than Americans do.
As you say yourself, a drug that was good and expensive 10 years ago may be cheaper today... but not so good anymore.
This issue is tangential, but: not so good anymore? Why not?
Nobody wants to be half-healed.
But there's often a balance. Neither an insurer nor the NHS will be always be willing to unconditionally spend as much as necessary for the very greatest treatment. It's just not practical.
Even worse, they are forcing other people to pay for medical needs more than they intended to pay. Young people are healthier; at the same they are poorer.
Well sure. It's just like with anything that's nationalised: tax reasonably.
Why do you insist on paying the useless bureaucracy instead of just cutting a check to the doctor?
Because I like the idea of a national safety-net for those who can't afford healthcare. I realise that maintaining a healthy population (and therefore a healthy work-force) is in the best interests of both the country and its citizens. I don't mind that the cost of healthcare is spread across all citizens, including those who are luck enough to be healthy (myself included). (Of course, literally paying your doctor per-treatment is so problematic that it's essentially never proposed as a viable strategy: we really have either insurance or nationalisation.)
Government-assisted extortion will only cost you more, as it is already the case with ACA.
I'm afraid I don't know the details of ACA.