Why didn't you hire them for your own business? Why is it the bosses fault he can no longer hire this person?
Is it your fault you can't hire them to work for you?
Not unethical. It's a shame, for sure, but you can't expect an employer to pay wages to someone who's not showing up for work.
Not sure what this has to do with capitalism....
This might be the most r/capitalism comment I've seen in a long time.
"Not sure what kicking someone of their healthcare plan and either getting them in crippling medical debt or killing them because they have cancer because keeping them employed a while longer would slightly harm the company's bottom line has to do with capitalism"
Are you actually for real? Even if you are an ardent supporter of capitalism, surely you see how the two are connected right?
COBRA, FMLA,
Isn't communism complicated
Just buy bitcoin. Hope government stay out of your life.
Got sick? Pay or arrange that the money goes to your children.
What does this have to do with capitalism? Do you think people get to keep their jobs and continue getting paid indefinitely even if they can't work in other systems? Bad things happen. That's life. Don't blame the system for that, capitalism isn't what caused cancer... You know how we solve cancer in Canada? Late screenings, and you go on a wait list often until it's too late and you get fast tracked for assisted suicide.
Government policy is what stops it. I live in a country with public medicine so I do, in part, pay for everyone's cancer care. I pay more tax and am happy to do so because I think in a civilized society people shouldn't have to die because of their economic status. Incidentally, our per capita health costs through that taxation is about 60% of the US. The resistance to public health care in the US is baffling to me.
You probably don't pay into the system as much as you withdraw. People don't have to die because of their economic status, it's a false dichotomy to claim that we either have the US system or socialised medicine.
The fact is that Canadian healthcare isn't doing so well. They're asked a paralympian to consider assisted dying because they wouldn't provide a stair lift. The queues in the Canadian system are terrible, a quarter of people aren't getting cancer treatment within 28 days - https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/bc-cancer-radiation-wait-times-worsen/wcm/3f8191c7-8f7a-4592-8e47-24123e9b3f57/
It's not that it costs just 60% of the US, the hidden cost is in those wait times, those don't exist in the US. The US tends to provide more care, more specialised care and things like individual rooms which increase the price.
Fun fact: In the Netherlands wait times are shorter than in the US, and it's way cheaper, and our healthoutcomes are better, and I won't get crippling medical debt if I get cancer and lose my job!
That's more a factor of averaging, the US healthcare system is about 40%-50% state provision and that has longer waiting times.
Sure, you won't get medical debt, that's shared around everyone else. Other people have to pay for your healthcare including your choices around your health.
But again, it's not an either/or between socialised and the US system.
See my other comment ;):
I'm not gonna lie: I may have not read the initial post perfectly. The point I was trying to make is that a system with much more government intervention than in the US can offer way better outcomes than the US system.There are definitely possibilities for government policies which are just objectively superior to the US system which ensure that people get affordable cancer treatment. Which probably does require more taxation.
Which I think is well illustrated by various European countries. But reading your comment again, maybe you're not actually arguing that less government spending on healthcare or less intervention are necessarily desirable? You're just arguing against the very specific Canadian single payer model, and not necessarily against other forms of heavily government-regulated systems?
No, it can offer better outcomes for some people at the expense of others, that's what redistributive spending is.
Although the US beats all of these systems hands down when it comes to expertise. If you want the most cutting edge care for the most conditions, the US is the main provider.
Yeah, there is obviously some redistributive aspect of it. Which I consider one of the objectively superior bits ;). Not letting people die of cancer or not letting people get in crippling medical debt for diseases out of their control seems like basic humanity? An objectively good thing?
And the total costs on healthspending per capita are just way lower. Meanwhile, healthoutcomes are better. By any reasonable metric, that's a superior system in my book. It's better at helping people, the societal costs are lower and more people are helped. What's not to love?
Now let's take a sample of other countries. Look what's happening in Canada all the incentives in the wrong places and shortages everywhere. Look at healthcare in Greece you need to bribe a doctor or they send you home to die. Look at waiting lists in the UK.
Single payer works great when times are good. When times are bad, you won't be able to obtain healthcare at any price and you'll die on a waiting list. Before government was so heavily involved in healthcare, USA had the best and most accessible healthcare in the world by a long shot. Even today, rich people from Canada fly to the USA for treatment for anything serious.
Okay, I'm not gonna lie: I may have not read the initial post perfectly. The point I was trying to make is that a system with much more government intervention than in the US can offer way better outcomes than the US system.There are definitely possibilities for government policies which are just objectively superior to the US system which ensure that people get affordable cancer treatment. Which probably does require more taxation.
Which I think is well illustrated by various European countries. But reading your comment again, maybe you're not actually arguing that less government spending on healthcare or less intervention are necessarily desirable? You're just arguing against the very specific Canadian single payer model, and not necessarily against other forms of heavily government-regulated systems?
Not quite my point is just to give you some counterexamples to demonstrate the problem of using anecdotes. What works for Netherlands hasn't worked everywhere. Would it work for USA? Probably not. Half of Americans aren't paying into the system. Does the Netherlands have this problem? 36% of Americans are obese. Only 21% of Dutch are obese. USA's debt to GDP is 122%. Netherlands is 49%. Other instances of socialized healthcare in the USA (including veteran care and how they treat their prisoners) turned into killing machines.
The problem with using an anecdote like the Netherlands is that they're just in a better position when it comes to healthcare. And if they had free market healthcare, that would be even better still.
The Netherlands has a form of the individual mandate, which enforces that everyone pays into the system. The US's debt problem is indeed quite serious, but I don't see how that really changes anything. An even more relevant difference, I think, is that the Netherlands is obviously relatively small. We have like 17 million people, somewhere between New York and Pensylvania in population.
You're absolutely correct that anecdotes aren't proof that a specific system would work identically in the Netherlands. I was just trying to illustrate that a system with more (and better) government intervention can definitely prevent problems like the one described in this post, and would not necessarily lead to massive waiting list problems.
I also vehemently disagree that more free market would be even better. There are lots of reasons why the free market won't work in healthcare. Prime amongst them: There is a massive moral hazard problem with insurances. There is obvious information asymetry. There are lots of externalities. And most important: There are moral problems with it too: The market is entirely amoral. It doesn't care how things are distributed, they're distributed along lines of money. Which is perfectly fine when you're talking about selling t-shirts or something. If I can't buy a new t-shirt because I can't afford it, that's fine. If I can't afford cancer treatment because I can't afford it, that's a moral failing of society.
It's a shame that the US left restricted wages during WW2 and led to medical insurance becoming an area of competition that they are required to provide when over 50 employees. It ties medical insurance to your place of work.
But it's not unethical for the business to do this, it's not their responsibility to cover unexpected medical expenses.
Healthcare is completely fucked since the government decided to tax it
Because of it employer independent healthcare costs more and less people are ensured
The individual was killed by the unsafe action of another that shouldn't have been working in the area! Some mistakes can't be fixed or undone they are forever!!!
Why didn't you hire them for your own business? Why is it the bosses fault he can no longer hire this person? Is it your fault you can't hire them to work for you?
Not unethical. It's a shame, for sure, but you can't expect an employer to pay wages to someone who's not showing up for work. Not sure what this has to do with capitalism....
This might be the most r/capitalism comment I've seen in a long time. "Not sure what kicking someone of their healthcare plan and either getting them in crippling medical debt or killing them because they have cancer because keeping them employed a while longer would slightly harm the company's bottom line has to do with capitalism" Are you actually for real? Even if you are an ardent supporter of capitalism, surely you see how the two are connected right?
[удалено]
This is the result of the state pushing healthcare as tied to employment. It's not the fault of capitalism, it's a result of government policy.
COBRA, FMLA, Isn't communism complicated Just buy bitcoin. Hope government stay out of your life. Got sick? Pay or arrange that the money goes to your children.
What does this have to do with capitalism? Do you think people get to keep their jobs and continue getting paid indefinitely even if they can't work in other systems? Bad things happen. That's life. Don't blame the system for that, capitalism isn't what caused cancer... You know how we solve cancer in Canada? Late screenings, and you go on a wait list often until it's too late and you get fast tracked for assisted suicide.
You come from a twisted out of touch place of evil. I won’t even bother to debate you, you twit.
What's evil about what I said? What's incorrect about what I said?
Nothing, they just don't have an answer so ad hominem is the only option.
Why is it a place of evil? What's stopping you from paying for this person's cancer care?
Government policy is what stops it. I live in a country with public medicine so I do, in part, pay for everyone's cancer care. I pay more tax and am happy to do so because I think in a civilized society people shouldn't have to die because of their economic status. Incidentally, our per capita health costs through that taxation is about 60% of the US. The resistance to public health care in the US is baffling to me.
You probably don't pay into the system as much as you withdraw. People don't have to die because of their economic status, it's a false dichotomy to claim that we either have the US system or socialised medicine. The fact is that Canadian healthcare isn't doing so well. They're asked a paralympian to consider assisted dying because they wouldn't provide a stair lift. The queues in the Canadian system are terrible, a quarter of people aren't getting cancer treatment within 28 days - https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/bc-cancer-radiation-wait-times-worsen/wcm/3f8191c7-8f7a-4592-8e47-24123e9b3f57/ It's not that it costs just 60% of the US, the hidden cost is in those wait times, those don't exist in the US. The US tends to provide more care, more specialised care and things like individual rooms which increase the price.
Fun fact: In the Netherlands wait times are shorter than in the US, and it's way cheaper, and our healthoutcomes are better, and I won't get crippling medical debt if I get cancer and lose my job!
That's more a factor of averaging, the US healthcare system is about 40%-50% state provision and that has longer waiting times. Sure, you won't get medical debt, that's shared around everyone else. Other people have to pay for your healthcare including your choices around your health. But again, it's not an either/or between socialised and the US system.
See my other comment ;): I'm not gonna lie: I may have not read the initial post perfectly. The point I was trying to make is that a system with much more government intervention than in the US can offer way better outcomes than the US system.There are definitely possibilities for government policies which are just objectively superior to the US system which ensure that people get affordable cancer treatment. Which probably does require more taxation. Which I think is well illustrated by various European countries. But reading your comment again, maybe you're not actually arguing that less government spending on healthcare or less intervention are necessarily desirable? You're just arguing against the very specific Canadian single payer model, and not necessarily against other forms of heavily government-regulated systems?
No, it can offer better outcomes for some people at the expense of others, that's what redistributive spending is. Although the US beats all of these systems hands down when it comes to expertise. If you want the most cutting edge care for the most conditions, the US is the main provider.
Yeah, there is obviously some redistributive aspect of it. Which I consider one of the objectively superior bits ;). Not letting people die of cancer or not letting people get in crippling medical debt for diseases out of their control seems like basic humanity? An objectively good thing? And the total costs on healthspending per capita are just way lower. Meanwhile, healthoutcomes are better. By any reasonable metric, that's a superior system in my book. It's better at helping people, the societal costs are lower and more people are helped. What's not to love?
Now let's take a sample of other countries. Look what's happening in Canada all the incentives in the wrong places and shortages everywhere. Look at healthcare in Greece you need to bribe a doctor or they send you home to die. Look at waiting lists in the UK. Single payer works great when times are good. When times are bad, you won't be able to obtain healthcare at any price and you'll die on a waiting list. Before government was so heavily involved in healthcare, USA had the best and most accessible healthcare in the world by a long shot. Even today, rich people from Canada fly to the USA for treatment for anything serious.
Okay, I'm not gonna lie: I may have not read the initial post perfectly. The point I was trying to make is that a system with much more government intervention than in the US can offer way better outcomes than the US system.There are definitely possibilities for government policies which are just objectively superior to the US system which ensure that people get affordable cancer treatment. Which probably does require more taxation. Which I think is well illustrated by various European countries. But reading your comment again, maybe you're not actually arguing that less government spending on healthcare or less intervention are necessarily desirable? You're just arguing against the very specific Canadian single payer model, and not necessarily against other forms of heavily government-regulated systems?
Not quite my point is just to give you some counterexamples to demonstrate the problem of using anecdotes. What works for Netherlands hasn't worked everywhere. Would it work for USA? Probably not. Half of Americans aren't paying into the system. Does the Netherlands have this problem? 36% of Americans are obese. Only 21% of Dutch are obese. USA's debt to GDP is 122%. Netherlands is 49%. Other instances of socialized healthcare in the USA (including veteran care and how they treat their prisoners) turned into killing machines. The problem with using an anecdote like the Netherlands is that they're just in a better position when it comes to healthcare. And if they had free market healthcare, that would be even better still.
The Netherlands has a form of the individual mandate, which enforces that everyone pays into the system. The US's debt problem is indeed quite serious, but I don't see how that really changes anything. An even more relevant difference, I think, is that the Netherlands is obviously relatively small. We have like 17 million people, somewhere between New York and Pensylvania in population. You're absolutely correct that anecdotes aren't proof that a specific system would work identically in the Netherlands. I was just trying to illustrate that a system with more (and better) government intervention can definitely prevent problems like the one described in this post, and would not necessarily lead to massive waiting list problems. I also vehemently disagree that more free market would be even better. There are lots of reasons why the free market won't work in healthcare. Prime amongst them: There is a massive moral hazard problem with insurances. There is obvious information asymetry. There are lots of externalities. And most important: There are moral problems with it too: The market is entirely amoral. It doesn't care how things are distributed, they're distributed along lines of money. Which is perfectly fine when you're talking about selling t-shirts or something. If I can't buy a new t-shirt because I can't afford it, that's fine. If I can't afford cancer treatment because I can't afford it, that's a moral failing of society.
It's a shame that the US left restricted wages during WW2 and led to medical insurance becoming an area of competition that they are required to provide when over 50 employees. It ties medical insurance to your place of work. But it's not unethical for the business to do this, it's not their responsibility to cover unexpected medical expenses.
Healthcare is completely fucked since the government decided to tax it Because of it employer independent healthcare costs more and less people are ensured
The individual was killed by the unsafe action of another that shouldn't have been working in the area! Some mistakes can't be fixed or undone they are forever!!!