Medicare... It's not "Free"

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, it's not.  That is a gross misunderstanding.

 

How so? There are so many man hours that can be dedicated to servicing a community in the same way that there are only so many man hours a doctor can provide patients? If Healthcare is a commodity because it is finite then why isn't policing which is equally as finite a commodity? Electricity, Water, and Healthcare are just as essential as policing and we treat those as commodities. Under the conditions to which people here have described Healthcare as being a commodity policing would fall under those criteria. Now if you want to say that neither healthcare nor policing should be treated as commodities then I would agree. But you can't specificity the conditions for why Healthcare is a commodity and then when I apply those same conditions to policing say those conditions don't apply. 

Edited December 31, 2018 by billsfan89

[TakeYouToTasker]

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Policing is a commodity, it is individually applied and there is only so much attention and patrolling that can be applied to specific areas. Yet we do not have a system where you need private police insurance to administer policing. Everything can be called a commodity if you break it down enough. So why do we treat policing which is paid for by the public and administered as such (while also having a private market for private security and investigation if you can afford it) but Healthcare which is a similar product (It isn't elastic, its finite, and people need it in emergency situations where they can't shop around) should be treated as a commodity despite the fact that it isn't a product you can ethically deny people and it is needed in emergency situations where you can't shop around? 

 

As Tom said, this is a gross misunderstanding.

 

I'll let you break down your own argument.  Start with explaining the difference between shared utility and single use utility.

 

Please explain to me how a massive private insurance system where each provider has its own codes, own billing practices, own network of doctors and providers, and own billing administration is going to drive down costs for insurance? No amount of Durrrr government sucks waves that fact away.

 

This is a dumb argument.

 

First, I don't advocate for our current system.  I advocate for a market based system.  I've posted a detailed list of necessary changes here before.

 

Secondly, you're now simply regurgitating Marx's critique of bureaucratic and management redundancies within a competitive capitalist system.  It was a dopey critique when he made it, and it's even dopier now with 150 years of hindsight.   

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

The USA spends 17.8% of its GDP on healthcare, the next closest developed nation spends Switzerland spends 12.4% most developed nations with a form of single payer healthcare spend about 10-11% of GDP on healthcare. Healthcare is not a commodity, you aren't always in a position to shop around for it and it isn't an elastic commodity. I would rather employers pay a payroll tax (In place of what they pay for medical insurance now) so that everyone has a basic medicare plan than to have an insanely complicated system that is inefficient (Imagine calling the police and needing private police insurance and calling the right police in your police network to avoid ending up with a 10k bill) and just costs more money without providing better outcomes. 

 

I know there is an orthodoxy for a lot of people here that the government sucks and private industry is better at everything but yet anytime I travel to other nations in the developed world they seem to like their healthcare system and outright fear and laugh at the cost and complexity of the US healthcare system. I also think our privatized healthcare system is bad for someone wanting to start their own business. Small businesses and start ups have to put their own and their families health on the line just to be able to get off the ground. That's a horrible and perverse incentive. Our healthcare system also makes it almost impossible for you to freelance or go into business for yourself and maintain good coverage. 

 

You see the government sucks at everything. Just ignore real world evidence that single payer systems produce similar or better outcomes for less money. 

Thanks for that! 

 

 

And just some advice, don't think for a second Tom and Tasker care at all, in any way, about the facts, truth or whatever. They will say whatever and ask pointless questions to try and fatigue you and drag you down their rabbit holes of nonsense.  

[TH3]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

The USA spends 17.8% of its GDP on healthcare, the next closest developed nation spends Switzerland spends 12.4% most developed nations with a form of single payer healthcare spend about 10-11% of GDP on healthcare. Healthcare is not a commodity, you aren't always in a position to shop around for it and it isn't an elastic commodity. I would rather employers pay a payroll tax (In place of what they pay for medical insurance now) so that everyone has a basic medicare plan than to have an insanely complicated system that is inefficient (Imagine calling the police and needing private police insurance and calling the right police in your police network to avoid ending up with a 10k bill) and just costs more money without providing better outcomes. 

 

I know there is an orthodoxy for a lot of people here that the government sucks and private industry is better at everything but yet anytime I travel to other nations in the developed world they seem to like their healthcare system and outright fear and laugh at the cost and complexity of the US healthcare system. I also think our privatized healthcare system is bad for someone wanting to start their own business. Small businesses and start ups have to put their own and their families health on the line just to be able to get off the ground. That's a horrible and perverse incentive. Our healthcare system also makes it almost impossible for you to freelance or go into business for yourself and maintain good coverage. 

 

You see the government sucks at everything. Just ignore real world evidence that single payer systems produce similar or better outcomes for less money. 

Don’t confuse the haters here with the fact that our ENTIRE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY STRUCTURE IS WHACK AND COSTS ALL OF US TENS OF THOUSANDS A YEAR...can you find a meme that says all this?  Or can you put a slogan on a hat?

Edited December 31, 2018 by TH3

[billsfan89]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

As Tom said, this is a gross misunderstanding.

 

I'll let you break down your own argument.  Start with explaining the difference between shared utility and single use utility.

 

 

 

 

This is a dumb argument.

 

First, I don't advocate for our current system.  I advocate for a market based system.  I've posted a detailed list of necessary changes here before.

 

Secondly, you're now simply regurgitating Marx's critique of bureaucratic and management redundancies within a competitive capitalist system.  It was a dopey critique when he made it, and it's even dopier now with 150 years of hindsight.   

 

Policing isn't always a shared use utility but even making that distinction (which I would argue) it still is a commodity for the neighborhood and for those who have access to it. Why not privatize it so that you can use the power of the free market? If you call 911 you should have to present your police insurance card after getting help. And if you call the wrong police network well you should have shopped around.

 

A market based system doesn't address the massive bureaucracy. How is it better or more efficient to have 1000s of policies, hundreds of companies with their own coding, and forcing providers to bill by patient instead of getting lump sum payments? 

 

You are being a hyperbolic fool avoiding my question as to how exactly does a free market address these ineffencies other than DURRRRRR what do you want Marxism? No there is no need for market efficiency through single use on consumer products. But healthcare is not a consumer product and treating it as such makes it expensive and inefficient.

[boyst]

34 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Policing isn't always a shared use utility but even making that distinction (which I would argue) it still is a commodity for the neighborhood and for those who have access to it. Why not privatize it so that you can use the power of the free market? If you call 911 you should have to present your police insurance card after getting help. And if you call the wrong police network well you should have shopped around.

 

A market based system doesn't address the massive bureaucracy. How is it better or more efficient to have 1000s of policies, hundreds of companies with their own coding, and forcing providers to bill by patient instead of getting lump sum payments? 

 

You are being a hyperbolic fool avoiding my question as to how exactly does a free market address these ineffencies other than DURRRRRR what do you want Marxism? No there is no need for market efficiency through single use on consumer products. But healthcare is not a consumer product and treating it as such makes it expensive and inefficient.

This just shows you're a functional retard who doesn't understand the taxation system which is employed to provide civil services.  Congratulations, you're dumber than a 4th grader

[billsfan89]

16 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

This just shows you're a functional retard who doesn't understand the taxation system which is employed to provide civil services.  Congratulations, you're dumber than a 4th grader

 

Imagine someone thinking healthcare a service everyone needs access to is more akin to a civil service like policing than a commodity like shoes.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Imagine someone thinking healthcare a service everyone needs access to is more akin to a civil service like policing than a commodity like shoes.

 

That's equivalent to imagining someone doesn't know the difference between an exclusive-use and inexclusive-use resource.  

 

That's pretty easy to imagine.  Hell, you're demonstrating it now.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Imagine someone thinking healthcare a service everyone needs access to is more akin to a civil service like policing than a commodity like shoes.

Ok.  And?

16 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's equivalent to imagining someone doesn't know the difference between an exclusive-use and inexclusive-use resource.  

 

That's pretty easy to imagine.  Hell, you're demonstrating it now.

Hush. I was going to walk him to his fallacy and destroy his Utopia

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Hush. I was going to walk him to his fallacy and destroy his Utopia

 

No you weren't.  He already posted that law enforcement is an individualized service; he's never going to get it.

[boyst]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

No you weren't.  He already posted that law enforcement is an individualized service; he's never going to get it.

I had a pathway set up. 

 

A) ask what happens when someone is in an automotive accident in front of his house.  (Calls police?)

B) ask him what happens when someone has a heart attack in front of him while at Forever 21. (Calls ambulance?)

3) ask him if any services are being denied by the options he chose. (No)

4) ask him if any services provided are furnishing him a better and enriched life directly. (No)

5) ask him what he obligation does the recipient have to the services tenured...

6) profit.

[/dev/null]

16 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I had a pathway set up. 

 

A) ask what happens when someone is in an automotive accident in front of his house.  (Calls police?)

B) ask him what happens when someone has a heart attack in front of him while at Forever 21. (Calls ambulance?)

3) ask him if any services are being denied by the options he chose. (No)

4) ask him if any services provided are furnishing him a better and enriched life directly. (No)

5) ask him what he obligation does the recipient have to the services tenured...

6) profit.

 

The problem with your plan is you failed to take into account the moment he realizes he's talked himself into a circle is when he disappears for a week

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

That's equivalent to imagining someone doesn't know the difference between an exclusive-use and inexclusive-use resource.  

 

That's pretty easy to imagine.  Hell, you're demonstrating it now.

 

It's not even just that, though it starts there.

 

He's attempting to co-mingle two logically irreconcilable positions (positive and negative rights), by stating that if access to the protection of property rights under the rule of law isn't a commodity, then essentially nothing is, because of how he feels about it.

 

It's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen made here.

[/dev/null]

17 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's one of the worst arguments I've ever seen made here.

That's saying alot

[billsfan89]

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The USA spends 17.2% of GDP on healthcare and is far from the best in healthcare rankings. But yes the private market is so efficient with healthcare.

[Koko78]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The USA spends 17.2% of GDP on healthcare and is far from the best in healthcare rankings. But yes the private market is so efficient with healthcare.

 

So the magical government fairy will wave its wand and suddenly make health care efficient and cost-effective?

 

Can I have some of whatever mind-altering drugs you're taking?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The USA spends 17.2% of GDP on healthcare and is far from the best in healthcare rankings. But yes the private market is so efficient with healthcare.

 

You're making a massively intellectually dishonest argument, if we isolate it as you have here.  Massively.

 

That's not even touching your argument's other failings, most of which you've failed to effectively address.

[B-Man]

4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The USA spends 17.2% of GDP on healthcare and is far from the best in healthcare rankings. But yes the private market is so efficient with healthcare.

 

 

Increased spending does not equal improved healthcare.............as, I am sure, your healthcare rankings would show.

 

I have been a healthcare professional for over 40 years, on both sides of the (spending) issue. advocacy vs limited resources and EVERY time the government changes a standard for 'improvement' there is a decline in care.

 

 

.

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

You're making a massively intellectually dishonest argument, if we isolate it as you have here.  Massively.

 

That's not even touching your argument's other failings, most of which you've failed to effectively address.

 

I like how he thinks payroll taxes, which amount to roughly 6% of the GDP, will pay for healthcare, which costs 17.2% of GDP.

 

It's brilliant really. If you jack up payroll taxes by 400%, you'll be able to pay for healthcare, including all of the associated government waste and overspend! Granted, no one will actually be working after putting all but the largest companies out of business, but who the ***** cares? It's FREE!