This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[jimbob]

You are wrong that the poor are not an attractive market.

Walmart has done pretty well suppling to the poor.

But they wouldn't make any money in selling inherently expensive treatment at below cost.

According to this the median net worth of a renting household was $4k in 2004 (if I am reading the data correctly)

How could a household with a net worth of that actually pay any more than $4k for anything? Especially as they are likely to be poor credit risks, so borrowiong the money would be difficult.

Can we get the coronary healthcare cost below $4k?

5-hour bypass surgery: General surgeon with less than 1-year experience, $170k, Anaesthetist , less than 1-year experience, median salary $145k.

Both work 60 hour weeks for 50 weeks a year. This means that their combined equivalent hourly rate is $105/hour.

Now they are not performing surgery all of that time, so the actual money that the they are paid as an hourly rate whilst in theatre has to be higher.

As well as the two highly-skilled doctors, you need support staff, (in one photo, the team seemed to be four people), so that makes two other wages that need paying directly during the surgery.

You also need to pay for the use of the theatre, and expensive equipment, say $3million, depreciated over 5-years, when the equipment is in yse 52 weeks per year, gives a theatre cost of $11.5k/week. Now the theatre can't be in use all this time, there has to be preparation, so (generously) we could also assume a 60-hour week for the theatre, which gives $190/hour just for the theatre. Actually it will cost a lot more than this, but I am making a conservative point.

So far just taking the cost of the theatre depreciation and the salaries of the surgeon and anaesthetist, both at the bottom of their respective pay scales, and both working 60-hr weeks in theatre, we get to $295/hour, or $14745 for the five-hour surgery.

You could probably double this for more realistic utilisation rates.

You now need to add in the cost of the other two team members, and of the provision of facilities, and of the proportion of the hospital capital cost that is being depreciated (say over 30 years), and the cost of the bed and accomodation over (three days) stay inhospital.

It soon costs more than the $4k that these people have.


Rolfe works in a free-market system providing medical care to animals, so I will ask him this next question:

If someone's pet needs treatment that costs more than they can afford, do you (as the representative of the free market pixie) reduce the price of the treatment, or does the animal not get any treatment?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Do you even read what your are linking?

They had Medicaid!!!


The government system failed, and your solution is a larger government system!!!

Better, actually.

 

[D'rok]

Goalpost moving? I think not.

It is logical and consistent within this conversation to ask for evidence that government provided health-care would have prevented these deaths.

For your benefit:
Please evidence that these 18,000 people died because they could not afford health-care.

For your benefit, changing your answer to that of a different question when your initial answer was shown by evidence to be demonstrably false is textbook goalpost moving.

Simply admit that you were incorrect and move on. It will not affect your ability to criticize health care reforms. in fact, it will increase your credibility somewhat.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But they wouldn't make any money in selling inherently expensive treatment at below cost.

According to this the median net worth of a renting household was $4k in 2004 (if I am reading the data correctly)

How could a household with a net worth of that actually pay any more than $4k for anything? Especially as they are likely to be poor credit risks, so borrowiong the money would be difficult.

Can we get the coronary healthcare cost below $4k?

5-hour bypass surgery: General surgeon with less than 1-year experience, $170k, Anaesthetist , less than 1-year experience, median salary $145k.

Both work 60 hour weeks for 50 weeks a year. This means that their combined equivalent hourly rate is $105/hour.

Now they are not performing surgery all of that time, so the actual money that the they are paid as an hourly rate whilst in theatre has to be higher.

As well as the two highly-skilled doctors, you need support staff, (in one photo, the team seemed to be four people), so that makes two other wages that need paying directly during the surgery.

You also need to pay for the use of the theatre, and expensive equipment, say $3million, depreciated over 5-years, when the equipment is in yse 52 weeks per year, gives a theatre cost of $11.5k/week. Now the theatre can't be in use all this time, there has to be preparation, so (generously) we could also assume a 60-hour week for the theatre, which gives $190/hour just for the theatre. Actually it will cost a lot more than this, but I am making a conservative point.

So far just taking the cost of the theatre depreciation and the salaries of the surgeon and anaesthetist, both at the bottom of their respective pay scales, and both working 60-hr weeks in theatre, we get to $295/hour, or $14745 for the five-hour surgery.

You could probably double this for more realistic utilisation rates.

You now need to add in the cost of the other two team members, and of the provision of facilities, and of the proportion of the hospital capital cost that is being depreciated (say over 30 years), and the cost of the bed and accomodation over (three days) stay inhospital.

It soon costs more than the $4k that these people have.


Rolfe works in a free-market system providing medical care to animals, so I will ask him this next question:

If someone's pet needs treatment that costs more than they can afford, do you (as the representative of the free market pixie) reduce the price of the treatment, or does the animal not get any treatment?

All those numbers are ridiculously high because of governmental interference with the market.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The government system does not work!

I agree!

Why would anyone what more of a system that does not work?

I think I have a definition of insanity around here somewhere...

So you don't drive on roads, drink water, eat food, take drugs, never went to school.

Right. OK, I've had enough of your nonsense.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For your benefit, changing your answer to that of a different question when your initial answer was shown by evidence to be demonstrably false is textbook goalpost moving.

Simply admit that you were incorrect and move on. It will not affect your ability to criticize health care reforms. in fact, it will increase your credibility somewhat.

Please evidence that these 18,000 people died because they could not afford health-care.

 

[D'rok]

Do you even read what your are linking?

They had Medicaid!!!


The government system failed, and your solution is a larger government system!!!

If they had Medicaid, then by definition they could not afford adequate health care coverage. Therefore, the answer to zooterkin's question...

So, nobody dies or suffers due to lack of medical attention in the US because they can't afford it?

...is not:

Correct

QED.

Admit it and move on. It won't affect your overall argument.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So you don't drive on roads, drink water, eat food, take drugs, never went to school.

What?

Right. OK, I've had enough of your nonsense.

That is only because all your stories that you think show people dying from lack of health-care were the fault of the government which you think will prevent their deaths.

It is difficult to deal with facts which belie ones beliefs.

 

[D'rok]

Please evidence that these 18,000 people died because they could not afford health-care.

Post #450. Even one person dying falsifies your claim. Get over it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If they had Medicaid, then by definition they could not afford adequate health care coverage. Therefore, the answer to zooterkin's question...

This is great!

If someone dies under the inadequate health-care provided by government it is evidence that more government provided health-care is needed because these people could not afford health-care.

You guys have yourselves twisted in knots that would rival the evangelicals.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Post #450. Even one person dying falsifies your claim. Get over it.

Please evidence that one person died because they could not afford health-care.

 

[D'rok]

This is great!

If someone dies under the inadequate health-care provided by government it is evidence that more government provided health-care is needed because these people could not afford health-care.

You guys have yourselves twisted in knots that would rival the evangelicals.

Focus, Jerome.

If someone dies under inadequate govt care because they couldn't afford adequate coverage, what is the answer to zooterkin's question?

 

[D'rok]

Please evidence that one person died because they could not afford health-care.

Post #450. Put on your specs if you need to.

(Hint: there is a link in that post).

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Focus, Jerome.

If someone dies under inadequate govt care because they couldn't afford adequate coverage, what is the answer to zooterkin's question?

The premise of the talk is the need for national health-care because people are dying because they can not afford health-care.

You can not in the same breath call for government health-care whilst using inadequate government health-care as evidence of need for government health-care.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Post #450. Put on your specs if you need to.

(Hint: there is a link in that post).

Nope, those are people who did not have insurance. I did not see a mention that they could not afford health-care.

 

[D'rok]

The premise of the talk is the need for national health-care because people are dying because they can not afford health-care.

You can not in the same breath call for government health-care whilst using inadequate government health-care as evidence of need for government health-care.

Focus, Jerome.

If someone dies under inadequate govt care because they couldn't afford adequate coverage, what is the answer to zooterkin's question?

If you want to continue the debate (with me, at least), please answer.

 

[jimbob]

All those numbers are ridiculously high because of governmental interference with the market.

What are your numbers?

My numbers are wrong, but they are low...

You agreed that medics would command large salaries, and that medical equipment would still be expensive. I just put some numbers on that.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe works in a free-market system providing medical care to animals, so I will ask him this next question:

If someone's pet needs treatment that costs more than they can afford, do you (as the representative of the free market pixie) reduce the price of the treatment, or does the animal not get any treatment?

I'm speed-reading this because the thread's moving faster than I am, but there's one word covers this eventuality. It has ten letters and starts with E.

Rolfe.

(I don't mean to sound totally heard-hearted, people have been known to shrink the odd bill a bit for a "deserving case", but you can't run a business on that basis. There are charities of course, but coverage is patchy. Another solution I've seen work is rehoming - the pet is rehomed to an owner who can afford the treatment. But often, I'm afraid, if the problem is a biggie, it's that blue solution of death.)

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Focus, Jerome.

If someone dies under inadequate govt care because they couldn't afford adequate coverage, what is the answer to zooterkin's question?

If you want to continue the debate (with me, at least), please answer.

I did answer. I am sorry my answer does not help your understanding of the subject.


Would you like it answered in a different manner?

Governmental interference with the market which causes people to use governmental health-care does not mean that they could not afford health-care. It means that they choose to use the "free" government health-care, and these people payed with their lives.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For your benefit, changing your answer to that of a different question when your initial answer was shown by evidence to be demonstrably false is textbook goalpost moving.

Just to further the argument.

18,000 people died in America because they could not afford health-care.

Tell why all 300 million Americans should be subjected to government health-care because of these 18 thousand?