Which political party wants you dead?

[eeyore1954]

Yes the democrats that decided to actually try and do something to address the problem. Something the conservatives failed to do even when they had the chance and now their doing everything they can to repeal those changes.

Has the almost perpetually democrat controlled legislature done anything in California to make sure that people like Travis do not have to die for lack of health insurance options.


Actually I find it hard to believe that Travis does not qualify for any program in CA unless we do not know all of the facts.

 

[eeyore1954]

Twice as efficient as the pirate sector. Look at the privatized Medicare stuff, it has twice the overhead for the same benefits.

Oh wait you where talking about ideological efficiency not real efficiency. Never mind the data then.

Do you have any links for that?

 

[magellan]

Of course I am ignoring that with more demand and no more supply, that actual prices will rise. Yeah - it's brilliant.

Supply and demand don't work with healthcare.

I can go see my doctor free of charge any time I want.
I could go twice a day.
I don't
Why?
I am not sick.

I have no driverslicense, yet I would buy a new car for 100 €.
There is a price where even I, who have no use for it, would consider buying a car.
Is this true for a livertransplant? No.

Can you enter a contract with me, when I am in pain, fear of death or even unconcious? No. (Customers in healthcare are quite regularly in one of the 3 conditions that make contracting impossible)

 

[Polaris]

Whatever you say...

I am wrong.

The US is the worst place in the world
The republicans want everyone to die
There are no dentists anywhere who will give you payment options
There is absolutely NO WORK in California
and any jobs that may miraculously be created won't have health insurance

Whew, hysterics sure are sexy!

 

[Astrodude]

Supply and demand don't work with healthcare.

I can go see my doctor free of charge any time I want.
I could go twice a day.
I don't
Why?
I am not sick.

This just means that you have no immediate demand for a doctor. PA, or nurse. It doesn't mean that other people have no demand. You're also not accounting for opportunity cost. Supply and demand works.

I have no driverslicense, yet I would buy a new car for 100 €.
There is a price where even I, who have no use for it, would consider buying a car.

Would you pay to have someone drive it to your house?

Is this true for a livertransplant? No.

Can you enter a contract with me, when I am in pain, fear of death or even unconcious? No. (Customers in healthcare are quite regularly in one of the 3 conditions that make contracting impossible)

Contracting might be difficult in healthcare, but the principles of supply and demand still apply. They're just harder to calculate.

 

[stokes234]

This just means that you have no immediate demand for a doctor. PA, or nurse. It doesn't mean that other people have no demand. You're also not accounting for opportunity cost. Supply and demand works.

He's not saying nobody needs to go the doctor because he personally isn't ill, he's saying you can't increase demand in healthcare by increasing supply in the same way you can in most industries. I can't currently afford a car, but if you bring the price slowly down by mass-producing and increasing supply, my willingness to buy one will go slowly up. If you bring the cost of a kidney transplant down it doesn't in any way affect my willingness to get one, because I don't need a kidney transplant.

 

[keale]

Whatever you say...

I say this because im here in California and have real world experience trying to access what little resources there are here while your not here using telling me what up using Google.

The US is the worst place in the world

Nope never said that

The republicans want everyone to die

No not everyone but judging by their actions now and in the past they certainly dont see any problems with the way things are now no matter what the data says so it appears at least they dont care.

There are no dentists anywhere who will give you payment options

How can their be any payment options if you have no money? I said this over and over no money no choice. Money = choices

There is absolutely NO WORK in California

Never said that either but we have the 3rd highest rate of unemployment in the nation.

and any jobs that may miraculously be created won't have health insurance

Many do but their crappy and many other companies will work you 39 hours or less to avoid having to provide you health insurance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

He's not saying nobody needs to go the doctor because he personally isn't ill, he's saying you can't increase demand in healthcare by increasing supply in the same way you can in most industries. I can't currently afford a car, but if you bring the price slowly down by mass-producing and increasing supply, my willingness to buy one will go slowly up. If you bring the cost of a kidney transplant down it doesn't in any way affect my willingness to get one, because I don't need a kidney transplant.

This is not entirely true. There was an adage that with one ocular surgeon. Cataract surgery is done at 20/120, two surgeons 20/60, three 20/40.


But doctors will never talk about money or competition effecting when a procedure is done.

 

[magellan]

I think my wording leaves a bit to be desired.
Let's put it this way: Healthcare demand is very price inelastic.
A change in price doesn't effect demand very much, because while it's arguable if anybody needs several cars, nobody needs 3 kidney transplants.

It's like the business model "I offer to not shoot at you for everything valuable you have on you right now".
A lot of people agree to that transaction, yet it is considered illegal in most places I know of.

 

[Random]

He's not saying nobody needs to go the doctor because he personally isn't ill, he's saying you can't increase demand in healthcare by increasing supply in the same way you can in most industries. I can't currently afford a car, but if you bring the price slowly down by mass-producing and increasing supply, my willingness to buy one will go slowly up. If you bring the cost of a kidney transplant down it doesn't in any way affect my willingness to get one, because I don't need a kidney transplant.

Actually, you can increase the demand for healthcare by increasing supply. That’s one of the problems that we have in the US. No you are not going out for multiple liver transplants, but there are always extra tests that could be ordered and fancier ways of treating illness. What used to be treated with a $30 cane and a prescription for painkillers is now treated with knee surgery.

The second problem is that an individual’s healthcare costs are unpredictable, so there is no way to budget for them. Food is just as vital as healthcare, and you may spend more on food than healthcare, and you may not be able to afford it, but food is a predictable expense (you needed to eat yesterday, you need to eat today, you will probably need to eat tomorrow). The difference between paying nothing for healthcare and a five-figure medical bill is half a second and a drunken idiot running a red light. So we have health insurance to protect us from individual price spikes and to spread costs among everybody.

Put the two together, and you have a recipe for ever increasing health care costs. Patients want to get the best healthcare they can get when they need it, doctors are eager to sell them healthcare, and the patients are insulated from individual costs by health insurance companies. The health insurance companies have no problem with this, as long as they can spread the cost out among other clients or drop the unprofitable policies. The people with health insurance find they are paying more for health insurance, and decide to really get their money’s worth next time they are sick or injured…

 

[stokes234]

This is not entirely true. There was an adage that with one ocular surgeon. Cataract surgery is done at 20/120, two surgeons 20/60, three 20/40.


But doctors will never talk about money or competition effecting when a procedure is done.

But if you need cateract surgery, in most cases you go get cateract surgery. If you don't need it, you don't go get it. Price isn't too much of a factor, so long as it isn't extortionate. Supply and demand does have an impact, but not in the same way as in most markets.

 

[stokes234]

Actually, you can increase the demand for healthcare by increasing supply.

I agree that you can to a certain extent, but not in the same way as with most other markets.

The second problem is that an individual’s healthcare costs are unpredictable, so there is no way to budget for them. Food is just as vital as healthcare, and you may spend more on food than healthcare, and you may not be able to afford it, but food is a predictable expense (you needed to eat yesterday, you need to eat today, you will probably need to eat tomorrow). The difference between paying nothing for healthcare and a five-figure medical bill is half a second and a drunken idiot running a red light. So we have health insurance to protect us from individual price spikes and to spread costs among everybody.

Healthcare for an individual is unpredictable, but for a whole nation it is predictable, and so a UHC system can be budgeted for.

Put the two together, and you have a recipe for ever increasing health care costs. Patients want to get the best healthcare they can get when they need it, doctors are eager to sell them healthcare, and the patients are insulated from individual costs by health insurance companies. The health insurance companies have no problem with this, as long as they can spread the cost out among other clients or drop the unprofitable policies. The people with health insurance find they are paying more for health insurance, and decide to really get their money’s worth next time they are sick or injured…

A UHC system with a board such as the british NICE healthboard is a good antidote to this. The population chooses a government, the government sets the budget, and the healthboards do their best to allocate the budget to achieve the greatest possible healthcare coverage for the country. Doctors have no incentive to inflate costs, patients are to a certain extent protected from exploitative drug companies peddling useless or unneccessary crap, and costs are kept at whatever the government (and by extension the voters) judge costs should be kept at.

 

[Random]

I agree that you can to a certain extent, but not in the same way as with most other markets.



Healthcare for an individual is unpredictable, but for a whole nation it is predictable, and so a UHC system can be budgeted for.



A UHC system with a board such as the british NICE healthboard is a good antidote to this. The population chooses a government, the government sets the budget, and the healthboards do their best to allocate the budget to achieve the greatest possible healthcare coverage for the country. Doctors have no incentive to inflate costs, patients are to a certain extent protected from exploitative drug companies peddling useless or unneccessary crap, and costs are kept at whatever the government (and by extension the voters) judge costs should be kept at.

Ah, but your profile indicates that you live in the UK. I live in the US, where any plan for fixing healthcare must do nothing to hurt the bottom lines of doctors, hospitals, and health insurance and drug companies due to our profound belief in Jesus Christ or something. It limits our options.

That’s how we ended up with the dippy Obamacare thing in the first place. It does nothing to address the causes of rising health care costs, just shuffles around the payers a bit.

 

[Rolfe]

Actually, you can increase the demand for healthcare by increasing supply. That’s one of the problems that we have in the US. No you are not going out for multiple liver transplants, but there are always extra tests that could be ordered and fancier ways of treating illness. What used to be treated with a $30 cane and a prescription for painkillers is now treated with knee surgery.

But that doesn't happen. The doctor decides what treatment I need, not me. I can suggest (and as I'm medically qualified myself I might even be listened to), and indeed it's considered good practice to give patients an informed choice if there is more than one reasonable option, but if I fancy a knee replacement and the consultant thinks I'll do fine with paracetamol, I get the paracetamol and like it.

The second problem is that an individual’s healthcare costs are unpredictable, so there is no way to budget for them.... [snip absolute rubbish]

There's the thing, right there. Nobody budget's for any individual's healthcare needs. We budget by population. It's not hard to figure out that in the population the size of our NHS area, we'll need x knee replacements in a year (+/- one or two). So we budget for that. Then we wait and see who it is who's going to need them. That's the beauty of it!

doctors are eager to sell them healthcare, and the patients are insulated from individual costs by health insurance companies. The health insurance companies have no problem with this, as long as they can spread the cost out among other clients or drop the unprofitable policies. The people with health insurance find they are paying more for health insurance, and decide to really get their money’s worth next time they are sick or injured…

And you have a recipe for a flawed system right there. My doctor isn't "eager to sell" me healthcare at all. She is funded to provide healthcare for the people in the village. The incentives that are built into the system are geared to incentivise her to give me what I need and not give me what I don't need. Doctors can make more money by playing the system, but not by "selling" anyone more healthcare. They do it by meeting targets for vaccination uptake and offering diabetic clinics and various things the medical profession has determined are Good For Us.

Maybe it's true that the US is so -ed up in this area that they can't figure out and implement a workable system, even with most of the rest of the world already operating a range of viable systems to choose from. But guys, don't excuse your inability to run the proverbial piss-up in a brewery by callously decreeing that people less fortunate than yourselves deserve to suffer and die.

Rolfe.

 

[Travis]

Whatever you say...

I am wrong.

The US is the worst place in the world
The republicans want everyone to die
There are no dentists anywhere who will give you payment options
There is absolutely NO WORK in California
and any jobs that may miraculously be created won't have health insurance

That's actually all true for where I live in California. We have a nearly 20% unemployment rate and my little brother had to drive almost 100 miles to find a dentist that would even take cash payments. Nobody locally does.

Has the almost perpetually democrat controlled legislature done anything in California to make sure that people like Travis do not have to die for lack of health insurance options.


Actually I find it hard to believe that Travis does not qualify for any program in CA unless we do not know all of the facts.

Frequent visits to the social services offices have told me that California has had an almost absolute freeze on accepting new people into their programs for about two years now.

Now there is a Federal program that might help and this is being explored. Though it would help me if I was some sort of drug addict.

 

[Francesca R]

Actually, you can increase the demand for healthcare by increasing supply. [ . . . ]

I agree that you can to a certain extent, but not in the same way as with most other markets.

Agreed again, you certainly can increase demand by increasing supply, and/or subsidising supply with public funding. Maybe not with liver surgery, but many things in healthcare.

More to the point, if you increase the amount of supply which is subsidised, with little attempt to allow more provision to come on stream, the costs per unit are apt to increase.

costs are kept at whatever the government (and by extension the voters) judge costs should be kept at.

Correct--the limiting constraint in the case of universal health systems is where and why rationing appears.

 

[ponderingturtle]

But if you need cateract surgery, in most cases you go get cateract surgery. If you don't need it, you don't go get it. Price isn't too much of a factor, so long as it isn't extortionate. Supply and demand does have an impact, but not in the same way as in most markets.

But need is relative to how much the doctor is concerned someone else might do it.

There are clear cut people who need it and don't, but there is the issue of how bad do you wait for vision to get before having it done?

Then there are the towns with say a rate of hysterectomies several times the average. It wasn't a cluster of disease but treatment. Though it might have been religion related.

 

[balrog666]

That's actually all true for where I live in California. We have a nearly 20% unemployment rate and my little brother had to drive almost 100 miles to find a dentist that would even take cash payments. Nobody locally does.



[snip]

It may be true for you; that doesn't make it true for everyone.

 

[Travis]

So just screw us eh?

 

[arromdee]

"This party supports policies that I believe will harm me" is not equivalent to "this party wants me dead". More likely they believe their policies are correct; even if they're mistaken, they still don't want you dead.

If I were to argue that someone might be at the margins of poor and Obama's extra taxes will push him over the margin and lead to his death, may I now claim that Obama wants the poor dead?

Is it correct for fundamentalists to say that people who support evolution "want the devil to take over"?

It is fallacious to say "Person X wants A, A has bad effects, therefore person X wants the bad effects". The Republicans do not want you dead.