The Real Problem With Health Care In America

The ones you are familiar with are very unusual then, in regards to salaries not being lower than public school salaries. What is the unnecessary staff that a public school has that private doesn't?

 

Because it allows people that they do not deem deserving to receive health care.

Conservatives require a system that punishes people for choices that they deem as irresponsible.

 

Yes, I do believe that conservatives want people to suffer the penalty of their choices, even if that penalty is death.


Id like to make it clear, conservatives dont actually want people to die. They just dont care one way or the other, as long as you were denied the ability to receive health care on a tax payer funded system, if you lived your life in a way that they deem to be irresponsible.

 

Maybe it's just my imagination, but is there a big difference how right and left wing take care of people? When someone is considered as "irresponsible" ?

There should be also equal changes to get status as being responsible, right? I mean if someone is in bad situation - how right and left wing evaluate what outcome is right and what's not?

Another way to put it is to ask "how far people will go". Guys in healthcare industry just let people die if they can't get enough money from sick? Right and left may also have some different ideas when life is valuable and somehow you can lose it - so you get treated as waste?

 

the real market base problem with the health care sector is simple poverty and lack of full employment of capital resources.

 

You aren’t reading my posts before repeating yourself are you?

Then you will need to be specific about what attributes of NHS are uniquely qualified to improve our system.

How is efficiency and cost of providing not economics?

So why is government going back to contract with private business to get things done it can’t do?

You admit not everyone is under same risk or has the same needs. Good.

I referenced homogeneity of the need being serviced. The US is very different than countries like Sweden or somewhere. To make these comparisons you could use individual states but not a NHS.

 

Did the post say "Suggesting buying a television is an investment in human capital was, quite frankly, a ridiculous comment"? If not, why not?

You're asking for repetition. We have economies of scale guaranteeing greater efficiency. Fewer inputs for the needed outputs. That of course means you can do more for your buck.

You haven't made any valid reference to economics. Let's not play pretend. Your television remark shows just how far away from economic reality your stance really is.

Not a cunning comment, given the epic failure of PPP.

Please don't try misrepresenting my comments. It really is dull. I stated that any marginal risk effects provides no argument in favour of 'homogeneity' red herring.

The homogeneity angle is cretinous, but even if it was relevant you'd only be accentuating the importance of economies of scale (with NHS provision allowing for further geographic specialisation)

 

You just proved my point. Thanks.

Do we? Waiting for an example of it doing so in a case similar to the US.

The fact private industry can provide most anything more efficiently and economically than the government alternative makes anything you say on the subject irrelevant.

Epic failure? Government is the failure. Without the existence of private industry in my previous examples we’d be a third world country.

Oh, rich from someone repeatedly telling me I want increased mortality and less quality of life for others. I’m afraid you aren’t any more self aware than leftists in my country. If this is your belief then we disagree. Many risks aren’t marginal. You can’t ignore them.

What you are saying is responsible people must subsidize irresponsible people. And that everyone must have marginal quality of care to keep everything ticking over. And we would have to import professionals from second and third world countries to fill positions in the industry, and that wait times to see a doctor would increase. And that mortality and morbidity rates would likely remain static because NHS isn’t going to magically decrease drug use/overdoses, low birthweights from lifestyle choices, obesity, lack of exercise, suicide, auto accidents etc.

Sure, economy of scale will address all these issues. Economy of scale similar to Medicare where doctors already can’t take on any more patients on Medicare.

In answer to your question voluntary cost share associations would be better than NHS. We have Medicaid and Medicare for the old and disadvantaged. We just need to fix things for the average consumer. Cost share takes out the middle men and still allows for competition. As they grew they would accomplish your economy of scale goals by their size and bargaining power. And best of all it’s voluntary! Everyone can be happy. And alive. And as healthy as they choose to be.

 

Its a shame you can't admit good sense and note that "suggesting buying a television is an investment in human capital was, quite frankly, a ridiculous comment". It would be the wise thing to do.

You're asking for repetition again. DEA analysis demonstrates the efficiency advantages of national health care. Economies of scale is a factor for every country.

You continue to make bogus comment and pretend fact. Econ 101 is against you. Empirical evidence is against you. Happy for you to undertake your own research mind you. Fire up Stata and run that stochastic frontier to relish in your errors.

Again, zero attempt to actually respond to what has been said. Provide an empirical analysis into the effectiveness of PPP. Good luck!

I have repeatedly mentioned how you demand an outcome which increases amenable mortality and worsens morbidity problems. You've replied with nothing but dodge. Happy for you to have another go.

Another red herring. There is no reason that preventative measures cannot be pursued. Indeed they are. Are you saying that you're fine with people dying because you find their lifestyle decisions incompatible with yours?

A nonsense comment. Are you actually aware of how economies of scale operate?

We already know your system is exceedingly inefficient. That couples high % of GDP going to healthcare with high amenable mortality. You don't mind about preventable deaths though do you?

 

Depends on size. Most smaller schools don’t have much staff beyond teachers. And they are usually capable of teaching multiple subjects. They also rely on parent involvement to fill in gaps. This is a win win.

 

What you see is the result of capitalism, not socialism.

You sort of missed that point.

 

By that logic, if I dont want to house somebody in my home who has been evicted, that must mean I'm happy to see them sleeping on the street, or at least I dont care about them.

The difference between liberals like you, and conservatives like me is the fact that tough love works. You desire to make decisions based on emotion only enables them.

The reason why more and more people are dependent is because people like you enable them.

 

This is bizarre.
Please try reading my posts.

Funny there is just generic references and no example like I asked for.

You keep your data analysis. I’ll go with reality. I don’t care what your data says when the USPS stinks, SS is the worst investment on the planet, and even Medicare has to contract with private companies to get things done. If they didn’t a Medicare claim would take 10-12 months like a tax stamp from the ATF.

PPP isn’t great either, but if government was more efficient PPP wouldn’t be a thing. We’d all be driving cars produced by the government and a bunch of other consumer items. The consumer would demand it if the products were better and less expensive.

Yes, and you are incorrect. You think NHS is a magic elixir. I presented a model that could produce the same or better results, especially long term in relation to innovation and advances. It’s a thing now. It works. The closer the US gets to your model the worse things get.

Facts are not red herrings. There is no reason preventative measures can’t be utilized in any system. Did I say I’m fine with anyone dying? I’m saying NHS isn’t going to change people’s behavior in regard to vices. It just isn’t.

Yes I understand the concept. Sometimes it’s advantageous. It also has the potential to be self defeating. It can’t on it’s own change people’s behavior and often can’t serve individual needs well. It shines when relatively simple, mundane products or services are in play. Just what the doctor ordered.

My ideas can prevent deaths same as yours. Without forcing anyone to do anything against their will.

On a less contentious theme, what do you think of tele-medicine? I think it would be a great tool no matter the system. A big cost saver and tool for many to gain greater access to care.

Years ago it was forced on the large meat animal industry by the PC university admission standards to vet schools. It was a blessing in disguise. The largest cattle and hog operations in my area use such technologies almost exclusively now. (Those industries benefit greatly from economy of scale!)

 

I did, unfortunately! What is more bizarre than the utterly ridiculous comment that buying a television increases human capital? Have I missed something even more ridiculous? My apologies if that's the case!

Pathetic. DEA is a non-parametric method, distinct from the regression stochastic frontier analysis into efficiency. Its like you don't know anything...

This is idiotic. Data analysis is reality.

To moan about data and just say 'this is what I know' only confirms that you're not interested in any reasoned comment. You don't have Econ 101 on your side. You don't have empirical evidence on your side.

This is cretinous, as we know PPP isn't just efficient (it has been proved to be rent seeking folly). I know right wingers are herd for corporations, but crikey!

First, you have not told the truth. You have provided no model that produces the same or better results. Second, my support for the NHS is based simply on the data (and backed up by right wing economics, just for the crack)

You gave an obvious red herring. Referring to the fact that the NHS can be even more effective at preventative care merely rubbed salt in the wound.

As an understanding of economies of scale, this is idiotic.

Go ahead. Name them. I have empirical support. Let's have detail from you. (DETAIL. I've had to put in capitals as you dodge)

Start a thread about it.

 

Yes, you missed where I said it was absurd. And I explained why. And why I used it to try and get you to see the absurdity of your position. No problem.

It’s pathetic you can’t give me an analysis on something analogous to US healthcare now and proposed models. If you can produce it I’ll gladly look it over.

And yet the product of your vaunted institutions stink...

I have real world examples of failure of government on my side. That’s what matters at the end of the day. Polish your turds. They are still turds.

What nonsense is this? You aren’t responding to what I post again and are off on a tangent.

I have. You just don’t want anything voluntary or that allows for competition.

Preventative care would be best taught by example to children. Anything less is sub par. NHS efforts would be way down the list.

Because you only understand theories and have no eyes for seeing how those theories play out in the real world. But that’s your choice.

I did. Read my posts.

Thought you might have a place for it in your model...never mind.

 

I'm going to forget the rest of your whinge! This is the interesting bit as we could get you referring to the economics. A few quick questions:

(1) Why was saying buying a "television is an investment in human capital" wrong?
(2) How do televisions and health care differ when it comes to the provision of goods?
(3) To what extent does the higher amenable mortality in the US reflect inefficient public good delivery?

 

1). It is absurd. But no more wrong than your argument that health care is a public good now. If public goods are defined by society a case could be made for televisions. They allow access to great educational programming. Nobody can be excluded from the benefit to society of better educated viewers on history, cooking, nutrition, etc. C-span makes for a more informed voter and better citizens. Everyone benefits from this. By making television ownership a right, we overcome the non excludable hurdle just like health care. The non rivalrous aspect can be dealt with the same way. No matter how much I watch it’s still available to others. The physical object of the television set is the equivalent of syringes, scalpels, and surgical scrubs.

Furthermore, I can claim it’s immoral to deny television because to do so harms society and the individual.

2). Well, following 1) I guess they differ only in that today you want NHS. When that’s achieved you may move on to televisions. Or something else. But it will be something.

3). Very little if you take into account other variables.


I have a question. Do you believe seat belt and motorcycle helmet use should be mandatory? Why or why not?

 

Basic error. We know that healthcare impacts on human capital and therefore economic growth. By referring to televisions, you simply confirmed that you cannot comprehend that simple point.

Shame that you can't be honest. We know healthcare is a critical element for human capital. We know televisions aren't. Bleedingly obvious really.

We are getting to appreciate why you ignore economics here. DEA analysis shows greater outputs for inputs. Greater outputs provide for reductions in amenable mortality, by definition.

Yep, simple case of creating norms when confronted with time inconsistent behaviour.

 

Delete

 

Than you have no rationale.

you might as well just say anyone who disagrees with you is Adolf Hitler.

So you are incapable of having a discussion with somebody that has different views than you.

I wonder what happened to you to make you so belligerent and prejudiced against anyone who tries to explain their way of thinking. Are you just that narcissistic?

 

Well, some people think government is the answer to every problem and other weiser people our little reluctant to take that approach.

I think this board really attracts the lunatics.

 

No. Health is the critical element. You are stuck on the vehicle to arrive at health. This is your first but not only mistake. Until you can see this everything else is a waste of time.

Outputs of what? The fact you only care about economics or efficiency shows you are not concerned with the human element. Interesting considering how many times you’ve accused me of wanting people to die...

And with that you put the final in your coffin. You will not ever see it but those capable of critical thought who have been paying attention will see my work here is done.

 

I've asked details for your system which creates the public good characteristics associated with national health care. You've been sadly lacking in detail.

That you have to ask informs me of two aspects. First, you clearly haven't bothered to research the evidence. I of course already knew that, given the lack of quality in your argument. Second, you continue to look to misrepresent. I've already given two examples of outputs, number of operations and success rates. The beauty of the non-parametric approach is that you're not restricted to one dependent variable.

You do like to use comment that comes across like a petulant teen. Strange.

 

Not in the case of health care.