Following AHCA defeat, Trump signals new openness to Dems

[TakeYouToTasker]

Great post Alf! Every one needs to read this to truly realize we need to be better in the healthcare department.

You'd rather receive healthcare in Brazil, China, and Iran than in the United States?

[gatorbait]

You'd rather receive healthcare in Brazil, China, and Iran than in the United States?

Come on man is that all you have? Read the article. We spend more than anyone, and aren't even close to being in the top when it comes to efficiency and quality.

 

50,000-90,000 people die in the US from human-error medical mistakes each year. Feel better about our system now? Google medical tourism to see how popular it is. People literally travel to other countries to get cheaper surgeries that are just as satisfactory.

 

But to answer your question no, I get hooked up at the hospital I work at. I love this country and buy American whenever I can.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

Come on man is that all you have? Read the article. We spend more than anyone, and aren't even close to being in the top when it comes to efficiency and quality.

 

50,000-90,000 people die in the US from human-error medical mistakes each year. Feel better about our system now? Google medical tourism to see how popular it is. People literally travel to other countries to get cheaper surgeries that are just as satisfactory.

 

But to answer your question no, I get hooked up at the hospital I work at. I love this country and buy American whenever I can.

The article is an agenda driven op-ed that omits massive amounts of data to drive a conclusion with the intention skipping debate, and reinforcing a narrative to those already submitting to their confirmation biases.

 

Medical tourism, as you use it here, is actually a case for free market reforms in medicine rather than a call for a state takeover. People do things like traveling for surgeries because of price transparency, and taking advantage of different markets. However, in doing so they also may incur greater risks.

 

This bears out in the US as well with the advent of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, and the wild success it's having with it's free market model.

[gatorbait]

The article is an agenda driven op-ed that omits massive amounts of data to drive a conclusion with the intention skipping debate, and reinforcing a narrative to those already submitting to their confirmation biases.

 

Medical tourism, as you use it here, is actually a case for free market reforms in medicine rather than a call for a state takeover. People do things like traveling for surgeries because of price transparency, and taking advantage of different markets. However, in doing so they also may incur greater risks.

 

This bears out in the US as well with the advent of the Surgery Center of Oklahoma, and the wild success it's having with it's free market model.

How is this article? Good enough for you?

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/krauthammer-us-may-be-ready-for-government-run-universal-healthcare/article/2618997

 

Do you think because there's universal healthcare, citizens can't go to other countries to get it, if that's what they want? I brought up medical tourism because it illustrates the fact that some Americans realize our healthcare is BS, so they go elsewhere to get cheaper, comparable care.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[TakeYouToTasker]

How is this article? Good enough for you?

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/krauthammer-us-may-be-ready-for-government-run-universal-healthcare/article/2618997

 

 

That's another op-ed which is complete bereft of actual data, and focuses on the political viability of a government run health care system, rather than it's functionality. So no, that's actually much worse.

 

 

 

Do you think because there's universal healthcare, citizens can't go to other countries to get it, if that's what they want?

Stop introducing non-sequitur nonsense.

 

 

 

I brought up medical tourism because it illustrates the fact that some Americans realize our healthcare is BS, so they go elsewhere to get cheaper, comparable care.

No, it doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

It illustrates that some people can't afford the expected Mercedes-Benz G-Class so they opt to purchase a Jeep Liberty instead because of the price transparency involved.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[gatorbait]

That's another op-ed which is complete bereft of actual data, and focuses on the political viability of a government run health care system, rather than it's functionality. So no, that's actually much worse.

 

 

 

Stop introducing non-sequitur nonsense.

 

 

 

No, it doesn't illustrate that at all.

 

It illustrates that some people can't afford the expected Mercedes-Benz G-Class so they opt to purchase a Jeep Liberty instead because of the price transparency involved.

Haha okay. Krauthammer is a conservative who I respect greatly. A lot more than anyone on here to say the least. He said the US might be ready for government run care, and don't rule out Trump being smart enough to realize repealing Obamacare and implementing single payer could be a big win for him.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Haha okay. Krauthammer is a conservative who I respect greatly. A lot more than anyone on here to say the least. He said the US might be ready for government run care, and don't rule out Trump being smart enough to realize repealing Obamacare and implementing single payer could be a big win for him.

Why should anyone care if you respect Charles Krauthammer, and that respect in proportion to how much you respect them? That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read entered into argument here. Seriously.

 

And yes, that's exact what he said in the op-ed. Which doesn't present any data at all. And focuses on the political viability of a government run system rather than it's functionality.

 

Which is exact what I said.

 

Try again.

[gatorbait]

Why should anyone care if you respect Charles Krauthammer, and that respect in proportion to how much you respect them? That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read entered into argument here. Seriously.

 

And yes, that's exact what he said in the op-ed. Which doesn't present any data at all. And focuses on the political viability of a government run system rather than it's functionality.

 

Which is exact what I said.

 

Try again.

The point is, even conservatives are coming around to the idea. I'm honestly starting to take it as a compliment that I think differently than a lot of the people on this site.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The point is, even conservatives are coming around to the idea. I'm honestly starting to take it as a compliment that I think differently than a lot of the people on this site.

No, the point is that you're making appeals to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies; while at the same time failing to argue the merits of your case.

 

So far you've tried to make the case that eliminating providers, and producing fewer and lower quality providers in the future, will lead to better access to care; which is evidence of nothing more than the fact that you have no understanding of supply and demand, cause and effect, and basic market forces.

 

You've also demonstrated that you have no understanding of the reasons care is so expensive in this country: an obesity epidemic, out of control diabetes rates, degenerative heart conditions, etc. are conditions unique to America, and drive the majority of our health care costs. Couple that with the fact that the introduction of insurance did not lead people towards preventative care, but rather to an explosion in ER care, and you see that problems with the culture of poorer communities is the major issue.

[Taro T]

No, the point is that you're making appeals to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies; while at the same time failing to argue the merits of your case.

 

So far you've tried to make the case that eliminating providers, and producing fewer and lower quality providers in the future, will lead to better access to care; which is evidence of nothing more than the fact that you have no understanding of supply and demand, cause and effect, and basic market forces.

 

You've also demonstrated that you have no understanding of the reasons care is so expensive in this country: an obesity epidemic, out of control diabetes rates, degenerative heart conditions, etc. are conditions unique to America, and drive the majority of our health care costs. Couple that with the fact that the introduction of insurance did not lead people towards preventative care, but rather to an explosion in ER care, and you see that problems with the culture of poorer communities is the major issue.

 

But he DOES have a Masters degree, so really none of the bolded is necessary for the discussion. If that doesn't carry the day, his HS IB diploma certainly will.

[gatorbait]

No, the point is that you're making appeals to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies; while at the same time failing to argue the merits of your case.

 

So far you've tried to make the case that eliminating providers, and producing fewer and lower quality providers in the future, will lead to better access to care; which is evidence of nothing more than the fact that you have no understanding of supply and demand, cause and effect, and basic market forces.

 

You've also demonstrated that you have no understanding of the reasons care is so expensive in this country: an obesity epidemic, out of control diabetes rates, degenerative heart conditions, etc. are conditions unique to America, and drive the majority of our health care costs. Couple that with the fact that the introduction of insurance did not lead people towards preventative care, but rather to an explosion in ER care, and you see that problems with the culture of poorer communities is the major issue.

Having one insurance provider, the government,

where the costs and prices are regulated, will not decrease access when even the poorest people can afford to go to a doctor or clinic to get basic care. Maybe if the poorest and unhealhiest people had actually gone to the doctor regularly, starting when they were a kid, they wouldn't be so fat and unhealthy now. Do you think it's a coincidence the poorest and dumbest people are the fattest and most unhealthy?

 

Spare me the lecture on supply and demand. I'm claiming single payer will happen, and it will regulate costs and bring them down. Hopefully, you aren't too fat and old to see it happen, it should be in the next 20 years.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[Tiberius]

No, the point is that you're making appeals to popularity and authority, which are logical fallacies; while at the same time failing to argue the merits of your case.

 

So far you've tried to make the case that eliminating providers, and producing fewer and lower quality providers in the future, will lead to better access to care; which is evidence of nothing more than the fact that you have no understanding of supply and demand, cause and effect, and basic market forces.

 

You've also demonstrated that you have no understanding of the reasons care is so expensive in this country: an obesity epidemic, out of control diabetes rates, degenerative heart conditions, etc. are conditions unique to America, and drive the majority of our health care costs. Couple that with the fact that the introduction of insurance did not lead people towards preventative care, but rather to an explosion in ER care, and you see that problems with the culture of poorer communities is the major issue.

Not according to the guys that know healthcare economics

 

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/080615/6-reasons-healthcare-so-expensive-us.asp

[gatorbait]

But he DOES have a Masters degree, so really none of the bolded is necessary for the discussion. If that doesn't carry the day, his HS IB diploma certainly will.

If a 29 year old, who just got interested in politics and real issues, knew more about them than all of you old internet mainstays, I would feel way worse for you than I already do.

[GG]

But he DOES have a Masters degree, so really none of the bolded is necessary for the discussion. If that doesn't carry the day, his HS IB diploma certainly will.

 

It's useless unless he drives a BMW

[gatorbait]

 

It's useless unless he drives a BMW

I understand your joke, even though surgeries in other countries aren't subpar like you're claiming. I'm more of an Audi guy myself.

[Meathead]

I'm honestly starting to take it as a compliment that I think differently than a lot of the people on this site.

 

starting?

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm honestly starting to take it as a compliment that I think differently than a lot of the people on this site.

 

 

 

starting?

 

 

Most of the regulars around here think very differently from one another on a host of issues. There are certainly groups of like minded partisans (all over the spectrum), but to suggest there is one ideology or personality down here is not only false, it's missing the point of this entire board.

 

If you try listening more than attacking for a bit, you might see that. (not telling you what to do, just making a suggestion)

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

Having one insurance provider, the government, where the costs and prices are regulated, will not decrease access when even the poorest people can afford to go to a doctor or clinic to get basic care.

Again, you have zero understanding of supply and demand. You are at the same time espousing a desire to reduce health care providers, and disincentivize entry into the field via reduced compensation and fewer choices for doctors which will ultimately lead to lowering of standards for becoming a doctor (IE worse doctors), while somehow believing this will lead to better access.

 

It doesn't matter if a person can afford to go to the doctor when there are no doctors to go to. Not having enough health care providers is an absolute restriction on access.

 

 

 

Maybe if the poorest and unhealhiest people had actually gone to the doctor regularly, starting when they were a kid, they wouldn't be so fat and unhealthy now. Do you think it's a coincidence the poorest and dumbest people are the fattest and most unhealthy?

/facepalm

 

You're making my argument now. The poorest and least educated are the poorest and least educated because they make poor decisions. The poor are still poor even though they live in the worlds largest economy. They have access, but refuse to make the decisions to take best advantage. The least educated are the least educated even though they live in a country that spends the largest amount of dollars on education per capita in the world. They once again have unparalleled access, but refuse to make decisions to take best advantaged. But you've somehow divined from this cultural disaster that even though all evidence points to the poor and uneducated continuing to make poor decisions, that this will some how be different, because reasons.

 

 

 

Spare me the lecture on market and demand. I'm claiming single payer will happen, and it will regulate costs and bring them down. Hopefully, you aren't too fat and old to see it happen, it should be in the next 20 years.

Educate yourself.

[gatorbait]

Everyone knows I didn't come on here attacking people. I'm all too happy to push back though.

 

Tasker you still don't get it, and that's okay. Supply and demand does not apply to government run healthcare. Do you !@#$ing understand that? How has your market based model worked so far? Really driving the costs down across the board, am I right? Forget about the ACA, it's a pile of trash. Before that, prices and premiums were going through the roof. That is the main reason Obama tried something like the affordable care act.

 

In regards to the poor, do you think people scraping pennies from week to week can afford to go to regular check ups at the doctor and dentist? Hell no. Without helping them, they get old, fat and disease riddled. And then we have to pay for their care when they go to the ER anyways.

Edited April 3, 2017 by gatorbait

[GG]

Everyone knows I didn't come on here attacking people. I'm all too happy to push back though.

 

Tasker you still don't get it, and that's okay. Supply and demand does not apply to government run healthcare. Do you !@#$ing understand that? How has your market based model worked so far? Really driving the costs down across the board, am I right? Forget about the ACA, it's a pile of trash. Before that, prices and premiums were going through the roof. That is the main reason Obama tried something like the affordable care act.

 

In regards to the poor, do you think people scraping pennies from week to week can afford to go to regular check ups at the doctor and dentist? Hell no. Without helping them, they get old, fat and disease riddled. And then we have to pay for their care when they go to the ER anyways.

 

It's abundantly clear in this thread who's the person that doesn't understand supply and demand. Just because you choose to slap a "government run" label on something, doesn't eliminate the forces of nature.