Funny How The Pendulum Always Swings Back

We're talking trillions of dollars up for grabs. These are smart people. Think about it this way. It's like when you buy a new car...you know they got you, you just don't know how!

What happens now when the wealthy can afford to get opinions all over the world vis a vis their issues? Is that fair?

Insurance companies have a menu of things you are able to do and not do as well as drugs you can prescribe. They control what you do, when you can do it and make the provider responsible.

 

Well, congratulations! You have the health care system you deserve.

 

You are repeating your position that we spend too much on healthcare.

I agree.

The wealthy ALWAYS have more options. If they live in some red state, they can hop a plane to somewhere else for an abortion. Etc.

We can have a quality healthcare system without trying to prevent the wealthy from going somewhere else.

There are standards of care that come from more (and better) places than insurance companies.

For example, Medicare includes the same kind of limits.

But, YOU want there to be limits, too. You want your hospital to stop buying expensive technology (without even saying what the absence of that technology means for patients).

 

My friend, you seem like a really nice, very sincere guy. If we were chatting over a couple of beers, I could explain to you how all kinds of things work, but it would take me a week and a half to get those kinds of subtleties through to you in writing. I am doing the best I can but health care is enormously complex. It is run by some of the smartest people in the world because there is so much money at stake. And it is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams.

If you don't believe me, that's fine. Follow this thread and hopefully I'll be able to answer more questions but keep in mind that even one topic, for instance, the standard of care, has many, many facets to it. Everything in health care takes everything into consideration...the intellectual, the ethical, the moral, public policy and governance, and finance. It's by far the biggest part of the economy.

 

I've asked you a few specific questions - for example, what technology you believe your practice/hospital should not have accepted.

You've also talked about not providing healthcare in certain instances, but you haven't explained what those might be.

You've disagreed with the systems of other first world nations, where the total expenditure on healthcare is far less than in the USA and you don't appreciate insurance, but you haven't explained what your choice would be.

I think some of these should be answerable in a post.

Also, if you want serious change, you're going to have to learn how to describe what change you want at a higher level than the blow by blow you face in your office.

 

UHC isn't fantasy. Sorry.

I'll explain to you why you piss me off:

1. You bloviate
2. You're smug, arrogant.
3. You're pretentious
4. You never substantiate your claims, you just accuse, bloviate.
5. You talk in generalities.
6. You offer only tired, stale right wing platitudes
7. You traffic in strawman arguments, and it appears you do not know what they are.
8. Your arguments are never nuanced, they are simplistic, cartoonish characterizations.
9. You project, accuse others of that which you are guilty.
10. You focus on the wrong things. (for example, no one is suggesting 'state of the art' for everyone, yet, no matter how many times I tell you, you repeat it, and then you say 'the UHC care will be too poor' which is a generality and not a valid argument ).
11. I have yet to see any solutions from you to the current health care system.

And, I just about guarantee that after you read this, you'll be defensive as hell.

You are, in short, just about every shade of awful a debater can be.

And the really annoying thing about it is, you don't even know it.

It's kinda like the guy in the room with B.O. that everyone can smell but the guy with the B.O.

You don't even know it, and no doubt will you ever, know it.

That is why you piss me off.

 

Do you actually think I care how you feel? You must 17, not 71. I could care less how you feel. Who are you that I would possibly care how you feel?

Thanks for the conversation. Perhaps you can find somebody else to chat with who truly cares for your feelings.

 

This is a ridiculous question on many levels.

There should be no need for health insurance...period.

I have said that although their systems are better [in general] then ours, theirs' are still poor and are not sustainable.

Tell ya what, please tell me exactly what you think I should be doing on this discussion forum because as we all know, there must be a least four or five people reading this at this point [if we're lucky].

 

You asked me a question,

What the hell are you so angry about and why are you taking it out on me?

so I answered your question, and when answered your question, you tell me this?

So you were lying?

and you have done plenty of insulting, which makes you also a hypocrite, the kind that bloviates, spews generalities and doesn't back up his claims

Now go pester someone else with your tired, soporific, neoliberal lies.

 

Healthcare is never going to be so cheap that everyone can pay the cost of all the diseases, accidents, and other needs that humans have and that can be solved today.

It's like car insurance in that regard. One can incur large expenses with a car even if you strive to be safe.

Plus, our society is not ready to refuse to treat those with treatable healthcare problems. That is an issue of morality that is broadly recognized - not just in America, but throughout the first world.

Hospitals are not going to check a person's bank account and then refuse to treat them if they don't like what they see.

But, YOU are LOBBYING for having poorer healthcare. You want to refuse the technology that has been and will be developed, for example. And, I assume that means medications, too.

You can't denigrate the healthcare of other countries for doing what you want us to do.

You should clearly state specifics about how you want our healthcare system to be changed.

Will there be insurance companies? Will the government take any role in healthcare? Will hospitals be free to ignore standards of care when they treat people? When there are medicines that can solve serious problems, should that be ignored on the basis of costing "too much" - and what is "too much"?

If you want to insist that people only get the healthcare they can personally pay for, then you have to say that.

So far, you are staying abstract enough that it is not even slightly clear what you want in the way of a healthcare system.

 

Show up right before an election.

Start out with "Why, I'm just an ordinary non-political American".

Proceed to parrot extremist-right-wing talking points.

Use English which is technically correct, but which doesn't really flow like that of a native speaker. Do odd little things like use "grow-up" or "non-sense".

Why yes, I've seen that act before, in 2016 and 2020.

 

Thank you again for the very ordinary conversation.

 

So let's say that people felt about tv's the way they do about healthcare, that is, pour a nearly unlimited amount of money into tv research. What would happen? Well, you would probably have over-the-top tv's that cost USD50,000. And let's say there was a special industry set up so people could finance these tv's they couldn't afford. And the people were NEVER satisfied. "We want better tv's!!," the people would cry.

Or, should private corporations take what capital they can invest [through shareholders and profits] and develop tv's that people can afford. And being a free market for tv's, the price for better and better tv's keeps getting cheaper!! This is the way that a real free market operates.

This could happen in health care, as well.

Allow the market [patients and providers] to decide. This is the best our system can do. The market will determine if a medicine or treatment is too expensive. The key is to not invest so much money in technology nobody can afford. It is breaking our entire society. You cannot keep subsidizing a losing proposition. People cannot live forever nor can you spend every penny you have trying to achieve eternal life. You also cannot trash your body with horrible life habits and expect everybody else to pick up the tab. It's time to re-join the real world.

This is the idea. If people understood that they would be responsible for their own health and health care, do you believe they might live a little more responsibly? The current system is as poor as it is unsustainable. Take a look outside and look at people. Does this seem like a system that is working to you?

 

This is total nonsense, because healthcare is not an option like TVs and other consumer products are.

You cans live with a cheap TV - there are LOTS of ways to enjoy the extra cash you have.

You are simply suggesting that those with low income don't get to have good healthcare.

No first world nation is that morally corrupt. Your kid is allowed to die because you don't have the money for the available medical solution? Sorry. Nobody accepts that as a way to save money on healthcare.

Besides, you have done NOTHING to indicate that good healthcare is unsustainable.

For example, numerous countries have longer average life spans than do we in America. And, they use UHC type systems to accomplish that while spending far less than do we.

 

You haven't posted a substantive argument, nor rebuttal, to this forum, to date.

You just bloviate. To merely say 'my idea is better' is not an argument. It's an opinion, and no one cares about your opinion. What we do care about, is how you support that argument, but bloviating is not an argument, nor rebuttal, to anything.

So, 'ordinary' is something you should strive for, it would be an improvement.

Your only argument is 'free market'. That's neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism, the opposite of communism, is just as much of 'utopianism' as communism is. Despite best intentions, it always results in a plutocracy/oligarchy and wealth and power concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It doesn't' care if the poor cannot afford health care, so they never have access.

The midpoint between the two extremes it the best place to be, as explained here

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

 

I can't teach you basic economics as well as all the complexities of the health care system.

You don't believe that governments and corporations are THAT morally corrupt? Study history and it will open your eyes.

And have a chat with the customer relations people at some of the largest health care technology and pharma companies and they will completely agree with you. No amount of money is too much to spend! As a matter of fact, we should probably indebt four or five generations to that end [instead of just two].

Readmore, WillReadmore.

 

It's you that is failing in economics. Claims that TVs are like healthcare show a profound misunderstanding of capitalism.

The issue here is healthcare, not the mistakes governments have made throughout history, including today.

Everybody wants cheaper healthcare. That is NOT the issue and doesn't need any further proof.

The question is, what are you proposing as a way forward?

 

Patronizing/posturing is not an argument

painting with too broad of a brush does not substantiate your point

 

You can't give it up, can you?

How about we chat something completely different? Are you a religious or spiritual person?

 

I have studied economics and finance for the past 40+ years. How about you?

Capitalism is capitalism, be it widgets, tv's, or health care. You have to allow the market to work because the market can MUCH more efficiently allocate capital to where it is needed most. If you believe that somehow there are individuals that are better equipped to decide where to allocate resources then you do not understand the democratic nature of markets.

You are looking at health care through a lens of emotionalism and that is the worst way to look at it. In order to be a really good physician you must learn how to separate your emotions from your decision making process. If you allow your emotions to carry the day, you will be doing your patients a great disservice.

The purpose of health care is not the extension of life at all costs, but instead, it is the maintenance of health. Allow God to decide the rest.

 

You're not recognizing the fundamental difference between healthcare and products you may or may not to choose to buy.

But, perhaps the larger problem is that you are not describing a healthcare system to replace what we have - in whole or in part.

 

Those are platitudes, not economic reality.

Free markets only work if both parties have equal standing. That's not the case in healthcare.

You can't doctor shop while you're dying or in pain. And you can't doctor shop much at all in the USA. Medical care in the USA is deliberately supply-restricted by a cartel, to keep prices high. You're stuck with what few doctors you can find. You can't say "well, the other doctor gave me a better deal, so I'm going with her."

Free markets also only work if the consumer has good knowledge of the product. That's not the case in healthcare. Some aspects of it are just too complicated for laymen.

The idealized free markets you talk about usually don't exist in the real world.

I'll ask, but given you've run when others ask this question, I don't have high hopes. What do you propose for a healthcare system? And remember, more free market platitudes is not a proposal, it's an evasion.

 

No, you believe there is a real difference between the two because of the way things have been done for the past 60 years. The market for health care has been completely contaminated by health insurance and by subsidies from governments. This cannot continue [even though you wish it could go on forever]. Many things cannot continue as the next 5-10 years are going to be VERY educational for the vast majority of folks who haven't a clue as to what's going on [including yourself].

Just because you want something doesn't mean you can have it. The country is broke. Things have to change one way or another. Americans will no longer be able to pay these kinds of insurance premiums and eventually we are going to return to using real money, not the counterfeit stuff in circulation now.

The system needs to be replaced by a non-system. Do you understand what this means?

 

Spare me your feelings. Nobody cares.

I am not speaking of perfect markets, just free markets. Like the market for electronics. Increasing technology increases quality and lowers cost. If the price of something is going up you can pretty much rest assured that there's market and/or currency manipulation going on. Of course, we live in an era where there is massive corruption, but this will not last forever.

You ask a question and then tell me how I can answer it? I don't think so. I am not going to waste my time because you obviously are seriously attached to your narrative. Come back when you have an open mind.

 

That is not a valid rebuttal.

You're changing the subject, which is off topic.

Please address the comment to which you are replying