MMoore movie SiCKO

[no_such_reality]

The argument that if we were to have a universal system, then everybody would be going to the doctor for every little ailment.

Ask the British: Health Care Rationing “British doctors will take the historic step of admitting for the first time that many health treatments will be rationed in the future because the NHS cannot cope with spiralling demand from patients.”

Or ask about “Nice” Court challenge over Alzheimer’s drugs

Of course, they’ve made great improvements since the late 90s, when in 1998, there literally wasn’t an intensive care bed available in a hospital anywhere in the country. Or surgery waits were at 2 years. Remarkable Recovery Now they’re down to 2 weeks.

They do have their own King Drew horror stories as recently as 2005.

But in a parting shot from the NHS leader published today, maybe the doctors there aren’t as dedicated to the patient as we think. Hewitt cautions Brown against NHS policy change “Leaked correspondence revealed yesterday that she said the NHS remained a “paternalistic” service which too often served the “tribal” interests of doctors and managers instead of patients’ needs.”

[Anonymous]

nsr, all that logic and data, that’s not fair. Please, be swayed by PC’s anecdotes.

Dr. MM/FSD, you beat me to that one; good job.

Maybe the doctors’ participation in the bombings is another example of government employees ‘creating work’ to make themselves look busy?

[Anonymous]

nsr, all that logic and data, that’s not fair. Please, be swayed by PC’s anecdotes.

Dr. MM/FSD, you beat me to that one; good job.

Maybe the doctors’ participation in the bombings is another example of government employees ‘creating work’ to make themselves look busy?

[blahblahblah]

Yes, these anecdotes of problems and inefficiencies in the British NHS prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that OUR SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR! And that doctor terrorist guy is proof that government employees are only one step removed from terrorists. Socialized medicine is for dum-dum poo-poo heads. And communists.

Now get the hell away from me and my money!

[blahblahblah]

Yes, these anecdotes of problems and inefficiencies in the British NHS prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that OUR SYSTEM IS SUPERIOR! And that doctor terrorist guy is proof that government employees are only one step removed from terrorists. Socialized medicine is for dum-dum poo-poo heads. And communists.

Now get the hell away from me and my money!

[no_such_reality]

No Concho, we’re just tired of the smear and slander debate technique. In God we trust, everybody else bring data.

Unfortunately, everybody is learning to debate like the elementary students in bible camp to refute evolution. Cry ridiculous, that’s not so!, state they can’t disprove your point and smear any source, while presenting none.

Universal healthcare is a potential solution, however, it is not panacea.

The NHS has a budget of $104 billion GBP. Or the equivalent of $210 Billion US dollars. There are three other health plans in the UK. And private insurance for those that want it to cover on top.

Their population of 60.7 Million people, not quite twice California, and a mere 1/5th of the USA. Their area is 224K km^2. Slightly over 1/2 the area of California. 1/40th of the area of the USA.

At equal spending per capita, we will have a NHS budget of $1 Trillion dollars. That does not include the equivalent of the other three plans or private insurance on top. It also assumes no diseconomies of scale for trying to cover 40X the area with 1/2 the density.

At the core of the health care problem is a macro-economic fundamental. Public goods, those goods that are consumed without direct perceived cost to the end-user, have no incentive to prevent inefficient and excessive consumption.

[no_such_reality]

No Concho, we’re just tired of the smear and slander debate technique. In God we trust, everybody else bring data.

Unfortunately, everybody is learning to debate like the elementary students in bible camp to refute evolution. Cry ridiculous, that’s not so!, state they can’t disprove your point and smear any source, while presenting none.

Universal healthcare is a potential solution, however, it is not panacea.

The NHS has a budget of $104 billion GBP. Or the equivalent of $210 Billion US dollars. There are three other health plans in the UK. And private insurance for those that want it to cover on top.

Their population of 60.7 Million people, not quite twice California, and a mere 1/5th of the USA. Their area is 224K km^2. Slightly over 1/2 the area of California. 1/40th of the area of the USA.

At equal spending per capita, we will have a NHS budget of $1 Trillion dollars. That does not include the equivalent of the other three plans or private insurance on top. It also assumes no diseconomies of scale for trying to cover 40X the area with 1/2 the density.

At the core of the health care problem is a macro-economic fundamental. Public goods, those goods that are consumed without direct perceived cost to the end-user, have no incentive to prevent inefficient and excessive consumption.

[blahblahblah]

Public goods, those goods that are consumed without direct perceived cost to the end-user, have no incentive to prevent inefficient and excessive consumption.

Thanks for the ECON 101 refresher. Now let’s move on to some junior level class material. Healthcare isn’t a comparable market to the market for shoes and cars. Let’s imagine that you have health insurance and are diagnosed with cancer. Your provider won’t approve a treatment that could save your life — can you switch to another provider? Of course not, YOU HAVE CANCER and you’ll never be approved. Health care insurance simply does not work. Health care insurance companies have a direct incentive not to provide care. They can get away with this because the time interval between the consumer’s choice and the consumer’s actual consumption of the service may be a decade or even more. Consumers can visit for the sniffles in the meantime and those claims are paid because they are cheap, giving the illusion that the service is actually working. By the time the consumer actually needs a large payment for catastrophic illness, they are trapped and cannot choose another provider. If the provider denies care, the consumer can’t do anything. They could try to sue, but the provider will have much greater access to legal resources (read: money) and will likely prevail. In an open market, the providers which cheat and deny the most claims can quickly overrun providers that operate fairly.

None of these systems are perfect, but government-run services remove the profit motive. The point about the size of the US market is a good one. It would be very expensive here, but we are already spending the money via insurance premiums and taxes.

[blahblahblah]

Public goods, those goods that are consumed without direct perceived cost to the end-user, have no incentive to prevent inefficient and excessive consumption.

Thanks for the ECON 101 refresher. Now let’s move on to some junior level class material. Healthcare isn’t a comparable market to the market for shoes and cars. Let’s imagine that you have health insurance and are diagnosed with cancer. Your provider won’t approve a treatment that could save your life — can you switch to another provider? Of course not, YOU HAVE CANCER and you’ll never be approved. Health care insurance simply does not work. Health care insurance companies have a direct incentive not to provide care. They can get away with this because the time interval between the consumer’s choice and the consumer’s actual consumption of the service may be a decade or even more. Consumers can visit for the sniffles in the meantime and those claims are paid because they are cheap, giving the illusion that the service is actually working. By the time the consumer actually needs a large payment for catastrophic illness, they are trapped and cannot choose another provider. If the provider denies care, the consumer can’t do anything. They could try to sue, but the provider will have much greater access to legal resources (read: money) and will likely prevail. In an open market, the providers which cheat and deny the most claims can quickly overrun providers that operate fairly.

None of these systems are perfect, but government-run services remove the profit motive. The point about the size of the US market is a good one. It would be very expensive here, but we are already spending the money via insurance premiums and taxes.

[no_such_reality]

The flaw in your argument is the base assumption that profit is bad. Greed is bad, profit provides incentive to do it better and less expensively than the next person.

Your provider won’t approve a treatment that could save your life — can you switch to another provider? Of course not, YOU HAVE CANCER and you’ll never be approved

A red herring, in you only have the NHS, you can’t switch either, and courtesy of NICE, they don’t approve every treatment.

It would be very expensive here, but we are already spending the money via insurance premiums and taxes.

How will it improve the system? The core problem with the British and any other health system remains the spiralling demand for the services. Our obesity and diabetes epidemics aren’t going away becuase of universal health care.

[no_such_reality]

The flaw in your argument is the base assumption that profit is bad. Greed is bad, profit provides incentive to do it better and less expensively than the next person.

Your provider won’t approve a treatment that could save your life — can you switch to another provider? Of course not, YOU HAVE CANCER and you’ll never be approved

A red herring, in you only have the NHS, you can’t switch either, and courtesy of NICE, they don’t approve every treatment.

It would be very expensive here, but we are already spending the money via insurance premiums and taxes.

How will it improve the system? The core problem with the British and any other health system remains the spiralling demand for the services. Our obesity and diabetes epidemics aren’t going away becuase of universal health care.

[drunkle]

healthcare is already a 2+ trillion dollar industry. that’s twice your estimated cost for gb style national healthcare. you’re proposing a 50% discount… SOLD.

[drunkle]

healthcare is already a 2+ trillion dollar industry. that’s twice your estimated cost for gb style national healthcare. you’re proposing a 50% discount… SOLD.

[blahblahblah]

The flaw in your argument is the base assumption that profit is bad. Greed is bad, profit provides incentive to do it better and less expensively than the next person.

This grossly distorts my point without addressing it. I never said that profit is bad. I simply said that certain markets lack the characteristics necessary for effective competition. Such markets are very uncommon, but health care is one of them.

[blahblahblah]

The flaw in your argument is the base assumption that profit is bad. Greed is bad, profit provides incentive to do it better and less expensively than the next person.

This grossly distorts my point without addressing it. I never said that profit is bad. I simply said that certain markets lack the characteristics necessary for effective competition. Such markets are very uncommon, but health care is one of them.

[Author]

Posts