For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ] (Michael Moore's thoughts according of 'Michael Moore and socialized medicine')

This is a wild shortcut:

a) Other businesses deal with life-or-death issues. Should we also remove profit concerns from the transporation industry? I can think of dozens of other examples.
b) The entire insurance business lives with an inherent conflict, turning a profit vs. delivering a high quality and fair service when something bad happens. There is nothing special about health insurance at this point of view.

The insurance business has proven over ages to be a perfectly sensible type of business that benefits from normal market forces. I don’t see why it would be any different for health insurance. There are perfectly reasonable reasons why, as a society, we would want to have more legislative impact on health insurance than on pet insurance, though (for safety, fairness, ethical grounds, or whatever).

I like the Swiss system that makes health insurance compulsory on a personal basis (employers don’t get involved), but that entirely rely on 90 for-profit insurance businesses (2005). Folks who have difficulty paying can get financial assistance for their premiums – up to 100% for people really in need. The basic type of health insurance that you are entitled to is not fancy, but high quality, and all the big stuff is covered. Those who want to make sure that they always have a private room when in the hospital, or who want full coverage for alternative medicine, or whatever, can buy additional coverage. The maximum yearly deductible for the basic insurance is set between USD 230 and USD 1,900 + 10% of the cost over the deductible.

It can get somewhat expensive (USD 1,100 to USD 1,800 a year for the basic insurance with maximum deductible) [www.comparis.ch]). And those who can afford it (vast majority) pay 100% of it.

They seem to like it though. In March 2007, the people rejected in popular vote a socialized healthcare system with 71%.

Do you think that it is a type of system that would be accepted by a majority of US voters?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where profit concerns are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ridiculously stupid. This "argument" applies much more strongly to food than it does health care. Why don't we have "Universal Food Coverage", where a centralized bureaucracy plans the production and distribution of food? After all, it worked so well for China and the Soviet Union.

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

Edit: All of which is off topic to your post about for profit compulsory insurance. The problem with this is that government cannot stop meddling with the insurance company, either. So People are compelled to pay exorbitant amounts for premiums that mostly cover risks that don't apply to them. More and more people will qualify for assistance to pay for the sky-rocketing insurance, until the whole system will be totaly socialized.

Insurance.

Hey, but I'm sure the insurers will LOVE it. What company wouldn't want the government to compel everyone by force to buy their products?

Universal pony coverage for everyone!

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul, you realize that "he" is Michael Moore, and I don't agree with him on this one, right?

Do we really have to decide how good or bad an administration would be at running this type of business? Why not simply make the case that normal market forces benefit the customer?

Ron Paul, do you think that US voters would accept a for-profit universal healthcare system?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What he's saying is, "Because health care is so important, why don't we put it into the hands of the type of organization known to be the least efficient, the bureaucratic monopoly?"

What a tard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul, you realize that "he" is Michael Moore, and I don't agree with him on this one, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep; it was clear. Sorry if my response wasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Do we really have to decide how good or bad an administration would be at running this type of business? Why not simply make the case that normal market forces benefit the customer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Consider it done.

[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul, do you think that US voters would accept a for-profit universal healthcare system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does it matter what the voters will or will not accept? It will be passed anyway, because it benefits a large number of extremely well funded and very aggressive special interest groups.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

A strong case can be made in favor of universal healthcare, either on economical grounds (e.g. it is not smart policy to let a worker go years without proper care for a chronic disease), or on moral grounds (e.g. it is wrong not to properly cure an elderly person who may have contributed a lot to society).

However, in the implementation phase, there is no reason to kill a competitive environment with a single government-managed insurance. Why not let normal market forces operate?

I like it, and I think that it would be acceptable to many US voters (not sure if a majority would agree, though). Some people will not like it because they think like Michael Moore, and others think that having 15% of uninsured people is better than a reform.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, in the implementation phase, there is no reason to kill a competitive environment with a single government-managed insurance. Why not let normal market forces operate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the market doesn't exist in a vacuum. Every dollar spent by the Gov on health care competes with those not receiving aid. In other words you wouldn't see (and don't see in the US) normal market forces you would see a heavily distorted market. Double whammy for those not receiving the subsidized health care, pay for someone else and then pay double for yourself.



[ QUOTE ]
Some people will not like it because they think like Michael Moore, and others think that having 15% of uninsured people is better than a reform.

[/ QUOTE ]

If health care is such a desirable good, why is it that many people do not have it? Find the root cause of the 15% before you go around proposing changes to alleviate it.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

Maybe because their get no or very little assistance from their employer, and that they make $12 / hour? For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida (my personal estimates – I might be off a little bit). When you make $25K / year, and let’s say care for one child, don’t you think that it is unbearable? And you can think of even worst situations...

It could be implemented by the government allocating a certain percentage of the total premiums paid to health insurance companies (by employers or individuals), and inject let’s say 5% of this value in assistance to uninsured folks who meet certain criteria (as defined by the IRS – revenue, number of dependents, and so on). It of course has an impact on the industry, but it’s only 5%, and it is surely not a bad thing to have more business from the government. Many industries depend __more__ from the government (defense contractors, engineering firms, etc), but it seems that it raises __less___ concerns.

What are you afraid of?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it cost this much? If everyone wants it ______ then there is huge incentive to find a way to produce ______ at prices that people can afford. Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased, entertainment prices have decreased, clothing prices have decreased, transportation prices have decreased, and health care prices are skyrocketing?

[ QUOTE ]
don’t you think that it is unbearable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an emotional argument, and a weak one at that. Billions of people throughout history have lived far worse lifestyles than this and borne it quite well.

[ QUOTE ]
Many industries depend __more__ from the government (defense contractors, engineering firms, etc), but it seems that it raises __less___ concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biggest 4 "public" expenditures in the US (when you include state and local level) are (in no particular order) the military, education, welfare (unemployment, medicaid, medicare, other welfare programs) and social security (another welfare program so big it needs its own category). In fact medicare and medicaid together received 20% more funding than the department of defense did in 2006.
There is no other industry in America so heavily tied to the government than the health care/insurance industry.

[ QUOTE ]
but it’s only 5%, and it is surely not a bad thing to have more business from the government

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its a terrible thing for consumers (read american citizens) for an industry to get more business from the government.

[ QUOTE ]
What are you afraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heights mostly, but also the fact that the majority of socialized medicine proponents have a non grasp of what is really going on.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

Why would you want to force someone to buy insurance?

I love that idea! Can I get a law passed that forces everyone to buy my services?

natedogg

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it cost this much? If everyone wants it ______ then there is huge incentive to find a way to produce ______ at prices that people can afford. Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased, entertainment prices have decreased, clothing prices have decreased, transportation prices have decreased, and health care prices are skyrocketing?



[/ QUOTE ]

It costs that much because medicine is expensive. There is no way around it: if you want to provide decent and modern medicine, it costs real money.

Having an incentive to produce at prices that people can afford is not sufficient to magically make it a reality. Obviously, the incentive is not sufficient; otherwise there wouldn’t be 15% of uninsured people.

It is maybe easier to put in place in Switzlerland that has 10% or 12% of the employees who make less than $40K, with an unemployment rate of 3.3% (2006). The large majority of people end up paying their premiums without any assistance to the company of their choice, but I don’t see why it would not be possible in the US.

And nobody says that the government does have to pay for the entire premium of the folks who objectively cannot afford it on their own. In the fine-tuning, you can implement smart policies if you want to promote responsibility (e.g. maximum contribution of 40% of a basic package), national health (make the basic package non-smoker), or whatever you want to do...

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
don’t you think that it is unbearable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an emotional argument, and a weak one at that. Billions of people throughout history have lived far worse lifestyles than this and borne it quite well.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not emotional. It is a reality that some people cannot afford it. And there is nothing emotional in not finding the comparison with people throughout history not interesting (most died before age 30).

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why would you want to force someone to buy insurance?

I love that idea! Can I get a law passed that forces everyone to buy my services?

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

dont knock it, the insurance industry did it for auto.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a basic insurance similar to the one I describe in my post, it would cost something like $2,500 per year for a 40 years old non-smoker to get insured in Florida

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it cost this much? If everyone wants it ______ then there is huge incentive to find a way to produce ______ at prices that people can afford.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased,

[/ QUOTE ]
Farm subsidies and patent-protected tractor designs.

[ QUOTE ]
entertainment prices have decreased,

[/ QUOTE ]
Go to movies and/or concerts much?

[ QUOTE ]
clothing prices have decreased,

[/ QUOTE ]
Job exportation to China

[ QUOTE ]
transportation prices have decreased

[/ QUOTE ]
Drive much?

[ QUOTE ]
, and health care prices are skyrocketing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
don’t you think that it is unbearable?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an emotional argument, and a weak one at that. Billions of people throughout history have lived far worse lifestyles than this and borne it quite well.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your compassion is an inspiration to us all.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

Good points

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

I like the health care program the [censored], I mean politicians in Congress have.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

entertainment prices have decreased,


Go to movies and/or concerts much?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahaha. I get ~200 channels on my TV for 30$ a month, 130 channles on my satellite radio for 12 bucks, 30 free to listen local radio stations. I can buy virtually any individual song for 1$ or less, i can access hundreds of video games, pornography, books, magazines, television and movie clips without putting on pants. And the quality of these goods is ever increasing, better color, sound and accessibility. Average US pay is over 20$ per hour, I can trade 1.5 hours a month of my time and get a computer, dial up and communicate with a billion other people. The cost of entertainment has plummeted, but thanks again for reminding everyone why your one line answers can be dismissed with the greatest of ease.

[ QUOTE ]

Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased,


Farm subsidies and patent-protected tractor designs.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the 500 years before that with increasing food production without patents or subsidies? Just a coincidence?

[ QUOTE ]

transportation prices have decreased


Drive much?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, idiotic reply with no clue about history. 100 years ago my best bet for long distance traveling would have been a train, medium distance a horse or horse and buggy, and short distance walking or perhaps a bicycle. Now for medium and long distances i can drive a car (which is far, far, far far, far, far, far, far cheaper per mile traveled than a horse. I can fly to another continent in a few hours instead of the months that ships at the turn of the century took. Passages that families saved up for years or promised years of work in return for are now bought for an extra 1/6th of an hours work per day saved by a minimum wage earner. An extra 60 hours of cheap labor can get you 3,000 miles. At no other time in history has travel been this cheap.

[ QUOTE ]

Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And those drugs aren't getting cheaper or radically more effective why?

[ QUOTE ]

Your compassion is an inspiration to us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prop bet as to which one of us has performed more (non court ordered) community service in our lives.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since healthcare is also often a life-or death issue, a socialized approach, where choices are removed from the equation, is the best answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed Moore's Post


And he couldn't be further from the truth.


Why doesn't he want to socialize the computer industry? After all, it's very critical stuff and sometimes you have bugs and virusses and stuff.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And those drugs aren't getting cheaper or radically more effective why?



[/ QUOTE ]

I still think that jogger08152 made a good point by saying that there are reasons why healthcare costs are rising: people live longer, expensive drugs and equipment, etc.

Medicine does not scale as well as transportation, entertainment or food production:

1) The number of potential customers for a particular drug is fortunately very limited
2) New drugs and fancy equipment still require a lot of one-to-one care (interaction with MD, at most one person in the CT Scan at once, etc.)

For these reasons, treating a cancer or a chronic disease is very expensive. There’s no way around it.

I like the idea of a universal for-profit healthcare system (government and employers out of this business, subsidies to people who cannot afford full premiums). It would have some sex-appeal to moderate Democrats and Republicans alike IMO.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

entertainment prices have decreased,


Go to movies and/or concerts much?


[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahaha. I get ~200 channels on my TV for 30$ a month,


[/ QUOTE ]
Which you somehow think is cheaper than the "free" TV was 50 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
130 channles on my satellite radio for 12 bucks,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is cheaper than "free"?

[ QUOTE ]
30 free to listen local radio stations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Unchanged from 50 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
I can buy virtually any individual song for 1$ or less,

[/ QUOTE ]
Not that this is "cheaper", but I'll agree it's often "better" than buying a whole album.

[ QUOTE ]
i can access hundreds of video games, pornography, books, magazines, television and movie clips without putting on pants.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which says nothing about cheapness, but is great testimony to its increased convenience.

[ QUOTE ]
And the quality of these goods is ever increasing, better color, sound and accessibility. Average US pay is over 20$ per hour, I can trade 1.5 hours a month of my time and get a computer, dial up and communicate with a billion other people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Communication =/= entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]
The cost of entertainment has plummeted, but thanks again for reminding everyone why your one line answers can be dismissed with the greatest of ease.

[/ QUOTE ]
By my count, exactly 1 of your arguments above, when construed generously, could be taken as an argument for decreased cost of entertainment. (The "I can buy one song at a time" thing.) So yeah, you can definitely dismiss my answers, but apparently you can't support your dismissal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why is it that for the last 100 years food prices have decreased,


Farm subsidies and patent-protected tractor designs.


[/ QUOTE ]

And the 500 years before that with increasing food production without patents or subsidies? Just a coincidence?

[/ QUOTE ]
1. Cite your sources about the cost of food on North America in 1540, please. I'd be interested in knowing how many bushels of maize could be had for a doubloon.
2. Patents have existed longer than the US itself has.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

transportation prices have decreased


Drive much?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, idiotic reply with no clue about history. 100 years ago my best bet for long distance traveling would have been a train, medium distance a horse or horse and buggy, and short distance walking or perhaps a bicycle. Now for medium and long distances i can drive a car (which is far, far, far far, far, far, far, far cheaper per mile traveled than a horse.

[/ QUOTE ]
"One says to me, "I wonder that you do not lay up money; you love to travel; you might take the cars and go to Fitchburg today and see the country." But I am wiser than that. I have learned that the swiftest traveller is he that goes afoot. I say to my friend, Suppose we try who will get there first. The distance is thirty miles; the fare ninety cents. That is almost a day's wages. I remember when wages were sixty cents a day for laborers on this very road. Well, I start now on foot, and get there before night; I have travelled at that rate by the week together. You will in the meanwhile have earned your fare, and arrive there some time to-morrow, or possibly this evening, if you are lucky enough to get a job in season. Instead of going to Fitchburg, you will be working here the greater part of the day. And so, if the railroad reached round the world, I think that I should keep ahead of you; and as for seeing the country and getting experience of that kind, I should have to cut your acquaintance altogether."
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden

Someday when you're bored, calculate the cost of owning a car (forget SUV's and light trucks, they don't bear contemplation) for the average American. Factor the cost of the car itself, insurance, gasoline and oil, and maintenance.

In fact, I'll do it for you.
+) Call the car owner's (net) income USD 25k per year
+) Assume he works 40 hours a week with no overtime
+) Assume he drives 10k miles / year.

I think a fair guess is that it takes him about 2.25 months of work per year to pay for his car, as follows:
2000 / year base price (20k base, ammortized over 10 years)
1200 / year for gas (estimated as follows: 10k miles per year @ 25 miles per gallon (a generous estimate; for passenger cars, this figure was 22 mpg in 2002) = 400 gallons * 3.00/gallon)
1000 / year insurance
250 / year oil changes, tune-up's, etc.
150 / year tires
0 / maintenance (assume 10 year/100k mile warrantee, with no additional maintenance needed)

4600/year total cost divided by 25,000/year net income = 18.4% of his working hours go to paying for his car. 2080 hours * .184 = 382.72 hours to pay for the car.

Of course, the 2.25 work-months doesn't count drive time itself. If Hero travels his 10,000 miles per year at 45 miles per hour on average, he will drive his car for a total of 222.22 hours/year.

Thus, his cost of travel is (including earning the money to keep and maintain his car of course) about 605 hours per year. During that time he travels 10,000 miles as noted above. Thus, his automotive rate of travel, on average, is about 16.5 miles per hour, a pace I can match on a bicycle without any great difficulty.

Put another way, if each of the "fars" you used above, in describing how much cheaper travel is today, represents a doubling over the speed a man can WALK, your claim would still be far, far, far, far, far, far too exaggerated to take seriously.

Dig?

[ QUOTE ]
I can fly to another continent in a few hours instead of the months that ships at the turn of the century took. Passages that families saved up for years or promised years of work in return for are now bought for an extra 1/6th of an hours work per day saved by a minimum wage earner. An extra 60 hours of cheap labor can get you 3,000 miles. At no other time in history has travel been this cheap.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much did air travel cost 200 years ago? Once again, you aren't arguing for "cheap". You're arguing, at best, for "better".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

And those drugs aren't getting cheaper or radically more effective why?

[/ QUOTE ]
They're getting better: I'm pretty impressed with the new HPV vaccine that came out a month or two ago. They're not getting cheaper though.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your compassion is an inspiration to us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prop bet as to which one of us has performed more (non court ordered) community service in our lives.

[/ QUOTE ]
How old are you? I'm 33 and an Eagle Scout (with the comm. service that entails, if you're familiar), and volunteered as an adult leader for another 3 years and change. (I was also a political campaign volunteer, and although I was trying to get what I thought would be the best guy elected, I suspect you'd discount that effort as public service.) What's your story?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It costs that much because medicine is expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's expensive because it's expensive? That's not very helpful. You were asked why medicine is expensive.

[ QUOTE ]
Having an incentive to produce at prices that people can afford is not sufficient to magically make it a reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to work for a host of other products. WalMart is a prime example and there's nothing magical about it. Why is the medical field so different?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the incentive is not sufficient; otherwise there wouldn’t be 15% of uninsured people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there are barriers in place that make cheaper insurance and medicine prohibitively expensive?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It costs that much because medicine is expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's expensive because it's expensive? That's not very helpful. You were asked why medicine is expensive.

[ QUOTE ]
Having an incentive to produce at prices that people can afford is not sufficient to magically make it a reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems to work for a host of other products. WalMart is a prime example and there's nothing magical about it. Why is the medical field so different?

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, the incentive is not sufficient; otherwise there wouldn’t be 15% of uninsured people.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there are barriers in place that make cheaper insurance and medicine prohibitively expensive?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) People live longer
2) Very active and expensive R&D
3) FDA, and other regulations for our safety
4) Very limited number of potential customers for many treatments
5) For very serious conditions, few returning customers
6) Medicine does not scale well (face-to-face with MD, etc)

I don't think that the comparison with WalMart holds...

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Which you somehow think is cheaper than the "free" TV was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

"free" TV still exits today- and it exits in color, more languages with more variety of programming, and covering a larger area. It is a far superior product than it was 50 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]

30 free to listen local radio stations.


Unchanged from 50 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not unchanged, again higher quality, more coverage, more variety, more stations.

[ QUOTE ]

130 channles on my satellite radio for 12 bucks,


This is cheaper than "free"?

[/ QUOTE ]

New technology, high startup costs and yet 12 bucks a month giver you better entertainment options than all the options facing an average person 100 years ago combined.

[ QUOTE ]

Communication =/= entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because all communication doesn't = entertainment, doesn't dispute the fact that I can get enormous amounts of entertainment from communication mediums.

[ QUOTE ]
2000 / year base price (20k base, ammortized over 10 years)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Someday when you're bored, calculate the cost of owning a car (forget SUV's and light trucks, they don't bear contemplation) for the average American. Factor the cost of the car itself, insurance, gasoline and oil, and maintenance........
Thus, his cost of travel is (including earning the money to keep and maintain his car of course) about 605 hours per year. During that time he travels 10,000 miles as noted above. Thus, his automotive rate of travel, on average, is about 16.5 miles per hour, a pace I can match on a bicycle without any great difficulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this whole section is bullcrap. since
1. You cannot average 16.5 miles per hour on a 1907 bicycle (the fact that you might be able to on a 2007 bike supports my side of the argument even further)
2. Cars provide far better traveling ability than bikes- you can drive in much worse weather, and in much better comfort than on a bicycle.
3. Cars provide many more additional benefits- being able to live further from work allows for better living conditions, being able to travel quickly allows people to get to places on short notice (seeing ill relatives, getting a doctor to ill relatives)

[ QUOTE ]

How much did air travel cost 200 years ago? Once again, you aren't arguing for "cheap". You're arguing, at best, for "better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Air travel is comparable to other types of travel. The goal is to get from place X to place Y. To travel from Europe to the states by ship took months (which by the way couldn't be worked during at normal hours, and is a huge cost), cost a fair amount and entailed far worse conditions.

[ QUOTE ]
What's your story

[/ QUOTE ]

27 and over the last 11 years logged between 4,500-5,000 hours mostly in elementary schools and state parks.

[ QUOTE ]

By my count, exactly 1 of your arguments above, when construed generously, could be taken as an argument for decreased cost of entertainment. (The "I can buy one song at a time" thing.) So yeah, you can definitely dismiss my answers, but apparently you can't support your dismissal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I await your apology.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

I'm going to explain this as simply as possible. Remember that your contention was that "X" is "cheaper" now than it was 100 years ago.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Which you somehow think is cheaper than the "free" TV was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

"free" TV still exits today- and it exits in color, more languages with more variety of programming, and covering a larger area. It is a far superior product than it was 50 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]
Color =/= cheaper.
Speaking in Spanish =/= cheaper.
Wider coverage =/= cheaper.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

30 free to listen local radio stations.


Unchanged from 50 years ago.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not unchanged, again higher quality, more coverage, more variety, more stations.

[/ QUOTE ]
Higher quality =/= cheaper.
More coverage =/= cheaper.
More variety =/= cheaper.
More stations =/= cheaper.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

130 channles on my satellite radio for 12 bucks,

[/ QUOTE ]


This is cheaper than "free"?

[/ QUOTE ]

New technology, high startup costs and yet 12 bucks a month giver you better entertainment options than all the options facing an average person 100 years ago combined.

[/ QUOTE ]
$12.00 =/= cheaper than $0.00

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Communication =/= entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because all communication doesn't = entertainment, doesn't dispute the fact that I can get enormous amounts of entertainment from communication mediums.

[/ QUOTE ]
You may also get lots of entertainment from buffing your toenails while standing on your head in traffic. Yet somehow, that doesn't make the entertainment industry cheaper either. Go figure. In case you don't get the point:
[random thing tolbiny enjoys that isn't part of the entertainment industry] =/= the entertainment industry

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Someday when you're bored, calculate the cost of owning a car (forget SUV's and light trucks, they don't bear contemplation) for the average American. Factor the cost of the car itself, insurance, gasoline and oil, and maintenance........
Thus, his cost of travel is (including earning the money to keep and maintain his car of course) about 605 hours per year. During that time he travels 10,000 miles as noted above. Thus, his automotive rate of travel, on average, is about 16.5 miles per hour, a pace I can match on a bicycle without any great difficulty.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this whole section is bullcrap. since

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I've kinda got that "wasting my breath" feeling...

[ QUOTE ]
1. You cannot average 16.5 miles per hour on a 1907 bicycle (the fact that you might be able to on a 2007 bike supports my side of the argument even further)

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you could triple it on a 1907 train though, and for a f*ck of a lot less money than it costs to drive a car today. Transportation isn't cheaper, it's more expensive. Grossly. The average person spends far more money on transportation today than his great great grandfather did 100 years ago, both in real dollars and in time costs. You may argue that this is somehow "better", but it isn't cheaper. You are simply wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Cars provide far better traveling ability than bikes- you can drive in much worse weather, and in much better comfort than on a bicycle.

[/ QUOTE ]
traveling in worse weather =/= cheaper

[ QUOTE ]
3. Cars provide many more additional benefits- being able to live further from work allows for better living conditions, being able to travel quickly allows people to get to places on short notice (seeing ill relatives, getting a doctor to ill relatives)

[/ QUOTE ]
[all of the above] =/= cheaper

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How much did air travel cost 200 years ago? Once again, you aren't arguing for "cheap". You're arguing, at best, for "better".

[/ QUOTE ]

Air travel is comparable to other types of travel. The goal is to get from place X to place Y. To travel from Europe to the states by ship took months (which by the way couldn't be worked during at normal hours, and is a huge cost), cost a fair amount and entailed far worse conditions.

[/ QUOTE ]
If air travel today is cheaper than ocean travel 100 years ago, you found a total of one example in the transportation industry and none in entertainment. That would mean you're only 94% wrong. Well told!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By my count, exactly 1 of your arguments above, when construed generously, could be taken as an argument for decreased cost of entertainment. (The "I can buy one song at a time" thing.) So yeah, you can definitely dismiss my answers, but apparently you can't support your dismissal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I await your apology.

[/ QUOTE ]
You'll be waiting a while, unles you can do (to use your words) far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far better than that.

Give or take a far, you know.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to explain this as simply as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to play semantic games go right ahead and play with yourself. You ought to be embarrassed by trying to pretend what your passing off here is an argument. Higher quality and quantity at the same price = cheaper. No one gives a [censored] if you can concoct an [pseudo equation where the denominator is zero, or find an obscure definition of a word or a incorrectly used term where the intent was clear. Its quite pathetic.

[ QUOTE ]

[random thing tolbiny enjoys that isn't part of the entertainment industry] =/= the entertainment industry

[/ QUOTE ]

So the internet doesn't count as entertainment? Yeah, youtube, poker, blogs, uhh huh, people don't turn to those for entertainment.

[ QUOTE ]

No, but you could triple it on a 1907 train though, and for a f*ck of a lot less money than it costs to drive a car today. Transportation isn't cheaper, it's more expensive. Grossly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its really not, and its not even close. Your (again pathetic) attempts to find some way to justify it are hilarious. A $20,000 car is a luxury item. There are a dozen ways I can reduce the cost of traveling, for example i can buy a scooter for 1-2k which will get me 60-80 mpg at a lower insurance rate and get me more than enough miles on it to totally shatter your estimates (and would still be more comfortable than the average transportation of 100 years ago). The fact that people don't regularly choose this option is simply a testament to how much people value comfort over strict $/hr calculations.

[ QUOTE ]

If air travel today is cheaper than ocean travel 100 years ago, you found a total of one example in the transportation industry and none in entertainment. That would mean you're only 94% wrong. Well told!

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair you also gave me the example of the bicycle for free. I was going to use a television as an example, but i'm sure you would counter by saying that buying a 1950s era 12 in B&W TV would cost a pretty penny now, and that somehow buying a 37" lcd for the same dollar amount (much lower actual cost after inflation) doesn't count because your giong to spend more itme watching that TV sine it is far better.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

jogger just give it up. at this point your posts are just silly.

virtually no one would take your side of the argument. i wrote up a long reply, but i just deleted it because it is just common sense and most of it has already been said in this thread.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to explain this as simply as possible

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to play semantic games go right ahead and play with yourself. You ought to be embarrassed by trying to pretend what your passing off here is an argument. Higher quality and quantity at the same price = cheaper.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. Strikingly, you haven't made an argument for this either. 12 is still > 0.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[random thing tolbiny enjoys that isn't part of the entertainment industry] =/= the entertainment industry

[/ QUOTE ]

So the internet doesn't count as entertainment? Yeah, youtube, poker, blogs, uhh huh, people don't turn to those for entertainment.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are things on the internet that you may find entertaining, but of course, that doesn't make the internet a part of the entertainment industry. Moreover, poker isn't cheap for the 90% or so who lose at it, whether they play on the 'net or not. (It's also questionable whether it's more "entertainment" or "job" for most of the 10% or so who win.)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No, but you could triple it on a 1907 train though, and for a f*ck of a lot less money than it costs to drive a car today. Transportation isn't cheaper, it's more expensive. Grossly.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its really not, and its not even close. Your (again pathetic) attempts to find some way to justify it are hilarious. A $20,000 car is a luxury item. There are a dozen ways I can reduce the cost of traveling, for example i can buy a scooter for 1-2k which will get me 60-80 mpg at a lower insurance rate and get me more than enough miles on it to totally shatter your estimates (and would still be more comfortable than the average transportation of 100 years ago). The fact that people don't regularly choose this option is simply a testament to how much people value comfort over strict $/hr calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]
comfort =/= cheap
also, scooters =/= more comfortable than trains, last time I checked. Particularly not during hailstorms.

If you'd like to prove my example wrong, the method is fairly straightforward: figure out the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation in 1907 and compare it to the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation today. As I've already indicated, it's more expensive today, and it isn't close.

Slightly off topic: You mentioned in a previous response that an advantage of cars is that they enable people to live farther away from their workplaces. I can't say "for sure", but I'd speculate that for the average American, traffic jams and hour+ commutes (one way, naturally), suck. Personally I prefer to, and choose to, live close to my work precisely to avoid that mess. I think more people would do the same if they could do it without paying outlandish prices for real estate and/or having to live in bad neighborhoods - IE, if urban sprawl, largely a consequence of "cheap" transportation, was less of an issue.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If air travel today is cheaper than ocean travel 100 years ago, you found a total of one example in the transportation industry and none in entertainment. That would mean you're only 94% wrong. Well told!

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair you also gave me the example of the bicycle for free.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not even that. The actual ("estimated") average cost of transportation is higher today than it was in 1907, when viewed as a percentage of the average worker's salary. The fact that you "can" buy a scooter or I "can" pedal a bike at 16 mph doesn't change the facts. You're simply trying to cover your error by changing the subject to a hypothetical cost that "could" be acheived, but actually hasn't been.

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to use a television as an example, but i'm sure you would counter by saying that buying a 1950s era 12 in B&W TV would cost a pretty penny now, and that somehow buying a 37" lcd for the same dollar amount (much lower actual cost after inflation) doesn't count because your giong to spend more itme watching that TV sine it is far better.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I would point out that the 12" b&w TV might cost something like $10, plus the extremely inexpensive cost of transporting it here from f*cking China, which you will no doubt argue is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far cheaper than the transportation cost in 1957, when it would have been shipped from a factory maybe a few states away.

Of course, you would probably respond by saying "yeah, but, well, my um TV has 9 gazillion channels now, and I can adjust the volume with the clapper, so obviously mine's "really" cheaper!!!11", and then I'd have to point out that being able to use the clapper =/= cheaper, and we'd go right back around again.

So yeah, I agree that it's probably a good idea that you didn't use that example to "prove" your point.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
jogger just give it up. at this point your posts are just silly.

virtually no one would take your side of the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
While I appreciate a good argument "ad populum" as much as the next fellow, hopefully you'll understand when I say you'd have had a better chance convincing me with the long response you said you deleted.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) People live longer

[/ QUOTE ]
This may explain some of the expense, but only for the drugs that are used by the elderly and even then such drugs should get cheaper as time passes.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Very active and expensive R&D

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but why is R&D so expensive?

[ QUOTE ]
3) FDA, and other regulations for our safety

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree the FDA and other regulations have a lot of responsibility for the increased price of medicine, but not that it's done only for our safety or that such functions are the appropriate realm of government.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Very limited number of potential customers for many treatments

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, this may explain why a very narrow segment of medicine is expensive, but it doesn't help us with why prices are higher in general.

[ QUOTE ]
5) For very serious conditions, few returning customers

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you meant terminal conditions, in which case I was under the impression that they try to make you comfortable, not try and cure you. I think that "serious" conditions probably generate a lot of return unless they cure you with the first treatment.

[ QUOTE ]
6) Medicine does not scale well (face-to-face with MD, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand this part.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the comparison with WalMart holds...

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not. Could you explain why you think it doesn't?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

There are things on the internet that you may find entertaining, but of course, that doesn't make the internet a part of the entertainment industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The internet is undoubtably an entertainment medium. Sure it is used for communication, research, and finance as well but it is also host to countless videos, songs, games, porn, articles, stories, and other such things that are part of the entertainment industry. All of these can be had at the low low price of 9.95 a month.

As for internet poker it is a very cheap source of entertainment even for the 90% that lose. They could play on the play money tables or god forbid the .01/.02 tables and easily be entertained for pennies or less. Again poor choices are responsible for people losing hundreds at 100nl instead of losing 6 bucks playing penny games.





[ QUOTE ]

If you'd like to prove my example wrong, the method is fairly straightforward: figure out the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation in 1907 and compare it to the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation today. As I've already indicated, it's more expensive today, and it isn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're a moron if you think this is a fair comparison. In 1907 your entire family would live in the same house or at the very least the same city. Only the wealthy could afford to take vacations. When your entire transportation budget consists of never leaving your neighborhood it's a good bet that you won't be spending much on it.



[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you would probably respond by saying "yeah, but, well, my um TV has 9 gazillion channels now, and I can adjust the volume with the clapper, so obviously mine's "really" cheaper!!!11", and then I'd have to point out that being able to use the clapper =/= cheaper, and we'd go right back around again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: 2cheap
Function: adjective

1 a : purchasable below the going price or the real value b : charging or obtainable at a low price <a good cheap hotel> <cheap tickets>

Note that the definition of cheap has to do with the value of goods/services.

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1940%20QF.htm

In 1940 a 12 inch black and white TV cost $400. A quick look at Amazon shows that a 13 inch color TV can be had for $150. Average salary in 1940 was $1900/yr. In 2005 the average salary according to the census bureau was $25036/yr.

400/1900=21% of annual income to purchase a tv. 150/25036=.5% of annual income to purcahse a tv.

Hmm entertainment prices haven't drastically decreased huh? Now consider the VALUE of a 2005 TV compared to a 1940 TV. Better picture, color, more channels, cable/satellite offerings, programs on all night(broadcasts used to stop in the evening), and conveniences like the remote control and your 2005 TV is much much much much much cheaper than its 1940 equivalent.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are things on the internet that you may find entertaining, but of course, that doesn't make the internet a part of the entertainment industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The internet is undoubtably an entertainment medium. Sure it is used for communication, research, and finance as well but it is also host to countless videos, songs, games, porn, articles, stories, and other such things that are part of the entertainment industry. All of these can be had at the low low price of 9.95 a month.

As for internet poker it is a very cheap source of entertainment even for the 90% that lose. They could play on the play money tables or god forbid the .01/.02 tables and easily be entertained for pennies or less. Again poor choices are responsible for people losing hundreds at 100nl instead of losing 6 bucks playing penny games.





[ QUOTE ]

If you'd like to prove my example wrong, the method is fairly straightforward: figure out the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation in 1907 and compare it to the average American's yearly expenditure on transportation today. As I've already indicated, it's more expensive today, and it isn't close.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're a moron if you think this is a fair comparison. In 1907 your entire family would live in the same house or at the very least the same city. Only the wealthy could afford to take vacations. When your entire transportation budget consists of never leaving your neighborhood it's a good bet that you won't be spending much on it.



[ QUOTE ]
Of course, you would probably respond by saying "yeah, but, well, my um TV has 9 gazillion channels now, and I can adjust the volume with the clapper, so obviously mine's "really" cheaper!!!11", and then I'd have to point out that being able to use the clapper =/= cheaper, and we'd go right back around again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Main Entry: 2cheap
Function: adjective

1 a : purchasable below the going price or the real value b : charging or obtainable at a low price <a good cheap hotel> <cheap tickets>

Note that the definition of cheap has to do with the value of goods/services.

http://www.tvhistory.tv/1940%20QF.htm

In 1940 a 12 inch black and white TV cost $400. A quick look at Amazon shows that a 13 inch color TV can be had for $150. Average salary in 1940 was $1900/yr. In 2005 the average salary according to the census bureau was $25036/yr.

400/1900=21% of annual income to purchase a tv. 150/25036=.5% of annual income to purcahse a tv.

Hmm entertainment prices haven't drastically decreased huh? Now consider the VALUE of a 2005 TV compared to a 1940 TV. Better picture, color, more channels, cable/satellite offerings, programs on all night(broadcasts used to stop in the evening), and conveniences like the remote control and your 2005 TV is much much much much much cheaper than its 1940 equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting.

So five years after the invention of television, it was more expensive to buy top-of-the-line than it is 30 years after color television to buy bottom? Great point! Of course modern TV's don't tend to last as long as their forbears, a fact you (accidentally?) omitted by not ammortizing the cost over the lifetime of the TV but just to come full circle...

...let's compare true "apples to apples", as I did in my original post on this subject. Lest we forget, this is what OP said, and my response:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

entertainment prices have decreased,
-tolbiny

[/ QUOTE ]
Go to movies and/or concerts much?
-jogger

[/ QUOTE ]

For movies, I'll use the same years you did: average salary in 1940 was $1900/yr. In 2005 the average salary according to the census bureau was $25036/yr

Cost of movie tickets in 1940 was $0.24. That was 1/7917 of average annual income.
In 2005, movie tickets were 6.40, which was 1/3912 of average annual income, or about twice as many real dollars in 2005 as in 1940.
Source.

Concerts?
Beatles tickets, Shea Stadium, NY, in 1965 (good seats) were $5.65. Average income (for men, don't know the combined average) was 6479, so tickets were 1/1147 of income.
Ticket price 1965.
Paul McCartney tickets, Madison Square Garden, NY, in 2005 (dunno the seat) was $154.50. Average income for males in 2005 was 39403, so tickets were 1/255 of income or about 4 times more expensive in real dollars as in 1965 Ticket price 2005.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

top of the line vs bottom of the line is irrelevant. the expansion of choices does not negate the fact that this particular product you get today is higher quality at a far cheaper relative price.

As far as movies and concerts go, that is cherry picking two aspects of the industry that have increased, when entertainment as a whole is clearly down. The movie comparison is weak anyway, since there are many more venues to watch movies that are in fact cheaper than they were, and at far greater convenience. Concerts are also not the greatest comparison, first because it is very low supply, second, prices cannot be decreased by technology, and third the disposable income of concert goers has increased far more than average wages have increased. The $300 its costing me to see Roger Waters Friday means a lot less than the scalped $55 it cost to the Wall, and the disposable income of teen concert goers today vs teen concert goers in 1980 has grown even more than my income has.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

So five years after the invention of television, it was more expensive to buy top-of-the-line than it is 30 years after color television to buy bottom? Great point!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're the one who keeps making ridiculous comparisons. Fact remains that televisions have gotten cheaper over the years and that their value has increased with more channels, better features, more convenience, video games, and DVDs.

You talk about movie theaters and concerts as if they are the be all end all of the entertainment industry. Sure they have gotten more expensive, but now they are competing with a vast selection of TV and radio choices, portable radios/CD/MP3 players, internet, and a variety of other new media for entertainment.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Very active and expensive R&D

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but why is R&D so expensive?


[/ QUOTE ]

Because you need hundreds of PhDs using very expensive equipment, and a lot of the research does not not bring one penny. A standard FDA application is dozens of thousands of pages long, and the work behind it is gigantic. It is not like developing a new corn flakes flavor. It is very expensive by definition.


[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
5) For very serious conditions, few returning customers

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you meant terminal conditions, in which case I was under the impression that they try to make you comfortable, not try and cure you. I think that "serious" conditions probably generate a lot of return unless they cure you with the first treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Most serious conditions only become terminal after trying treatments that are very expensive.



[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
6) Medicine does not scale well (face-to-face with MD, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand this part.

[/ QUOTE ]

Treatments are getting better, but the number of MDs and the cost of the equipment is rising, not decreasing. You can use electronic records or whatever, but you still need highly trained and expensive people in the chain. You don't self-diagnose a prostate cancer on a Web site, and you cannot buy a CT-Scan and a "Do-It-Yourself" DVD at WalMart.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that the comparison with WalMart holds...

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, maybe not. Could you explain why you think it doesn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because medicine is a business at the opposite side of the spectrum:

- very high vs. very low wages
- tiny niche markets vs. general retailer
- invididual customer relationship vs. anonymous relationship
- etc.

Does it make sense?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

And those drugs aren't getting cheaper or radically more effective why?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

They're getting better: I'm pretty impressed with the new HPV vaccine that came out a month or two ago. They're not getting cheaper though.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I am starting to think Jogger is just a troll.



Why has the cost of health care been rising?

"Longevity: as lifespans increase, especially when they're prolonged by drugs, people are sick longer and use more drugs."

The cost of drugs is only a small portion of why health care cost has been rising. Longevity has little to do with it. Granted alot of health care expense is from the last years of a persons life, but it doesn't matter if that last year is 31, 49, 65 or 80.

The fee-for-service payment method that the goverment used for the longest time was extremely ineffecient. The markets punished its ineffencies. Fee-for-service rewarded procedural medicine and more work ups. It did not reward doing nothing or giving drugs.

So, if a patient comes to a specialist with a problem that could be cured with a 75 dollar perscription, or a procedure that nets 3000 dollars for the specialist... which one does he do?

The number of specialists coming out of medical school has been rising for a reason, that reason is money, and the goverment provides it (remember when the goverment subsidized people to go to medical school hoping for more primary care docs and instead got a huge outflux of specialists?).

Doctors kind of control demand in their industry. They can decide when these elective procedures get done. Patients are pretty much forced to go on what the doctor says. The doctor is motivated quite often by money. There have been hospitals getting in "trouble" for doing mass numbers of unnecessary heart surgeries. The things that pay the most, get done alot.

Doctors keep getting more and more patients to do procedures on. Raising the amt medicare is paying by ALOT. (it is important to note that this increase in amount of costly care has not translated to healthier/longer living patient populations.)


So, medicare just pays all this from tax money. Insurance companies raise premiums. The employer (which chooses the health care contracts instead of individual consumers due to wage controls during WW2) pays the premiums because all the money he gives the insurance company is tax deductable, so the employeer feels it less. (the tax deductions come out of the consumers pocket ultimately.)

As the goverment runs around spending other peoples money, it doesn't really do much analysis of whats going on.

I loved when Tenent/NME just massively raised a charge by like 1000% one quater to punish how medicare pays out for some complicated end of life patients who suffer from multiple diseases. This resulted in Tenet raising its quarterly earn by like 30% due to medicare charging incorrectly.




Drugs.


"They're getting better: I'm pretty impressed with the new HPV vaccine that came out a month or two ago. They're not getting cheaper though."

The drug companies spend most of their time releasing copy-cat drugs that make no clear progress. They spend more money on advertising than they do on research. Researching drugs that cure diseases isn't profitable. So, they research offshoots of drugs that already work well. Make them a little different, say they are better, and sell them. It takes many years to prove if they are better or not. Look at what went on with Vioxx. If we had electronic medical records, then the drug companies would be in a world of hurt.

The bayh-dole act in the 80s helped to punish the US consumer. Most good drug research is done at universities.

Whomever asked this "And those drugs aren't getting cheaper or radically more effective why?" was dead on.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Very active and expensive R&D

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but why is R&D so expensive?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because you need hundreds of PhDs using very expensive equipment, and a lot of the research does not not bring one penny. A standard FDA application is dozens of thousands of pages long, and the work behind it is gigantic. It is not like developing a new corn flakes flavor. It is very expensive by definition.



[/ QUOTE ]


The major drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

The companies dont share results; so both companies are duplicating research and not sharing results. =higher cost to consumer.

Easiest way for them to make money is to make drugs that get to the market and through FDA quickly. These drugs are not revolutionary drugs. These are modifications of drugs that work.


The VA was able to negiotiate with drug companies to get lower prices. Why aren't other hostpitals doing the same?

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

I hope you all vote. people generally type on these forums and then don't do anything.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Very active and expensive R&D

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but why is R&D so expensive?


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Because you need hundreds of PhDs using very expensive equipment, and a lot of the research does not not bring one penny. A standard FDA application is dozens of thousands of pages long, and the work behind it is gigantic. It is not like developing a new corn flakes flavor. It is very expensive by definition.



[/ QUOTE ]


The major drug companies spend more on advertising than they do on research.

The companies dont share results; so both companies are duplicating research and not sharing results. =higher cost to consumer.

Easiest way for them to make money is to make drugs that get to the market and through FDA quickly. These drugs are not revolutionary drugs. These are modifications of drugs that work.


The VA was able to negiotiate with drug companies to get lower prices. Why aren't other hostpitals doing the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in favor of any policy that slows the rising costs of medicine, as long as they are safe (electronic records, first consult a general practictioner before seeing a specialist, negotiate bulk prices with pharmas, etc).

But modern medicine will remain expensive.

If you want less than 15% of uninsured people, the governement has to inject some money. There are various ways to do so, and it was the topic of my post.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]


first consult a general practictioner before seeing a specialist



[/ QUOTE ]

where have you been the last 20 years? Gatekeepers have proven to be extremely inefficient and have all but been abandoned from insurance models. The sick know when they need a specialist the vast majority of the time, and the visit to the GP is a waste of money.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you all vote. people generally type on these forums and then don't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

If an election I could have voted in ends with a tie, you can reprimand me then.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you want less than 15% of uninsured people, the governement has to inject some money. There are various ways to do so, and it was the topic of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded is completely wrong. Quality healthcare is affordable for nearly all Americans if they want it. Joe Six Pack would rather spend his 200/mo on booze, inflated car payments he doesn't need, and going out to eat.

Re: For-profit universal healthcare: would it work in the US?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you want less than 15% of uninsured people, the governement has to inject some money. There are various ways to do so, and it was the topic of my post.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded is completely wrong. Quality healthcare is affordable for nearly all Americans if they want it. Joe Six Pack would rather spend his 200/mo on booze, inflated car payments he doesn't need, and going out to eat.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why.. because government is already, or is promising to, pick up the tab!