Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Wry Catcher]

"Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving approximately 9.5 million members, with headquarters in Oakland, Calif. It comprises": - See more at: Kaiser Permanente Share Fast Facts Fast Facts about Kaiser Permanente

Do you know the difference between a "for-profit" and a "not for profit", company? Forget the stated, ideologue difference... do you know what the practical functional, difference is?

Trick question. There is no difference. Not in practical functionality. The one structural difference, is that a not-for-profit company, can't have public shareholders. But beyond that, there is no real difference. Both have to have profit. Both have to sell goods, for a price, higher than their cost. Both have highly compensated executive staff.

Bernard J Tyson, CEO of Kaiser Permanente, collected $2.3 Million dollars in salary according to tax filings.

Seems rather familiar.

Econtalk, had an interview with the CEO of a non-profit hospital chain in the mid-west. The first thing the CEO said, was they have to make a 20% profit. It's not different than a for-profit company.

Again, the only structural difference is, non-profit companies can't have public shareholders. Meaning, that if they want to expand, they can't sell stock in the company, to raise capital, to expand. Instead, all the capital to expand, must come from the profits off of premium payers.

Not-for-profit, companies are not the socialist utopia that the left claims. Most are completely ignorant of how little difference there is.

Worse, Kaiser Permanente, is actually made up of dozens of separate 'for-profit' companies.

Gee, so it seems you equate KP with those hospitals who pay shareholders, thus are we to conclude my point was a distinction without a difference? Well, I don't.

KP isn't perfect, but it doesn't have death panels nor, given the post by boss, isn't "Marxist Socialism". Let's be clear, I used KP as an example, one which might work on an individual state level and even a national level - covering every citizen - but for the profit motive which governs health care in America
today.

That so many who post here equate pragmatic problem solving with Marxism is proof of at least two things: 1) the right wing is composed of parrots who have never thought panotically on this issue, and 2) greed and self serving individuals support & post the propaganda which inculcates parrots into voting against their own best interests.

A caveat to these points is a society which values universal (well most of us) voting rights needs to be informed and educated sufficiently to have a handle on issues as important as health care. I wonder how many know of and understand Chargemaster?

 

[Boss]

If I needed a heart or kidney, a liver or any tranplant it would cost me $10 (yes TEN DOLLARS) under the policy** my wife and I have with KP. Tell me oh wise one, what would it cost you with the (I assume) policy you have?

I would highly suspect a kidney transplant procedure would be considerably more expensive. So, who do you believe is actually paying the extra cost over your $10? Do the doctors and nurses contribute their services for free or at cost? How about the hospital? No, the bill is going to be the same regardless of your insurance situation. The insurance carrier is going to pay the extra cost, but where does their money come from? Do the CEOs forfeit their pay? Is the account agent going to sacrifice their salary? And so we get down to the bottom line, the consumer will absorb this cost in the price they have to pay for insurance.

Now here is the deal, as long as you have 9.2 million people all paying for insurance, this model can work because not that many people are going to need a kidney transplant. When you exponentially increase that number to 150 million, and you say that half of them don't have to actually pay for insurance, there's a problem. When you add that none of the 150 million can be denied coverage because they already need a kidney, the problem becomes even bigger.

But KPs problem with their transplant center was simply numbers. There were not enough donors from KP sources to supply needed kidneys. So now, KP still does kidney transplants, they just go outside their group and pay whatever the market rate is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

 

[Boss]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

I always have a problem with situations that boil down to someone "feeling like" another person is making too much. On what basis is this feeling being made? "Too much" is an ambiguous term that simply means, more than I think is reasonably fair. Now, what is reasonably fair? On what basis have you established this? Did you legally sign papers to authorize this? Did anyone make you a promise they would charge only the amount you thought was fair?

What you are highlighting is often a problem in a "single payer" type system. The consumer isn't having to pay, the charges are being passed on down the line, so money becomes irrelevant. Someone will write that big fat check. In a free capitalist system, the consumer would simply refuse to pay for such excesses and we may even pass laws to prevent such things from being consented to.

But I do think you've touched on one of the biggest problems with the health care industry in general, and that is the nature of how the more powerful entities, the hospitals, doctors, and insurance carriers, are able to pawn the consumer around between each other, so that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. Insurance says it's the hospital or doctor's problem, the hospital and doctor say it's the insurance company... you are stuck in between, trying to resolve the problem.

The bottom line is this, everyone can look at our health care system and see that it needs some reforming. There are ways to correct all the problems. But it will take discussing each problem individually, and coming up with a solution that works. What absolutely doesn't work, is turning this all over to beloved government to handle because it's just too hard. That will not only result in failure, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.

 

[Wry Catcher]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

I always have a problem with situations that boil down to someone "feeling like" another person is making too much. On what basis is this feeling being made? "Too much" is an ambiguous term that simply means, more than I think is reasonably fair. Now, what is reasonably fair? On what basis have you established this? Did you legally sign papers to authorize this? Did anyone make you a promise they would charge only the amount you thought was fair?

What you are highlighting is often a problem in a "single payer" type system. The consumer isn't having to pay, the charges are being passed on down the line, so money becomes irrelevant. Someone will write that big fat check. In a free capitalist system, the consumer would simply refuse to pay for such excesses and we may even pass laws to prevent such things from being consented to.

But I do think you've touched on one of the biggest problems with the health care industry in general, and that is the nature of how the more powerful entities, the hospitals, doctors, and insurance carriers, are able to pawn the consumer around between each other, so that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. Insurance says it's the hospital or doctor's problem, the hospital and doctor say it's the insurance company... you are stuck in between, trying to resolve the problem.

The bottom line is this, everyone can look at our health care system and see that it needs some reforming. There are ways to correct all the problems. But it will take discussing each problem individually, and coming up with a solution that works. What absolutely doesn't work, is turning this all over to beloved government to handle because it's just too hard. That will not only result in failure, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Well, your last paragraph needs expansion, at least an example of how one problem in a messed up system of care can be solved. Do you have one? How about this:

Every Congressional District in the US should have a health center, and in large geographical areas satellite centers and/or mobile units providing basic preventative health care and education.

 

[Boss]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

I always have a problem with situations that boil down to someone "feeling like" another person is making too much. On what basis is this feeling being made? "Too much" is an ambiguous term that simply means, more than I think is reasonably fair. Now, what is reasonably fair? On what basis have you established this? Did you legally sign papers to authorize this? Did anyone make you a promise they would charge only the amount you thought was fair?

What you are highlighting is often a problem in a "single payer" type system. The consumer isn't having to pay, the charges are being passed on down the line, so money becomes irrelevant. Someone will write that big fat check. In a free capitalist system, the consumer would simply refuse to pay for such excesses and we may even pass laws to prevent such things from being consented to.

But I do think you've touched on one of the biggest problems with the health care industry in general, and that is the nature of how the more powerful entities, the hospitals, doctors, and insurance carriers, are able to pawn the consumer around between each other, so that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. Insurance says it's the hospital or doctor's problem, the hospital and doctor say it's the insurance company... you are stuck in between, trying to resolve the problem.

The bottom line is this, everyone can look at our health care system and see that it needs some reforming. There are ways to correct all the problems. But it will take discussing each problem individually, and coming up with a solution that works. What absolutely doesn't work, is turning this all over to beloved government to handle because it's just too hard. That will not only result in failure, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Well, your last paragraph needs expansion, at least an example of how one problem in a messed up system of care can be solved. Do you have one? How about this:

Every Congressional District in the US should have a health center, and in large geographical areas satellite centers and/or mobile units providing basic preventative health care and education.

Sure, are we going to defund the states where we're paying them to operate health centers in every congressional district to provide basic preventative care and education, or will the employees just become federal?

I have all kinds of solutions for all kinds of problems with the health care system. None of them will require a massive federal bureaucracy and budget to hand out an entitlement. Government may need to reform some laws, make some regulatory changes, or perhaps even pass some new laws, but we have enough government agencies.

 

[asterism]

"Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving approximately 9.5 million members, with headquarters in Oakland, Calif. It comprises": - See more at: Kaiser Permanente Share Fast Facts Fast Facts about Kaiser Permanente

Do you know the difference between a "for-profit" and a "not for profit", company? Forget the stated, ideologue difference... do you know what the practical functional, difference is?

Trick question. There is no difference. Not in practical functionality. The one structural difference, is that a not-for-profit company, can't have public shareholders. But beyond that, there is no real difference. Both have to have profit. Both have to sell goods, for a price, higher than their cost. Both have highly compensated executive staff.

Bernard J Tyson, CEO of Kaiser Permanente, collected $2.3 Million dollars in salary according to tax filings.

Seems rather familiar.

Econtalk, had an interview with the CEO of a non-profit hospital chain in the mid-west. The first thing the CEO said, was they have to make a 20% profit. It's not different than a for-profit company.

Again, the only structural difference is, non-profit companies can't have public shareholders. Meaning, that if they want to expand, they can't sell stock in the company, to raise capital, to expand. Instead, all the capital to expand, must come from the profits off of premium payers.

Not-for-profit, companies are not the socialist utopia that the left claims. Most are completely ignorant of how little difference there is.

Worse, Kaiser Permanente, is actually made up of dozens of separate 'for-profit' companies.

Yep. Background on the structure using Mozilla as an example:

Social Entrepreneurs 2011 The Hybrid For-Profit Nonprofit Model Inc.com

More info on Kaiser Permanente and its large 2013 profit:

Kaiser’s hospital and health plan operations are nonprofit; its for-profit Permanente Medical Group does not disclose financial results.

Kaiser Permanente posts 2.7 billion in 2013 profits - San Francisco Business Times

 

[Andylusion]

"Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving approximately 9.5 million members, with headquarters in Oakland, Calif. It comprises": - See more at: Kaiser Permanente Share Fast Facts Fast Facts about Kaiser Permanente

Do you know the difference between a "for-profit" and a "not for profit", company? Forget the stated, ideologue difference... do you know what the practical functional, difference is?

Trick question. There is no difference. Not in practical functionality. The one structural difference, is that a not-for-profit company, can't have public shareholders. But beyond that, there is no real difference. Both have to have profit. Both have to sell goods, for a price, higher than their cost. Both have highly compensated executive staff.

Bernard J Tyson, CEO of Kaiser Permanente, collected $2.3 Million dollars in salary according to tax filings.

Seems rather familiar.

Econtalk, had an interview with the CEO of a non-profit hospital chain in the mid-west. The first thing the CEO said, was they have to make a 20% profit. It's not different than a for-profit company.

Again, the only structural difference is, non-profit companies can't have public shareholders. Meaning, that if they want to expand, they can't sell stock in the company, to raise capital, to expand. Instead, all the capital to expand, must come from the profits off of premium payers.

Not-for-profit, companies are not the socialist utopia that the left claims. Most are completely ignorant of how little difference there is.

Worse, Kaiser Permanente, is actually made up of dozens of separate 'for-profit' companies.

Gee, so it seems you equate KP with those hospitals who pay shareholders, thus are we to conclude my point was a distinction without a difference? Well, I don't.

KP isn't perfect, but it doesn't have death panels nor, given the post by boss, isn't "Marxist Socialism". Let's be clear, I used KP as an example, one which might work on an individual state level and even a national level - covering every citizen - but for the profit motive which governs health care in America
today.

That so many who post here equate pragmatic problem solving with Marxism is proof of at least two things: 1) the right wing is composed of parrots who have never thought panotically on this issue, and 2) greed and self serving individuals support & post the propaganda which inculcates parrots into voting against their own best interests.

A caveat to these points is a society which values universal (well most of us) voting rights needs to be informed and educated sufficiently to have a handle on issues as important as health care. I wonder how many know of and understand Chargemaster?

Only a very small mind, would assume that everyone who dares to disagree, must have been influenced by propaganda.

If that's really your view, then why bother posting on here, when automagically everyone who has a different view is brainwashed, thus a waste of your time to talk to?

Doesn't matter what you equate KP to, or not. The fact is, all hospitals have to make a profit, or they cease to exist. That's simply the reality of it, whether you agree with that, or not.

Nor does this have to do with KP being perfect. If there are people involved........... it's not perfect.

Further, your claims about others equating problem solving with Marxism, doesn't prove anything you say. If a system is Marxist in nature, then that's what it is. If I only eat vegetables, I am by definition, a vegetarian. For me to only eat vegetables, and then mindlessly claim that all those who accuse me of being a vegetarian, are really all just self serving, brainwashed, greed Vegan ideologues, is ridiculous.

Again, that's the realm of a very tiny mind.

The reality is, a system is Marxist, if it is based on a system that Marx pushed. The problem there, is that Marxism doesn't work, and never has.

That's why single payer, 'equality' based health care system are terrible. 3 year long waits for basic treatment. People placed on waiting lists, and then deleted. Low survival rates, and so on.

Chargemaster really wouldn't even be relevant, if we actually had a free-market Capitalists based system. Many of the problems in our society, are caused by government intervention, that prevents free-market solutions from happening. This is one of them.

In a pure free-market Capitalist system, where customers paid for services out of their pocket, all of those hidden fees would disappear. You have two hospitals, and both hospitals posts prices, because like anything else people buy, they want to know how much it is going to cost.

Well, if one hospital had a dozens hidden fees, and the other did not, it wouldn't be long before the one with the fees, started having a shortage of customers. The system would self correct.

But of course we have a system, promoted by our government, where the only real customer, is the employer who signs the contract for the business group insurance policy. Thus the patient walks into a hospital not knowing, or caring, what anything costs. Leaving it all to the insurance company.

The only other customer, is government itself through Medicare and Medicaid, which the patients equally don't care, and neither does government, because it's the tax payer that's screwed.

Only the uninsured like me, and those with private plans, actually take the time to consider prices and where they can find quality treatment at a cheaper price.... because we're paying for it.

 

[Andylusion]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

I always have a problem with situations that boil down to someone "feeling like" another person is making too much. On what basis is this feeling being made? "Too much" is an ambiguous term that simply means, more than I think is reasonably fair. Now, what is reasonably fair? On what basis have you established this? Did you legally sign papers to authorize this? Did anyone make you a promise they would charge only the amount you thought was fair?

What you are highlighting is often a problem in a "single payer" type system. The consumer isn't having to pay, the charges are being passed on down the line, so money becomes irrelevant. Someone will write that big fat check. In a free capitalist system, the consumer would simply refuse to pay for such excesses and we may even pass laws to prevent such things from being consented to.

But I do think you've touched on one of the biggest problems with the health care industry in general, and that is the nature of how the more powerful entities, the hospitals, doctors, and insurance carriers, are able to pawn the consumer around between each other, so that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. Insurance says it's the hospital or doctor's problem, the hospital and doctor say it's the insurance company... you are stuck in between, trying to resolve the problem.

The bottom line is this, everyone can look at our health care system and see that it needs some reforming. There are ways to correct all the problems. But it will take discussing each problem individually, and coming up with a solution that works. What absolutely doesn't work, is turning this all over to beloved government to handle because it's just too hard. That will not only result in failure, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Well, your last paragraph needs expansion, at least an example of how one problem in a messed up system of care can be solved. Do you have one? How about this:

Every Congressional District in the US should have a health center, and in large geographical areas satellite centers and/or mobile units providing basic preventative health care and education.

Well of course, the most obvious solution is to have a free-market capitalists system, where people pay for their health care.

Do you see this stuff happening in medical tourism? Answer, of course not. People setup and agreed upon price, and they show up, get the treatment, and pay the price agreed to. If hospitals did that to patients, the word would get out very quickly, most obviously back to the company that setup the medical tourism, and that hospital wouldn't get business anymore.

But of course that depends on the evil profit motive, which some assume can't possibly result in good (even though nearly everything good on the entire planet was built under the evil profit motive).

As far as your claims about needing government paid for preventative care.... if you want to kill off preventative care, just have government pay for it. The US has more preventative care than nearly any other country in the world, and the reason is really simple.

Preventative care is a massive money loser. It would cost multiple billions on billions of dollars to just give every single person in the country a flu shot. Yet the cost of treating people who get the flu, is only in the low hundred million range.... and of course under a free-market capitalist system, that cost would be held against the person getting the treatment, not the tax payers.

So if you want to save money, the solution is to not have any preventative care, which is why in most countries with government paid for health care, preventative care is very rare.

 

[georgephillip]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/us/drive-by-doctoring-surprise-medical-bills.html?src=recg
I'd like your take on this ^^^.

I always have a problem with situations that boil down to someone "feeling like" another person is making too much. On what basis is this feeling being made? "Too much" is an ambiguous term that simply means, more than I think is reasonably fair. Now, what is reasonably fair? On what basis have you established this? Did you legally sign papers to authorize this? Did anyone make you a promise they would charge only the amount you thought was fair?

What you are highlighting is often a problem in a "single payer" type system. The consumer isn't having to pay, the charges are being passed on down the line, so money becomes irrelevant. Someone will write that big fat check. In a free capitalist system, the consumer would simply refuse to pay for such excesses and we may even pass laws to prevent such things from being consented to.

But I do think you've touched on one of the biggest problems with the health care industry in general, and that is the nature of how the more powerful entities, the hospitals, doctors, and insurance carriers, are able to pawn the consumer around between each other, so that the consumer ultimately gets screwed. Insurance says it's the hospital or doctor's problem, the hospital and doctor say it's the insurance company... you are stuck in between, trying to resolve the problem.

The bottom line is this, everyone can look at our health care system and see that it needs some reforming. There are ways to correct all the problems. But it will take discussing each problem individually, and coming up with a solution that works. What absolutely doesn't work, is turning this all over to beloved government to handle because it's just too hard. That will not only result in failure, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Well, your last paragraph needs expansion, at least an example of how one problem in a messed up system of care can be solved. Do you have one? How about this:

Every Congressional District in the US should have a health center, and in large geographical areas satellite centers and/or mobile units providing basic preventative health care and education.

Well of course, the most obvious solution is to have a free-market capitalists system, where people pay for their health care.

Do you see this stuff happening in medical tourism? Answer, of course not. People setup and agreed upon price, and they show up, get the treatment, and pay the price agreed to. If hospitals did that to patients, the word would get out very quickly, most obviously back to the company that setup the medical tourism, and that hospital wouldn't get business anymore.

But of course that depends on the evil profit motive, which some assume can't possibly result in good (even though nearly everything good on the entire planet was built under the evil profit motive).

As far as your claims about needing government paid for preventative care.... if you want to kill off preventative care, just have government pay for it. The US has more preventative care than nearly any other country in the world, and the reason is really simple.

Preventative care is a massive money loser. It would cost multiple billions on billions of dollars to just give every single person in the country a flu shot. Yet the cost of treating people who get the flu, is only in the low hundred million range.... and of course under a free-market capitalist system, that cost would be held against the person getting the treatment, not the tax payers.

So if you want to save money, the solution is to not have any preventative care, which is why in most countries with government paid for health care, preventative care is very rare.

Do you have any links for your claim, "(p)reventative care is a massive money loser"? Perhaps, if true, it is due to the fact that for-profit insurance companies enhance their bottom lines by denying many medical services?
"There is no general consensus as to whether or not preventive healthcare measures are cost-effective and worth long-term investment.

"There are varying views on what constitutes a 'good investment.'

"Some argue that preventive health measures should save more money than they cost, when factoring in treatment costs in the absence of such measures.

"Others argue in favor of 'good value' or conferring significant health benefits even if the measures do not save money[6][34]

"Furthermore, preventive health services are often described as one entity though they comprise a myriad of different services, each of which can individually lead to net costs, savings, or neither.

"Greater differentiation of these services is necessary to fully understand both the financial and health impacts."
Preventive healthcare - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is one of the nation’s largest not-for-profit health plans, serving approximately 9.5 million members, with headquarters in Oakland, Calif. It comprises": - See more at: Kaiser Permanente Share Fast Facts Fast Facts about Kaiser Permanente

Do you know the difference between a "for-profit" and a "not for profit", company? Forget the stated, ideologue difference... do you know what the practical functional, difference is?

Trick question. There is no difference. Not in practical functionality. The one structural difference, is that a not-for-profit company, can't have public shareholders. But beyond that, there is no real difference. Both have to have profit. Both have to sell goods, for a price, higher than their cost. Both have highly compensated executive staff.

Bernard J Tyson, CEO of Kaiser Permanente, collected $2.3 Million dollars in salary according to tax filings.

Seems rather familiar.

Econtalk, had an interview with the CEO of a non-profit hospital chain in the mid-west. The first thing the CEO said, was they have to make a 20% profit. It's not different than a for-profit company.

Again, the only structural difference is, non-profit companies can't have public shareholders. Meaning, that if they want to expand, they can't sell stock in the company, to raise capital, to expand. Instead, all the capital to expand, must come from the profits off of premium payers.

Not-for-profit, companies are not the socialist utopia that the left claims. Most are completely ignorant of how little difference there is.

Worse, Kaiser Permanente, is actually made up of dozens of separate 'for-profit' companies.

Gee, so it seems you equate KP with those hospitals who pay shareholders, thus are we to conclude my point was a distinction without a difference? Well, I don't.

KP isn't perfect, but it doesn't have death panels nor, given the post by boss, isn't "Marxist Socialism". Let's be clear, I used KP as an example, one which might work on an individual state level and even a national level - covering every citizen - but for the profit motive which governs health care in America
today.

That so many who post here equate pragmatic problem solving with Marxism is proof of at least two things: 1) the right wing is composed of parrots who have never thought panotically on this issue, and 2) greed and self serving individuals support & post the propaganda which inculcates parrots into voting against their own best interests.

A caveat to these points is a society which values universal (well most of us) voting rights needs to be informed and educated sufficiently to have a handle on issues as important as health care. I wonder how many know of and understand Chargemaster?

Only a very small mind, would assume that everyone who dares to disagree, must have been influenced by propaganda.

If that's really your view, then why bother posting on here, when automagically everyone who has a different view is brainwashed, thus a waste of your time to talk to?

Doesn't matter what you equate KP to, or not. The fact is, all hospitals have to make a profit, or they cease to exist. That's simply the reality of it, whether you agree with that, or not.

Nor does this have to do with KP being perfect. If there are people involved........... it's not perfect.

Further, your claims about others equating problem solving with Marxism, doesn't prove anything you say. If a system is Marxist in nature, then that's what it is. If I only eat vegetables, I am by definition, a vegetarian. For me to only eat vegetables, and then mindlessly claim that all those who accuse me of being a vegetarian, are really all just self serving, brainwashed, greed Vegan ideologues, is ridiculous.

Again, that's the realm of a very tiny mind.

The reality is, a system is Marxist, if it is based on a system that Marx pushed. The problem there, is that Marxism doesn't work, and never has.

That's why single payer, 'equality' based health care system are terrible. 3 year long waits for basic treatment. People placed on waiting lists, and then deleted. Low survival rates, and so on.

Chargemaster really wouldn't even be relevant, if we actually had a free-market Capitalists based system. Many of the problems in our society, are caused by government intervention, that prevents free-market solutions from happening. This is one of them.

In a pure free-market Capitalist system, where customers paid for services out of their pocket, all of those hidden fees would disappear. You have two hospitals, and both hospitals posts prices, because like anything else people buy, they want to know how much it is going to cost.

Well, if one hospital had a dozens hidden fees, and the other did not, it wouldn't be long before the one with the fees, started having a shortage of customers. The system would self correct.

But of course we have a system, promoted by our government, where the only real customer, is the employer who signs the contract for the business group insurance policy. Thus the patient walks into a hospital not knowing, or caring, what anything costs. Leaving it all to the insurance company.

The only other customer, is government itself through Medicare and Medicaid, which the patients equally don't care, and neither does government, because it's the tax payer that's screwed.

Only the uninsured like me, and those with private plans, actually take the time to consider prices and where they can find quality treatment at a cheaper price.... because we're paying for it.

In all of your words one very important fact is missing - the human element. Consider too, the costs of an epidemic in the US, or worse the pandemic nealy 100 years ago. Is the private sector prepared or even capable of taking on such an event.

No matter how diligent a person maybe, finding he cheapest treatement is not always possible, and in a completely free market doing so may lead one to a charlatan who kills them. A risk I wouldn't take for me or my family.

Preventative care isn't expensive, vaccines made for disease such as polio and other communicalbe diseases have a very high benefit to cost ratio. Catching disease - heart, cancer, diabetes, etc.) early is less expensive to treat and less impactful on the patient.

For profit and not for profit differ, both pay salaries and benefits to employees, both upgrade facilities and equipment, etc. but only one pays stock holders and, one must presume, sees the bottom line equally with services provided and more often frames policies by this metric.

Where I grew up we had a public sector health center a block away - I remember going there with lines of neighbors to get a sugar cube laced with medicine developed by Dr. Salk whose reasearch was founded by the H. of Rep. Committee on Scientific Research.

Today research such as that done by Salk is done with the advice and permission of lawyers to better protect the investment of stock holders and secure massive profits for future discoveries by patents. There is a place for both private sector and public sector participation in the world of health care, but profit can sometimes be evil, if evil is the conscious result when life saving medicine is sold at prices beyond the means of the patient.

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

I post about screenings and you respond with a post about vaccinations and I'm guilty of writing a non sequitur?
Quit tryng to deflect from your obvious stupidity. It's failing and makes you look even dumber. Are you suffering from Alzheimers?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

I post about screenings and you respond with a post about vaccinations and I'm guilty of writing a non sequitur?
Quit tryng to deflect from your obvious stupidity. It's failing and makes you look even dumber. Are you suffering from Alzheimers?

Fuck off Rabbi, some screenings are also very cost effective and can detect disease early, which ignored can be very expensive to treat if treatment is delayed.

My post had nothing to do with the types of screening your limited attention span can comprehend, since many such procedures are even controversial among medical professionals. But some are common and not the least bit controversial and do save lives, money and are less intrusive to the patient. For example, finding diabetes early prevents amputations by educating the patient on proper nutrition and excercise while providing medical tools to aid in the the control of blood sugar.

Is Rabbi really as stupid as he presents, or is he simply willfully ignorant because he is desperate for attention and a parrot of right wing propaganda?

 

[The Rabbi]

As usual a bunch of unsupported (and in some cases) unsupportable assertions. It is actually cheaper to treat those who develop a disease than to screen everyone, depending. This is because the incidence of the disease is low.
You ae a low information scumbucket, CumCatcher. This is why you are not taken seriously.

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

I post about screenings and you respond with a post about vaccinations and I'm guilty of writing a non sequitur?
Quit tryng to deflect from your obvious stupidity. It's failing and makes you look even dumber. Are you suffering from Alzheimers?

Fuck off Rabbi, some screenings are also very cost effective and can detect disease early, which ignored can be very expensive to treat if treatment is delayed.

My post had nothing to do with the types of screening your limited attention span can comprehend, since many such procedures are even controversial among medical professionals. But some are common and not the least bit controversial and do save lives, money and are less intrusive to the patient. For example, finding diabetes early prevents amputations by educating the patient on proper nutrition and excercise while providing medical tools to aid in the the control of blood sugar.

Is Rabbi really as stupid as he presents, or is he simply willfully ignorant because he is desperate for attention and a parrot of right wing propaganda?

Defkecting from your own deflection to cover your stupidity by repeating baseless allegations and unsupported statements.
Just how stupid are you, again?

 

[Wry Catcher]

And you Rabbi are a liar, a fool, a bigot and an asshole. Explain (LOL, as if you could) the benefits of the polio vaccine in terms (not of human care which you eschew) but of costs to prevent vis a vis treatement.

Consider flu shoots, the cost to prevent, and the costs saved from treating the ill and the costs to business and industry. The latter save, as less employees contract the disease, pass the disease on to others at work, and miss days of work.

You really are incapable of panoptic thought, a condition untreatable in the brain of a partisan hack.

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

I post about screenings and you respond with a post about vaccinations and I'm guilty of writing a non sequitur?
Quit tryng to deflect from your obvious stupidity. It's failing and makes you look even dumber. Are you suffering from Alzheimers?

Fuck off Rabbi, some screenings are also very cost effective and can detect disease early, which ignored can be very expensive to treat if treatment is delayed.

My post had nothing to do with the types of screening your limited attention span can comprehend, since many such procedures are even controversial among medical professionals. But some are common and not the least bit controversial and do save lives, money and are less intrusive to the patient. For example, finding diabetes early prevents amputations by educating the patient on proper nutrition and excercise while providing medical tools to aid in the the control of blood sugar.

Is Rabbi really as stupid as he presents, or is he simply willfully ignorant because he is desperate for attention and a parrot of right wing propaganda?

Defkecting from your own deflection to cover your stupidity by repeating baseless allegations and unsupported statements.
Just how stupid are you, again?

My "baseless allegations" are spot on as true, aided by probative evidence provided by you each time you post. Now, fuck off and grow up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hey, cocksucker. Vaccines and flu shots are not screenings.
You can't even read a simple post and respond to it. You are a dumbass.

This post ^^^ explains why you're an asshole and a bigot, not only is it a non sequitur, it is a failed effort to convince anyone but for your echo chamber pals, that you ever post anything honestly or of substance.

I post about screenings and you respond with a post about vaccinations and I'm guilty of writing a non sequitur?
Quit tryng to deflect from your obvious stupidity. It's failing and makes you look even dumber. Are you suffering from Alzheimers?

Fuck off Rabbi, some screenings are also very cost effective and can detect disease early, which ignored can be very expensive to treat if treatment is delayed.

My post had nothing to do with the types of screening your limited attention span can comprehend, since many such procedures are even controversial among medical professionals. But some are common and not the least bit controversial and do save lives, money and are less intrusive to the patient. For example, finding diabetes early prevents amputations by educating the patient on proper nutrition and excercise while providing medical tools to aid in the the control of blood sugar.

Is Rabbi really as stupid as he presents, or is he simply willfully ignorant because he is desperate for attention and a parrot of right wing propaganda?

Defkecting from your own deflection to cover your stupidity by repeating baseless allegations and unsupported statements.
Just how stupid are you, again?

My "baseless allegations" are spot on as true, aided by probative evidence provided by you each time you post. Now, fuck off and grow up.

Yawn. You've got nothing. Absolutely zero. I think maybe your Billy000's sock you're so fucking stupid.