You Must Be A Liberal If...

[Bern80]

Of course. That's a standard economic fact. But I do not think that argument should be in place for people who want to make healthcare more affordable.

Myabe not, but I don't see any real way to eliminate them. Like I tried to explain to Larkin supply and demand apply to pretty much anything that can be consumed. We have supply and demand curves to show us in a rudimentary way what will happen when various factors change within the market for healthcare. it makes it very simple to see what happens to supply when the price of something goes down. I don't know why Larkin won't acknowledge what is staring him directly in the face. Or perhaps the eary silence is enough, lol.

I don't think so. Government's track record of having lack of foresight is well documented. I don't believe at all that one could say "Well, if government creates a policy which would increase demand for healthcare, they are probably devising a similar plan to increase supply". I guess I just don't have the faith in the bloated government bureaucracy and criminals in Washington currently.

Now, you're not going to find many people on this board who believe that socialized medicine is a mistake more than me. However, I do think there are ways to decrease the costs of healthcare without the government sticking it's hand deeper in my pocket.

1) A change in the current malpractice industry. Doctors pay premiums on malpractice insurance which are through the roof -- I personally know doctors who pay well over 100k a year in malpractice insurance. Lessen that expense, and prices will decrease.

2) Lessen government regulation on healthcare. There are so many local, state and federal regulations on the healthcare industry that the costs of compliance are through the roof. Lessen that expense, and prices will decrease.

3) These decreases in prices have a snowball effect -- once you decrease prices slightly, a few more people will be able to afford health insurance. This will cause non-insured patients to default on healthcare debt less and less, which will in turn cause a further decrease in prices, and so on and so on.

There are many, many more ways to decrease costs. I have barely scratched the surface. But, as one can plainly see, there are solutions outside of socialized medicine.

To be somewhat fair I think the distinciton has to be made between socialized medicine and universal healthcare. I think Larkinn advocates something closer to full blown socialized medicine based on past conversations, but he can correct that if not true. Bascially what that would amount to is full blown, state run healthcare. Which ,as you said, given our governements beraucratic track record, seem like a really bad idea.

Universal healthcare on the other hand I think would simply supply some minimum form of access for all that assures when someone needs to be treated they can afford to be treated. There were still most lkely be a market for private insureance (which as you noted, also costs so much because of governmetn regulation) but that I woudl think would bring us back to teh same debate. Instead of complaining that someone gets healthcare only because they can pay for it and someone else doesn't cause they can't pay for it, now the complaint woudl be that someone is able to get 'better' healthcare because they can pay for it.

again I think at the end of the day the goal is to improve access to the resource, not so much reducing price. What good is a price reduction on something that you still don't have access to? That and access is really supply and as the law of supply demand says 'cet par' (all thing being eqaul) just reducing price doesn't change supply. So what the goall really, really is, is increasing the the supply of available resources.

In that vein maybe we have the best system possible already. I mean we are still able to treat an aweful lot of people and provide them with the best quality of care the world has to offer.

 

[JeffWartman]

Universal healthcare on the other hand I think would simply supply some minimum form of access for all that assures when someone needs to be treated they can afford to be treated. There were still most lkely be a market for private insureance (which as you noted, also costs so much because of governmetn regulation) but that I woudl think would bring us back to teh same debate. Instead of complaining that someone gets healthcare only because they can pay for it and someone else doesn't cause they can't pay for it, now the complaint woudl be that someone is able to get 'better' healthcare because they can pay for it.

again I think at the end of the day the goal is to improve access to the resource, not so much reducing price. What good is a price reduction on something that you still don't have access to? That and access is really supply and as the law of supply demand says 'cet par' (all thing being eqaul) just reducing price doesn't change supply. So what the goall really, really is, is increasing the the supply of available resources.

In that vein maybe we have the best system possible already. I mean we are still able to treat an aweful lot of people and provide them with the best quality of care the world has to offer.

You're not really saying anything new here.

Also, FYI, your posts are nearly impossible to read because of your lack of knowledge concerning the English language and typing skills.

 

[Bern80]

You're not really saying anything new here.

Also, FYI, your posts are nearly impossible to read because of your lack of knowledge concerning the English language and typing skills.

Your response was earth shattering as well. My knowledge of English is just fine. Funny most of my profs don't share your opinion. Perhaps it's your reading comprehension.

Yes I tend to to type a little fast from time to time.

 

[JeffWartman]

Your response was earth shattering as well. My knowledge of English is just fine. Funny most of my profs don't share your opinion. Perhaps it's your reading comprehension.

Yes I tend to to type a little fast from time to time.

Yes of course, I forgot, the man who continuously murders grammar knows everything about the English language. But that's not really important. I know smart people who murder the English language. You need to step back and take a deep breath.

I'm not going to retaliate against your negative rep? You know why? I don't neg rep anymore, ever. You know why? It's childish and stupid, honestly. Caring about such things says a lot about your character.

 

[Bern80]

Yes of course, I forgot, the man who continuously murders grammar knows everything about the English language. But that's not really important. I know smart people who murder the English language. You need to step back and take a deep breath.

I'm not going to retaliate against your negative rep? You know why? I don't neg rep anymore, ever. You know why? It's childish and stupid, honestly. Caring about such things says a lot about your character.

And you posting something that has nothing to do with the actual topic says nothing about your character?

I never received lower than a 'B' on any paper I ever wrote in school, so your English language comment is a little off. I know my problem and that is that I type too fast. I know what I want to say faster than I can type it which is why words sometimes get skipped or letters go missing or are switched around. I know what my problem is, I'm working on it and I don't need to hear it on a public forum from you. That's why I neg repped you.

 

[JeffWartman]

And you posting something that has nothing to do with the actual topic says nothing about your character?

I never received lower than a 'B' on any paper I ever wrote in school, so your English language comment is a little off. I know my problem and that is that I type too fast. I know what I want to say faster than I can type it which is why words sometimes get skipped or letters go missing or are switched around. I know what my problem is, I'm working on it and I don't need to hear it on a public forum from you. That's why I neg repped you.

That's right, of course you're an absolute genius.

And for the record, the neg repping is done by people who are petty and childish. I do not bother because I do not care.

 

[Bern80]

That's right, of course you're an absolute genius.

And for the record, the neg repping is done by people who are petty and childish. I do not bother because I do not care.

I never claimed to be a genius. I claimed history has shown, despite your opinion, that my comprehension of the English language is just fine.

What is childish is attempting to point out one's personal flaws in a public forum, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic. A simple, constructive private message would have sufficed. That you chose the method you did, I believe reveals a lot about your character.

 

[JeffWartman]

I never claimed to be a genius. I claimed history has shown, despite your opinion, that my comprehension of the English language is just fine.

What is childish is attempting to point out one's personal flaws in a public forum, especially when it has nothing to do with the topic. A simple, constructive private message would have sufficed. That you chose the method you did, I believe reveals a lot about your character.

 

[Larkinn]

If someone were betting me $200 that I didn't have to pay if i lost I think I'd make the effort to find one.

The effort combined with the fact that I doubt you would pay, nor would I really expect you to pay, says otherwise.

The doctor isn't no, but the time he had is. Which could be make a big difference to someone that needs to see a doctor.

Yes...but a doctors supply of time is refreshed and used at a continual rate. The supply will not go up nor down depending on consumption.

It is at it's maximum for that point in time. Use whatever span of time you want. It doesn't matter if the doctor is there forever. He can only treat so many people within a given period of time. My assertion is that if price goes down, more people per day or going to want the doctors time.

Yes, I agree. This does NOT decrease overall access.

Read the paragrpah again. How can the supply of anything "cet par" not decrease when it is consumed let alone if consumption increases? If you reply to nothing else please answer this.

It depends on what you mean by supply. Since we are talking about time, which is a strange sort of commodity, I was assuming you did not mean how much actually exists at the moment (the type of supply you are referring to in your hamburger example). Rather, I was assuming you meant supply as in how much is produced over a given time period. This will not change with increased consumption.

How else would there be to define it? if someone doesn't have access they aren't being treated. More people under free health care will be vieing for the same amount of time that was available when they had to pay for it. And you and I from our personal experiences are keenly aware that in the healthcare industry time can be a very critical factor. It can mean the difference in getting better sooner or later. In getting and infection or not and in life or death.

Yes...more people will be vying for the same amount of free time. However, unless you believe that currently doctors times are completely maxed out, access overall WILL increase. This view, however, requires you to hold the oh so difficult view to actually care about those people who have no access at all currently.

I wouldn't mind any of those ideas I guess. I don't know how effective they would be in raising supply of doctors. The first thing that popped into my head about forgiving student loans is that most people, I don't think, factor very heavily the loans they will need to pay when deciding the career they want to pursue. The candidates in the dem party all of some type of 'plan' for universal healthcare, which again woudl be fine if the quality and access we have now could be maintained. But in not one of those plans have I heard what the dems plan is for increasing the supply to meet the new demand. It woudl seem to me you would want the supply in place first (especially for medicine) before you take the step that increases demand.

Regardless, overall access will go up. Access for the middle/upper class such as yourself and myself will go down. But I don't believe that wealth should determine access to healthcare.

To be somewhat fair I think the distinciton has to be made between socialized medicine and universal healthcare. I think Larkinn advocates something closer to full blown socialized medicine based on past conversations, but he can correct that if not true. Bascially what that would amount to is full blown, state run healthcare. Which ,as you said, given our governements beraucratic track record, seem like a really bad idea.

I advocate anything that will insure everyone in America. Be it socialized medicine, universal healthcare, whatever.

 

[Bern80]

Yes...but a doctors supply of time is refreshed and used at a continual rate. The supply will not go up nor down depending on consumption.

How is the doctor's time 'refreshed'? The only thing i can think is that you mean each day he/she get's to start with a fresh 8 hours in which to see patients. Now that I look at that way I am willing to concede a point. I guess I can see that access has not decreased so much as demand has increased. It doesn't matter whether the doctor has 10 people who want his time or 100. He still is going to see an avg of the same number of people each day. I think from a patient perspective access will have decreased in that maybe instead of a couple days to get in to see a doctor, they will have to wait a week or two.

But again looking at MMs post you still have the same problem. No supply has not necessary decreased in terms of the resources available, but with affordability increaseing the demand has. So I think you will have more people vieing for the same amount of time. So, wouldn't that even more people than under the current system are essentially waiting for care?

Yes...more people will be vying for the same amount of free time. However, unless you believe that currently doctors times are completely maxed out, access overall WILL increase. This view, however, requires you to hold the oh so difficult view to actually care about those people who have no access at all currently.

I think it's very close to maxed out. Life long experiences in doctor's waiting rooms tell me that. Heck two weekends ago I was in the ER for 4 hours with heat exhaustion. Most of the time was spent simply waiting to see the doctor.

Regardless, overall access will go up. Access for the middle/upper class such as yourself and myself will go down. But I don't believe that wealth should determine access to healthcare.

This I still disagree on. How exacltey can access increase. I agree supply won't decrease, but I don't see how it can increase either. We agreed more people will be vieing for the doctors time, but how is the doctor going to meet that increased demand. My experiences have shown me (and it think 22 yrs of it counts for something) has shown me that despite our pay for care system doctors are kept busy with patients from the time the get in to the time they leave with few breaks in between. I don't, for example, see how a doctor that would see maybe 20 people a day is now going to be able to see 50, do you?

Affordability will go up, I don't think it's quite accurate to say access will go up. What good is affordability if the increased demand still prevents you from seeing a doctor?

I advocate anything that will insure everyone in America. Be it socialized medicine, universal healthcare, whatever.

Okay, but could we maybe come up with something slightly less drastic that doesn't involve the red tape and beauracracy that our government is known for? Jeff had some good ideas I thought.

 

[Larkinn]

How is the doctor's time 'refreshed'? The only thing i can think is that you mean each day he/she get's to start with a fresh 8 hours in which to see patients. Now that I look at that way I am willing to concede a point. I guess I can see that access has not decreased so much as demand has increased.

Yes...that is the way in that it is refreshed.

It doesn't matter whether the doctor has 10 people who want his time or 100. He still is going to see an avg of the same number of people each day. I think from a patient perspective access will have decreased in that maybe instead of a couple days to get in to see a doctor, they will have to wait a week or two.

No...this is true ONLY if doctors currently are maxed out with regards to their time. If a doctor has 1 person vs 100 who want to see them a week, unless it takes them a week per patient, obviously they will treat more when 100 want to see them.

But again looking at MMs post you still have the same problem. No supply has not necessary decreased in terms of the resources available, but with affordability increaseing the demand has. So I think you will have more people vieing for the same amount of time. So, wouldn't that even more people than under the current system are essentially waiting for care?

Yes, it means more people waiting.

I think it's very close to maxed out. Life long experiences in doctor's waiting rooms tell me that. Heck two weekends ago I was in the ER for 4 hours with heat exhaustion. Most of the time was spent simply waiting to see the doctor.

I would argue that allowing everyone to have access would decrease the strain on doctors elsewhere...i.e. on emergency surgery, by allowing people to get some of their diseases cured in the earlier stages.

This I still disagree on. How exacltey can access increase. I agree supply won't decrease, but I don't see how it can increase either. We agreed more people will be vieing for the doctors time, but how is the doctor going to meet that increased demand. My experiences have shown me (and it think 22 yrs of it counts for something) has shown me that despite our pay for care system doctors are kept busy with patients from the time the get in to the time they leave with few breaks in between. I don't, for example, see how a doctor that would see maybe 20 people a day is now going to be able to see 50, do you?

Again, its whether you think doctors time is currently maxed out or not. I really don't know whether it is or not.

Affordability will go up, I don't think it's quite accurate to say access will go up. What good is affordability if the increased demand still prevents you from seeing a doctor?

Access will overall go up. It will not go up for those who can afford to see a doctor now. Again, you fail to take into account the many millions of Americans who don't see a doctor at all and thus have ZERO access to that type of care.

Okay, but could we maybe come up with something slightly less drastic that doesn't involve the red tape and beauracracy that our government is known for? Jeff had some good ideas I thought.

Sure if you can. Jeffs ideas, however, seem like they would decrease the standard of care that we have in this country now. Any ideas that won't negatively effect that?

 

[Bern80]

No...this is true ONLY if doctors currently are maxed out with regards to their time. If a doctor has 1 person vs 100 who want to see them a week, unless it takes them a week per patient, obviously they will treat more when 100 want to see them.

And I think it is maxed out. No it isn't goint to take a doctor a week to see one patient. But there is a maximum amount of people he/she can see in a day. If the most amount of people a doctor can see in a day is say 30, well then he can only see 150 people per week and he can only see 600 people per month and so on. Anybody who has spent any amount of time in doctors waiting room should intuitively be able to see doctors don't spend time waiting to see patients. Patients spend time waiting to see doctors.

Yes, it means more people waiting.

So, if more peole are waiting how has access improved?

Again, its whether you think doctors time is currently maxed out or not. I really don't know whether it is or not.

My experience has shown me it is. I still have about 3-4 specialists I need to see about once a year. I generally have to call a month in advance to get an appointment for when I want it.

Access will overall go up. It will not go up for those who can afford to see a doctor now. Again, you fail to take into account the many millions of Americans who don't see a doctor at all and thus have ZERO access to that type of care.

I don't know that it can necessarily be assumed that access will improve for teh perviously uninsured. Presumabley if everyone is on an equal field payment wise we are now priortizing who see doctors by need. Being middle to upper class doesn't change the fact that you may still need healthcare. So why do they deserve healthcare they need any less than someone who can't afford it?

Sure if you can. Jeffs ideas, however, seem like they would decrease the standard of care that we have in this country now. Any ideas that won't negatively effect that?

Well many of Jeff's ideas were about taking government out of the industry. Now you can think that taking government out will decrease standard of care if all of sudden with government absence malpractice will go through the roof or insureance comapnies are gonna start swindling people. I guess I just don't beleive that. Doctors were self regulateing in terms of codes of ethics before government got involved. And insureance premiums will go down because consumers are always looking for the best rates.

 

[Larkinn]

And I think it is maxed out. No it isn't goint to take a doctor a week to see one patient. But there is a maximum amount of people he/she can see in a day. If the most amount of people a doctor can see in a day is say 30, well then he can only see 150 people per week and he can only see 600 people per month and so on. Anybody who has spent any amount of time in doctors waiting room should intuitively be able to see doctors don't spend time waiting to see patients. Patients spend time waiting to see doctors.

I don't know whether its maxed out or not. I suspect its not, in part due to the laws of supply and demand, but I don't really know.

So, if more peole are waiting how has access improved?

Average access has improved. People weren't waiting before because they weren't going, and hence had NO access as opposed to limited access. Some access is better than no access.

My experience has shown me it is. I still have about 3-4 specialists I need to see about once a year. I generally have to call a month in advance to get an appointment for when I want it.

For when you want it?...I don't know how specific that is, but in my own pseudo-business, in which I teach approximately 20 hours a week, much less than full time, I often have to tell students no I am not free on x day...to get a time "whenever they want it", they would need to tell me about 2 weeks in advance...and I am nowhere near full capacity, nor am I that much in demand.

I don't know that it can necessarily be assumed that access will improve for teh perviously uninsured. Presumabley if everyone is on an equal field payment wise we are now priortizing who see doctors by need. Being middle to upper class doesn't change the fact that you may still need healthcare. So why do they deserve healthcare they need any less than someone who can't afford it?

It can be assumed that access will improve for the previously uninsured. No access < Some access. Quite simple really. As to the question of deserving healthcare, its ridiculous. Now they will have equal access and money won't play a role. I know you can't stand that, because you will suffer, but equality has a price.

Well many of Jeff's ideas were about taking government out of the industry. Now you can think that taking government out will decrease standard of care if all of sudden with government absence malpractice will go through the roof or insureance comapnies are gonna start swindling people.

Insurance companies swindle people right now. And yes malpractice will increase if standards are lower.

I guess I just don't beleive that. Doctors were self regulateing in terms of codes of ethics before government got involved. And insureance premiums will go down because consumers are always looking for the best rates.

Yes, we always see how well self regulation works in business. See Enron for a wonderful example.

 

[Bern80]

I don't know whether its maxed out or not. I suspect its not, in part due to the laws of supply and demand, but I don't really know.

What about those laws tell you taht it isn't maxed out?

Average access has improved. People weren't waiting before because they weren't going, and hence had NO access as opposed to limited access. Some access is better than no access.

Could you clarify what you mean by average access and why it has improved?

For when you want it?...I don't know how specific that is, but in my own pseudo-business, in which I teach approximately 20 hours a week, much less than full time, I often have to tell students no I am not free on x day...to get a time "whenever they want it", they would need to tell me about 2 weeks in advance...and I am nowhere near full capacity, nor am I that much in demand.

When I want it isn't entirely accurate I suppose. Afterall it's them that want to see me once a year, certainly not me that wants to be seen by them. I have been going roughly the same time of year for maybe 15 years now and to meet their request I have to schedule a month ahead of time. To me that tells their time is booked pretty solid.

It can be assumed that access will improve for the previously uninsured. No access < Some access. Quite simple really. As to the question of deserving healthcare, its ridiculous. Now they will have equal access and money won't play a role. I know you can't stand that, because you will suffer, but equality has a price.

Again why do I deserve to suffer and they don't? I believe the situation you will see is more people truly needing healthcare than can be seen. Now your essentially priortizing people's misery. A while back I gave the example of the my friend from Canada who had to wait for a year for a knee replacement. Someone deemed that his pain, even though awful, was not substantial enough so he has to wait. Is that fair?

Insurance companies swindle people right now. And yes malpractice will increse if standards are lower.

How so? They still have to compete. If the government is the sole provider of insureance they don't have to compete with anyone and can use whatever excuse they like to set whatever rate they want.

Yes, we always see how well self regulation works in business. See Enron for a wonderful example.

Enron is not every business. That's a pretty gross generalization. Why is it you believe all businesses are crooked?

 

[Larkinn]

What about those laws tell you taht it isn't maxed out?

Well although time is a strange resource, doctors themselves are not...one would think that if the demand was so high, their pay would be really high, which would cause more people to be doctors...thus never completely maxing it out.

Could you clarify what you mean by average access and why it has improved?

The access that the entire population has divided by the population. And it will definitely improve unless it is maxed out...because the more something is consumed, then it must be the case that it is being used more, and hence more people are getting the resource.

Again why do I deserve to suffer and they don't? I believe the situation you will see is more people truly needing healthcare than can be seen.

Thats the situation now.

Now your essentially priortizing people's misery. A while back I gave the example of the my friend from Canada who had to wait for a year for a knee replacement. Someone deemed that his pain, even though awful, was not substantial enough so he has to wait. Is that fair?

It is more fair for it to be done regarding how healthy/unhealthy someone is, than on income alone.

How so? They still have to compete. If the government is the sole provider of insureance they don't have to compete with anyone and can use whatever excuse they like to set whatever rate they want.

They have to compete as to their rates...not how much they pay out when people make claims. Oftentimes people don't realize how shoddy something is until it effects them personally...and with medical insurance it would then be too late.

Enron is not every business. That's a pretty gross generalization. Why is it you believe all businesses are crooked?

Crooked? No. I believe every business is out to maximise profit. That is, after all, what capitalism and competition encourages of people. If they can maximise profit by fucking over the general populace I see little reason to think that they will refrain from doing so out of moral reasons.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

General purpose Doctors are not in any infinate capacity. The real money is in specialists, and they too are not in huge numbers.

Part of the draw to be a doctor has to do with potential to make money. Remove that potential and you will cut a portion of the available people able to become doctors from going that route. Care WILL go down as the need for more Doctors increases. And more doctors will be needed there are not enough now. Some specialists are unavailable in numerous locations around the country.

Who is going to pay to send the patient to the specialist when none are near by? Government? What incentive will there be to draw the people able to be doctors into the field when the Government takes over and everyone gets paid the same?

Right now there are LOTS of doctors and private hospitals that DO NOT participate in Medicaid and Medicare. They do not participate for several reasons, one glaring reason is they do not want to have to accept the price the Government requires them to accept. Another is paper work.

If the Government takes over several things will HAPPEN. Less people will follow the doctor route, more mediocre and bad doctors will slip through the cracks, waiting lists will occur, procedures will be rationed and in some cases denied based on " cost" ( Just check out Britain, we had a thread about their cutting services and denying others) Standard of care will DECREASE for all those that could afford insurance or outright pay the bills. Which means a decrease across the board, we have 300 million citizens ( plus some) and what is it, 40 million are uninsured? That means 260 million will see a decrease in service and medical care.

 

[Bern80]

Well although time is a strange resource, doctors themselves are not...one would think that if the demand was so high, their pay would be really high, which would cause more people to be doctors...thus never completely maxing it out.

There's no reason to think that. Doctors aren't paid by the hour. Their paid for their expertise. the markets across the country determine what that expertise is worth in various places.

The access that the entire population has divided by the population. And it will definitely improve unless it is maxed out...because the more something is consumed, then it must be the case that it is being used more, and hence more people are getting the resource.

that is a really big if. Neither of us know how close to the maximum a doctor's time is used under teh current system. Again all I have is my experience to go on. And it tells me that right now, they're pretty damn busy. And if it is maxed out or close to it, it won't be consumed more because it can't be consumed more. You'll just have increased demand that can't be meat.

Thats the situation now.

I just don't see any reason to think it will change under socialized medicine. All I think you'll see is greater number of people suffering. A need based system is only going to ensure that a fraction of the previously uninsured have access to the system when they need it.

It is more fair for it to be done regarding how healthy/unhealthy someone is, than on income alone.

But don't you see what that boils down to? Basically it creates a system where more people are in pain then were previously. If more people are waiting then while they wait their symptoms are progressively getting worse. Which defeats the purpose of the system in the first place which was to prevent people from haveing to wait till the last minute.

Crooked? No. I believe every business is out to maximise profit. That is, after all, what capitalism and competition encourages of people. If they can maximise profit by fucking over the general populace I see little reason to think that they will refrain from doing so out of moral reasons.

It won't because capitlism says they won't The capitlistic counterbalance to maximizing to the extent that people get 'fucked over' is competition. Competetion requires that the companies with in a like market basically compete as to who can provide the lowest rates. That's what almost every type of business is about. Construction is done by the lowest bidder. Customer service now is being contracted out to who can do it for the least amount of money. Who can provide the best quality good or service for the least amount of money. I guess I have faith that a captilistic market will provide for health insurance as well. And that it can do it a hell of a lot better if government would get the hell out of the way.

 

[Larkinn]

There's no reason to think that. Doctors aren't paid by the hour. Their paid for their expertise. the markets across the country determine what that expertise is worth in various places.

They are paid both for their expertise and by the hour, in a sense.

that is a really big if. Neither of us know how close to the maximum a doctor's time is used under teh current system. Again all I have is my experience to go on. And it tells me that right now, they're pretty damn busy. And if it is maxed out or close to it, it won't be consumed more because it can't be consumed more. You'll just have increased demand that can't be meat.

I disagree...if its close to maxed out, than it can be maxed out. And your right, neither of us know how close to the max a doctor's time is used under the current system. But at best access improves, and at worst the poor now have equal access as the rich and its based on who has the worst problems, not who has the most money.

I just don't see any reason to think it will change under socialized medicine. All I think you'll see is greater number of people suffering. A need based system is only going to ensure that a fraction of the previously uninsured have access to the system when they need it.

As opposed to now when 0% of the previously uninsured have access when they need it...except for last minute care which is expensive and inefficient.

But don't you see what that boils down to? Basically it creates a system where more people are in pain then were previously.

No...sorry but you are just wrong. Poor people count as people as well.

If more people are waiting then while they wait their symptoms are progressively getting worse. Which defeats the purpose of the system in the first place which was to prevent people from haveing to wait till the last minute.

More people are waiting because more people are going. Its much better to wait than to never go at all.

It won't because capitlism says they won't The capitlistic counterbalance to maximizing to the extent that people get 'fucked over' is competition. Competetion requires that the companies with in a like market basically compete as to who can provide the lowest rates.

Yes...the lowest rate...that does NOT correspond to the best service. And in fact I've seen from my own experience that generally what happens is those with "good" service don't have good service, rather they just spend shitloads on advertising.

That's what almost every type of business is about. Construction is done by the lowest bidder. Customer service now is being contracted out to who can do it for the least amount of money. Who can provide the best quality good or service for the least amount of money.

I don't think best quality has anything to do with it when it is a good that is not used over and over again. When it comes to food, or books, or something that reputation matters because individuals buy it over and over again it matters (sometimes...not always, there are still those who only care about price)...but when it comes to things that are one or two time uses like healthcare, I think that quality matters much less...because you don't know the quality until you actually have to use it.

I guess I have faith that a captilistic market will provide for health insurance as well. And that it can do it a hell of a lot better if government would get the hell out of the way.

Sure it will provide health insurance. Cheap and extremely shitty health insurance that will rarely, if ever, pay up.

 

[Bern80]

I disagree...if its close to maxed out, than it can be maxed out. And your right, neither of us know how close to the max a doctor's time is used under the current system. But at best access improves, and at worst the poor now have equal access as the rich and its based on who has the worst problems, not who has the most money.

No, at worst even more people are waiting than is the case under the current system.

As opposed to now when 0&#37; of the previously uninsured have access when they need it...except for last minute care which is expensive and inefficient.

the same will happen under socialized medicine. As RGS pointed out, this country already has a shortage of doctors in many places. You want to know if doctors are maxed out? I would say that anything short of makeing an appointment and being seen the next day means their time is pretty full. This is really really simple. The ineffeciency you speak of will likely increase. If you think about it a need based system accomplishes exactley the opposite of your goal of prevention because the people who need to be treated get treated first. Which means the people that are in the worst condition get treated first. In the meantime those whose condition isn't quite as bad wait while their symptoms get worse.

No...sorry but you are just wrong. Poor people count as people as well.

I am well aware. What maybe you're forgetting is exactley that. They are now just like everybody else. Which means like everybody else they will be waiting too. Which means they won't be going to the front of the line just because they're poor. Their priority is based on need just like everybody else. They will go to the front of the line if their condition warrents it. Are you assuming that somehow just because they're poor they're gonna get to the front of the line? There is no reason to believe that the majority of people that need healthcare is somehow going to skew to the previously uninsured. Just because they couldn't afford health insurance doesn't mean they needed health care.

More people are waiting because more people are going. Its much better to wait than to never go at all.

Not really. Whether your waiting or not going, you're still not being treated.

Yes...the lowest rate...that does NOT correspond to the best service. And in fact I've seen from my own experience that generally what happens is those with "good" service don't have good service, rather they just spend shitloads on advertising.

Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Businesses have to achieve a competitive balance of both.

Sure it will provide health insurance. Cheap and extremely shitty health insurance that will rarely, if ever, pay up.

Actually that's what I think will happen with our government providing it. What reason is their to think that what is happening in Britain won't happen here?

 

[Larkinn]

No, at worst even more people are waiting than is the case under the current system.

Won't happen...unless you are not including those who just aren't going.

the same will happen under socialized medicine. As RGS pointed out, this country already has a shortage of doctors in many places. You want to know if doctors are maxed out? I would say that anything short of makeing an appointment and being seen the next day means their time is pretty full.

Incorrect. As I pointed out before, anyone who is decently busy won't always have time the next day.

This is really really simple. The ineffeciency you speak of will likely increase. If you think about it a need based system accomplishes exactley the opposite of your goal of prevention because the people who need to be treated get treated first.

This does not mean those who do not "need" to be treated immediatelly wait until their diseases are life threatening...rather just that they may not get treatment tomorrow.

Which means the people that are in the worst condition get treated first. In the meantime those whose condition isn't quite as bad wait while their symptoms get worse.

Not always. There are different types of doctors, its not as if suddenly we can do surgery on the thousands of people who will die this month with out it.

I am well aware. What maybe you're forgetting is exactley that. They are now just like everybody else. Which means like everybody else they will be waiting too. Which means they won't be going to the front of the line just because they're poor. Their priority is based on need just like everybody else. They will go to the front of the line if their condition warrents it. Are you assuming that somehow just because they're poor they're gonna get to the front of the line?

No, they won't go to the front of the line because they are poor. That was your assumption, not mine. That came from you asking how they were more deserving than the middle class.

There is no reason to believe that the majority of people that need healthcare is somehow going to skew to the previously uninsured. Just because they couldn't afford health insurance doesn't mean they needed health care.

Umm sure it does. They will need healthcare at the same, if not a higher rate than the rest of society...and when they don't get it they will continue to need it, while the rest of society gets treated.

Not really. Whether your waiting or not going, you're still not being treated.

Except that not going will never get treatd, while waiting does.

Sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Businesses have to achieve a competitive balance of both.

I have never found that it does. I've also found that the most popular of any service, especially a one time service, is generally the shittiest. The "best" major test prep companies are Kaplan and Princeton Review. Kaplan is the most well known and tons of people take them. They are incredibly shitty, and their methods are just fucking terrible. Their teachers are incompetent as well...its really quite sad.

Actually that's what I think will happen with our government providing it. What reason is their to think that what is happening in Britain won't happen here?

Exactly what do you think is happening in Britain? And no, if our government provides health insurance they might be inefficient, but they probably won't be refusing all sorts of claims for profit.