It can't compete? And why not? It is getting the exact same amount of income AND it doesn't have to do profit sharing.
Because it doesn't have the monetary resources it once had now that it isn't allowed to make a profit. and how do you know what hospitals do or don't use profit sharing? Typically most companies use some percentage of their profits to reinvest in their company in some way. They technological improvements, remodel, give bonuses, increase pay, whatever. How will hospitals do those things, of they aren't allowed to make a profit?
If I understand you correctly under socialized medicine, the goverment would basically cover all of a hospitals expenses. But what system is going to put in place to manage the things usually covered under the profit margin?
Lets see, before you claimed that income was NOT a factor, and now you are saying that it is. Please try and be consistent.
Your falling into a bit of pattern. I honestly can't figure out why you quote some parts of my posts, because you don't even respond to the substance of them.
If i recall the whole point of this was I originally made an argument concerning the expense this would place on the taxpayers. You said there would be no burden to the taxpayers because the government overspends it's tax revenue all ready which was not passed onto taxpayers. All I can read into that is they will do the same for socialized medicine. My response to which was that the left often complains about this huge debt we are passing to our children. I was simply asking if you feel that is okay to add to that debt, given that's what will have to happen for socialized medicine to be properly funded without raising taxes?
But its moral to make the lives of the 15% much worse to make the 85% a little bit better. Incorrect.
I don't undertand this. If we stay the status quo, that is keep the healthcare system as it is now, those numbers should stay the same, right?
I take it you agreed with slavery then? We made a small segment of the population much worse to help out the great majority. In fact, by your asinine argument, to not have slavery is itself immoral. Wonderful set of ethics you have there.
Yes owning a human being and haveing access to health care are exactly the same thing (sarcasm).
Of COURSE the numbers matter. It is extremely difficult IF and ONLY IF you think that socialized healthcare will greatly decrease peoples access to health care.
No, I don't think that. The above seems to be a contradiction which you may have to clear up for me. Under socilaized medicine people will have
less access to health care? If it's a social system everyone has
access to healthcare. Why would anyone thing otherwise?
I think you are confusing what I'm saying. The whole big picture with the math examples I tried to show and all that was that it would be prudent at some point to see if the system you propose would actually yield positive results before we just up and do it.
It is difficult to debate people when they continue to be condescending even when they try to agree with you.
Geh...YES they are assumptions. You just admitted they were made up. If I say "well there are between 10 and 20 million illegal immigrants in this country", you are taking that to mean that you can assume there are 20 million illegal immigrats. Those are the parameters meaning that it is definitely NOT outside of that range. That does NOT mean that any numbers inside that range are correct.
An assumption is a guess based on some evidence, accurate or otherwise, of something that isn't known.
I thought a hypothetical couldn't prove anything?
It's not a hypothetical. It's a framework to test the outcomes of different variable and their reaction to each other.
No, you just don't get it do you. The higher the current difference between the uninsured and the insured, the more room there is for improvement in the insured.
I agree with the first part of that. But part of it I thought we also agreed on was that under socialized medicine the quality of care for the currently insured will not likely improve, did we not agree on that?
If we don't agree on that, could you specifcally explain how your statement would be true?
Congratulations on contradicting your previous point. The health of the uninsured goes up dramatically, which it will, and the health of the uninsured does not go down that much.
I'm not contradicting myself. If your done telling me how stupid I am, allow me to point out something you aren't grasping.
I AM NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT CAN OR CAN'T HAPPEN. I AM MAKING AN ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN FOR YOUR ARGUMENT TO BE CORRECT. WHAT YOU WROTE ABOVE IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITHIN SOME PARAMETERS. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT GIVEN MANY CURRENT FACTORS IT ISN'T
LIKELY TO HAPPEN.
Yes. Again, look at other countries. And spare me the bullshit about how its not relevant, you obviously think it is relevant since you were all about it once you found out that the responsiveness in the US is first. But then when the numbers don't support your views, you are saying well there is no way we can compare them. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I believe I have said on multiple occasions the numbers do support my views. that hasn't changed. My view, which the numbers back up, is that in terms of our facilities, physicians and technology, (what am I calling quality of care) the U.S. is near the top. Which comes at the expense of unequal distribution of healthcare cost as well as coverage, which the numbers also back up. The socialized medicine countries show the opposite; that healthcare burden is more evenly distributed and provides universal coverage at teh expense of phyisicians, facilities and technology (again my defintion of quality of care)
Hi, genius, when you said "no not correct" I would assume you would then go on to say something that disagreed with my quoted point, not something that agreed with it.
Sorry, it was a response to a statement I really didn't understand in the first place. At the very least I think we have determined with both agree with the above?
If so, what I'm really trying to get is that likely given the factors in place?
I am going to quote two things by you right next to each other to show, very clearly, that you don't even agree with yourself. You have no idea what the **** you are talking about.
Then you're gonna have to spell it out for me like I'm a 5 yr old cause I don't see the contradiction. We both agreed with the first statement you quoted there, right?
How is the second one a contradiction? The first statement says this is what needs to be true for you to be correct.
the second statement says it is possible for you to be correct under the parameters I used.
Did your brain somehow stick an 'im' in front of the 'possible'?
In an attempt to steer this back on course I'll ask; am I still right in saying that your claim is that socialized medicine will lead to overall healthier nation?
If so, I was simply trying to show that what needs to be the case for that be correct. I am not making any statement that it can't be done or is completely impossible. What I am saying is there are many factors that are greatly impeding the likely hood that that statement would turn out to be correct.
All I am trying to show is that at some point you have scientifically prove that you accomplished what you said it would. The numbers exercise I did was one possible method of doing that.
You still have yet to explain how the numbers I used are assumptions. They aren't assumption there just number that fall within parameters and is simply meant to show what the numbers need to be in order for the system to work as you say it will.
