Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
Healthcare is one of those things that should NOT be a private sector enterprise.
|
Nice fallacy...
Is-Ought
The is-ought fallacy occurs when a conclusion expressing what ought to be so is inferred from premises expressing only what is so, in which it is supposed that no implicit or explicit ought-premises are needed.
To debunk your argument, government control, or monopoly control exercised by any group causes the wasteful and inefficient use of Capital.
See....
Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.
Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health
The Laws of Economics apply to everything, including healthcare, whether you like or not; whether you have "your Master in Con" or not.
Capital is both fixed and finite.
There is only so much Capital available. Of the available Capital, only a certain amount is available for healthcare....
and there is nothing you can do to alter that fact.
Those Brits who died on waiting lists in the British NHS, died because of a shortage of Capital.
There are only so many doctors in Britain. Of those, only a limited number specialize in oncology. The British government does not have the Capital to obtain additional doctors, and that wouldn't matter anyway, since Britain doesn't have sufficient Capital to train doctors in oncology, and that wouldn't matter, because Britain doesn't have enough doctors to train additional doctors, and that would matter, because Britain doesn't have the facilities or space to train additional doctors, and Britain doesn't have the money to build additional space or facilities to train additional doctors.
And none of that matters, because Britain doesn't have enough money to pay additional doctors.
And still none of that matters because Britain doesn't have enough hospital space, and it wouldn't matter, since Britain doesn't have enough money to build additional hospital space, and that wouldn't matter, because there aren't enough people to hire to maintain and staff the additional new space, and that wouldn't matter, because Britain doesn't have enough money to pay the additional staff.
And none of that matters, because Britain doesn't have the Capital to obtain additional equipment to put in the space, or to maintain it properly, etc etc etc etc.
The fact that Capital is limited is not nearly as bad as the fact that the British government wastefully uses that Capital inefficiently.
Those people died, because the British government wasted Capital on some bloke with a boil on his bum.
Same in the US --- spending health plan money on contraceptives diverts Capital from people with serious illnesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
It isn't like buying a car, where we have choices as to what kind of car we want, and what features we want it to have, etc.
|
Oh, yes, it is.
Free Market health insurance in the US ended in 1954 with the passage of this law...
"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."
Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information on the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.
With Free Market health insurance, a young single person could simply buy $50,000 or $100,000 or $500,000 of annual ER coverage.
Repealing the federal law above, people could tie catastrophic health with their life insurance policy once again.
You can have separate insurance plans for the people who want office visits and prescription drugs covered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
Healthcare, at it's simplest, is the same for everyone. We ALL want access to it, because when we need it, that's it. We need it. It's not an economic "want", it's an economic need.
|
And people exercise Freedom of Choice to make those decisions instead of having people like you ram it to them.
Contrary to your assertion, healthcare is not the same for everyone, and everyone's needs are different and changing.
A post-menopause woman does not need coverage for pre-natal or neo-natal, and yet you would force her against her will to pay for something she neither needs nor wants.
Many people are ready and willing to pay for their own office visits and drugs and don't want a co-pay or even to be covered, but thanks to the American Hospital Association, health insurance companies are forced by State laws to charge those people anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
As such, profit needs to take a backseat to humanity.
|
And you claim to have "your Master in Econ?"
I think you meant "your Master in Con."
Even though in the Cincinnati Market open-heart surgery only costs $13,000 --- with built-in profit -- it's perfectly okay for hospital cartels and monopolies to price-gouge patients and charge them $26,000 to $41,000, right?
I don't know the Market rate for appendectomies out on the West Coast, I only know the approximate cost (with a small profit margin) is $2,800.
And yet the hospital billed the insurance company $55,000.
Where's your outrage?
Give us one reason why an insurance company, or any person on this Earth should pay $55,000 for something that only costs $2,800?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
And just to make one last point... for the love of God, if you're going to make a point, back it up with FACTS from a REPUTABLE source. Not a biased one. Some of the claims in here are utterly ridiculous.
|
Like every single one of yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
Newsflash: the stock market has been on a tear since Obama took office.
|
Newsflash: The Stock Market has no bearing on the economy
#1 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days.
Characterize the state of the economy during that time.
GDP growth was averaging an astounding 12.5% per quarter = economics fail for you.
That actually happened September 1939 to April 1942
#2 The stock market
sets records over a period of 651 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.
That was the recession 1957-1961. The DJIA doubled in value from 250 to 500+.
Another Master in Econ fail for you.
#3 The stock market loses 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days. Characterize the economy.
That was January 1973 to December 1974 US GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters.
Your lack of win is disturbing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MckinneyOwnr
However, I do want to thank you for your post. There was lingering doubt as to why you could possibly have such an abysmal reputation for your posts, but there's none now. Let me know when the New World Order starts.
|
Proof Surrogate
Substituting a distracting comment for a real proof.
You should worry about your own credibility.
Schooling...
Mircea