Are liberals really empathetic or do they just want to destroy middle class?

[Gutter Chris]

You get 10/10 with me for your integrity. Why do you imagine a monopoly is the most efficient distributor of scarce resources in this space?

i was born with a disability and know how hard it is to be burdened with something like that through no fault of your own and I know what my experiences in our country have been like and i know what i have read and seen in others and last but not least I know how rich we are as a country compared to those others. I dont believe that profit as a motive works best in all businesses and that it can create a conflict of interest when what you are weighing is money vs homan life and suffering

I think the best way to do it is that everyone pays in a bit and everyone has access to what they need. i think it would also be good for our economy as it would make employers not have to be involved at all


I would like to legalize drugs and end the drug war to pay for it instead of just jacking up taxes on people but if that doesnt work we will start with people making a mil a year or more and go from there if that makes you feel any better about how I am looking at fixing it.

 

[regmma123]

my wife and I earned 300k+ jointly in 2018

nice bro

 

[Rod1]

The fact that it's just different isn't an argument, and you're trying to save face now with your opening comment. Why would any difference with HC (an inelastic demand perhaps?) completely reverse the fundamentals of an efficiency difference between centralized and decentralized markets to the extent that the local knowledge problem also reverses arbitrarily with HC as compared to everything else?

You have a tall order in front of you bub, and its going to be engaging seeing you squirm out of it. Good luck.

I was merely trying to save us time, by asking if you had a veterinary friend, so that you could understand how "healthcare" works when your goal is to make a profit and government isnt distorting the market in the first place.

Just a question before i start, how many fundamental differences are necessary for you to change your mind, ill start with one fundamental difference, but i can bring more if you open your mind.

Fundamental difference number 1

Training a vet is cheaper because of the availability of test subjects, vet schools can purchase live healthy animals and perform surgery and several other invasive medical procedures, or a school can simply accept sick animals whose owners refuse to pay market prices to have complete amateurs do these medical procedures.

If they fuck up and butcher the animal in the process, the animal dies and gets thrown into a garbage bin, there is no malpraxis, no student needing to have a team of doctors or anything beyond what you see at any slaughterhouse.

In the college i went to, the vet wing would made Mengele proud and once they were out there was no need for residency, the vets could simply enter the market with their license and peddle their services like any other private contractor.

I have many more other differences, but i dont want to "wall o' text" just for you to ignore it all.

 

[Greoric]

i was born with a disability and know how hard it is to be burdened with something like that through no fault of your own and I know what my experiences in our country have been like and i know what i have read and seen in others and last but not least I know how rich we are as a country compared to those others. I dont believe that profit as a motive works best in all businesses and that it can create a conflict of interest when what you are weighing is money vs homan life and suffering

Sorry to read that mate.

To your central point about profit, what's a better motive that the gov't has in this space that takes account of efficiency than profit? Remember, as evil of a word as its become, ultimately all we're talking about is a measure of a businesses efficiency... i.e. the difference between its inflows and outflows. If an institution can maximize that, that's certainly a good thing. That means more resources are getting produced and distributed versus otherwise.... That certainly doesn't change with HC.

 

[Greoric]

I was merely trying to save us time, by asking if you had a veterinary friend, so that you could understand how "healthcare" works when your goal is to make a profit and government isnt distorting the market in the first place.

Just a question before i start, how many fundamental differences are necessary for you to change your mind, ill start with one fundamental difference, but i can bring more if you open your mind.

Fundamental difference number 1

Training a vet is cheaper because of the availability of test subjects, vet schools can purchase live healthy animals and perform surgery and several other invasive medical procedures, or a school can simply accept sick animals whose owners refuse to pay market prices to have complete amateurs do these medical procedures.

If they fuck up and butcher the animal in the process, the animal dies and gets thrown into a garbage bin, there is no malpraxis, no student needing to have a team of doctors or anything.

In the college i went to the vet wing would made Mengele proud and once they were out there was no need for residency, the vets could simply enter the market with their license and peddle their services like any other private contractor.

I'm up for correction. Are you? What does the vet school have to do with anything? Right, now getting people through to an MD level of care is inefficient as fuck.... a by product of gov't.

 

[Greoric]

@Rod1

And forget the wall of differences. They don't mean a god damn thing. You need to show why the efficiency is completely reversed for HC as it is for everyother sector.

More specifically, you need to address why a centralized institution is a better arbiter of the market signals for the efficient allocation of the factors of production than a decentralized market would be. If you can address that, you'll be writing some revolutionary shit in the field of economics. Good luck. I'll be back later.

 

[regmma123]

Liberals dont know when to say no to illegals.
They lead solely with compassion rather then logic.

Obama care gave health insurance to thousands who have never and will never contribute 1 penny or give a thought about their health.

Liberals are also an important tool for the enemy.
Liberals do a lot of the yelling and fighting for the enemy that look to weaken the nation with stupid ideas

Liberals will go down as having no foresight for their actions.

And Isn’t is so ironic that liberals are 10x more Christian-like in their thoughts and actions than the Bible thumping toothless rubes on the other side..

 

[Rod1]

I'm up for correction. Are you? What does the vet school have to do with anything? Right, now getting people through to an MD level of care is inefficient as fuck.... a by product of gov't.

I already pointed out a core limitation when it comes to increasing the SUPPLY of medical professionals, i was under the assumption that you knew about economic theory.

 

[Rod1]

@Rod1

And forget the wall of differences. They don't mean a god damn thing. You need to show why the efficiency is completely reversed for HC as it is for every other sector.

I never said it was completely reversed.

 

[Gutter Chris]

To your central point about profit, what's a better motive that the gov't has in this space that takes account of efficiency than profit? Remember, as evil of a word as its become, ultimately all we're talking about is a measure of a businesses efficiency... i.e. the difference between its inflows and outflows. If an institution can maximize that, that's certainly a good thing. That means more resources are getting produced and distributed versus otherwise.... That certainly doesn't change with HC.

a lot of treatments can be very expensive

expenses eat into profits

Leading to unaffordable healthcare for a lot of people


I dont believe in equality of outcome but I do believe in equality of opportunity and i dont think people should face life and death consequences based off whos crotch they were pulled from or before they are established enough to be able to entertain those kinds of costs

Healthcare for everyone is one of those ways we can be a more equal country without having to entertain socialist ideas

 

[Jack V Savage]

I already pointed out a core limitation when it comes to increasing the SUPPLY of medical professionals, i was under the assumption that you knew about economic theory.

A more obvious difference is that healthcare is an emergency purchase. People literally are in positions of buying specific care or dying. You don't say, "wait a minute, wait a minute--let me see if the ER a town over is offering a better deal." And when it comes to preventative care, people tend to make bad choices, as well. The fact that any of this is news to anyone shows that not only do have they read nothing of the issue, they don't live in the real world.

 

[Rod1]

A more obvious difference is that healthcare is an emergency purchase. People literally are in positions of buying specific care or dying. You don't say, "wait a minute, wait a minute--let me see if the ER a town over is offering a better deal." And when it comes to preventative care, people tend to make bad choices, as well. The fact that any of this is news to anyone shows that not only do have they read nothing of the issue, they don't live in the real world.

The biggest factor IMO is the moral implications of cutting losses, if a dog is sick you can either purchase healthcare, euthanize it or letting it die.

I dont know about @Greoric but i certainly dont want to live in a world where someone gets hit by a car and dies in the sidewalk because he cant pay for emergency care.

If you show up with a wounded person at an hospital in most countries in the world, he is being taken care off.

If you show up with a wounded dog, you will instead be met with payment options. At best, most vets will euthanize it for free, thats where "free market healthcare" charity ends.

 

[Greoric]

A more obvious difference is that healthcare is an emergency purchase. People literally are in positions of buying specific care or dying. You don't say, "wait a minute, wait a minute--let me see if the ER a town over is offering a better deal." And when it comes to preventative care, people tend to make bad choices, as well. The fact that any of this is news to anyone shows that not only do have they read nothing of the issue, they don't live in the real world.

You're just regurgitating that it has inelastic demand. It doesn't follow then it's more efficiently supplied and distributed by a monopoly.

 

[Greoric]

The biggest factor IMO is the moral implications of cutting losses, if a dog is sick you can either purchase healthcare, euthanize it or letting it die.

I dont know about @Greoric but i certainly dont want to live in a world where someone gets hit by a car and dies in the sidewalk because he cant pay for emergency care.

If you show up with a wounded person at an hospital in most countries in the world, he is being taken care off.

If you show up with a wounded dog, you will instead be met with payment options. At best, most vets will euthanize it for free, thats where "free market healthcare" charity ends.

Dude, no one wants that. And if you haven't yet realized, HC is still a scarce resource. That is there aren't enough clinicians and equipment to keep everyone alive indefinitely until brain death. What we're after is the most efficient allocation of resources for HC, and that's still a decentralized market place. It doesn't change jack shit that it has a provider-customer knowledge gap or that the demand is inelastic, and you certainly then can't make the claim that a monopoly solves either.

 

[Madmick]

My insight is that as the middle class shrinks, so does the empathy of liberals.

Inequality itself is not a problem while this insistence on the equality of outcomes most certainly is. Parity isn't morally obligatory, but the level of inequality has rampant, destabilizing effects that even rational conservatives can agree requires more socialized measures to address. This does not require a Social Democracy, nor Democratic Socialism.

Just some sensible compromise when we finally remember what that means.

 

[Rod1]

Dude, no one wants that. And if you haven't yet realized, HC is still a scarce resource. That is there aren't enough clinicians and equipment to keep everyone alive indefinitely until brain death. What we're after is the most efficient allocation of resources for HC, and that's still a decentralized market place. It doesn't change jack shit that it has a provider-customer knowledge gap or that the demand is inelastic, and you certainly then can't make the claim that a monopoly solves either.

We cant have "efficient, market-based" allocations with the current moral code.

Some market based solutions are feasible but overall healthcare is always going to run in the red removing the incentives to be efficient.

And when you remove the incentives to be efficient, private based solutions are usually worse, since people run it the most inefficiently as possible in order to maximize the amount of money they are going to squeeze out of government.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

A more obvious difference is that healthcare is an emergency purchase. People literally are in positions of buying specific care or dying. You don't say, "wait a minute, wait a minute--let me see if the ER a town over is offering a better deal." And when it comes to preventative care, people tend to make bad choices, as well. The fact that any of this is news to anyone shows that not only do have they read nothing of the issue, they don't live in the real world.

Well you're talking about a libertarian so nothing they say is "in the real world."

 

[Greoric]

My insight is that as the middle class shrinks, so does the empathy of liberals.

Inequality itself is not a problem while this insistence on the equality of outcomes most certainly is. Parity isn't morally obligatory, but the level of inequality has rampant, destabilizing effects that even rational conservatives can agree requires more socialized measures to address. This does not require a Social Democracy, nor Democratic Socialism.

Just some sensible compromise when we finally remember what that means.

Well since I'm feeling like a contrarian asshole here, inequality can potentially be a problem if its exacerbated, a situation ripe for violent revolutions.

 

[Greoric]

We cant have "efficient, market-based" allocations with the current moral code.

Some market based solutions are feasible but overall healthcare is always going to run in the red removing the incentives to be efficient.

And when you remove the incentives to be efficient, private based solutions are usually worse, since people run it the most inefficiently as possible in order to maximize the amount of money they are going to squeeze out of government.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. We can't have efficiency.... with the "current" moral code? Mate, no one I know as a clinician, the people I worked with, my classmates, would deny people medical aid if they were in need. That's anecdotal, but a widespread refusal to treat people that need it, is not a problem in the medical community.

 

[Greoric]

a lot of treatments can be very expensive
expenses eat into profits

Leading to unaffordable healthcare for a lot of people

I dont believe in equality of outcome but I do believe in equality of opportunity and i dont think people should face life and death consequences based off whos crotch they were pulled from or before they are established enough to be able to entertain those kinds of costs

Healthcare for everyone is one of those ways we can be a more equal country without having to entertain socialist ideas

Look. Yes, lots of treatments are prohibitively expensive. And they're expensive for a good reason. Drugs? Not so much. We can nip that bullshit problem in the bud by getting rid of the patents and FDA. As for the legitimate expensive procedures, their expense and the ability of some people to pay them will allow them to be provided more widely in the future. That's the way tech works. Only the rich SoB's were able to get cell phones in the 70s. The fact that someone... anyone was able to shell for those pieces of shit phones is the reason why they're around today. The same with cars. Hell, name the tech and that's its trajectory.