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

[MayhemMonkey]

Oh... So then its not free.

its free at the point of delivery.... ie no money is exchanged at the time

 

[Greoric]

its free at the point of delivery.... ie no money is exchanged at the time

That doesn't mean its free. Don't be an idiot.

 

[Rod1]

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.

Its not a problem because they recoup the costs somewhere. Without a way to recoup the costs, they would go under and be unable to service said sector of society.

 

[Greoric]

Its not a problem because they recoup the costs somewhere. Without a way to recoup the costs, they would go under and be unable to service said sector of society.

Just so I'm understanding your position correctly, you're concluding that a business model in a non-government regulated market to provide HC is impossible... because you can't imagine how it would be profitable?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

That doesn't mean its free. Don't be an idiot.

if no money is exchanged what else would you call it? everything gets paid for, but the patient doesnt hand over any cash in any way.

free at the point of delivery

 

[Greoric]

if no money is exchanged what else would you call it? everything gets paid for, but the patient doesnt hand over any cash in anyway.

free at the point of delivery

If no money is exchanged at the precise time when a service is provided.... no I wouldn't define that as free. That would be rather stupid.

Free is when no resources were spent ever for its consumption.... Oxygen in the atmosphere is free. Not HC.

 

[luckyshot]

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.

Sensible compromise...

Is that like stealing the Supreme Court so you can gut unions by overturning a 40 year precedent without any legal provocation?

Is that what liberals are supposed to have “more empathy” towards?

 

[MayhemMonkey]

If no money is exchanged at the precise time when a service is provided.... no I wouldn't define that as free. That would be rather stupid.

Free is when no resources were spent ever for its consumption.... Oxygen in the atmosphere is free. Not HC.

free is when my personal income has not lowered after receiving a service

 

[Greoric]

free is when my personal income has not lowered after receiving a service

How ego-centric of you. Just because you didn't pay for something doesn't mean someone else didn't dummy.

 

[Rod1]

Just so I'm understanding your position correctly, you're concluding that a business model in a non-government regulated market to provide HC is impossible... because you can't imagine how it would be profitable?

???

I already pointed out that it would be profitable, by simply letting people who cant pay die on the streets.

 

[Greoric]

???

I already pointed out that it would be profitable, by simply letting people who cant pay die on the streets.

You think the image of that from a hospital turning someone away while they're having a widowmaker MI is good for business? I'd say that's actually really shitty for business, considering how fucking outraged people are when a black person is escorted out of starbucks.

Anyway, dude I'm not interested in getting into a conjecture battle about who can best speculate how a business may or may not remain profitable. All I wanted from you is how a centralized market is better at allocating scarce HC resources than a decentralized market, and why that's different every other fucking sector.

That's all I've ever wanted out of this debate, and no one has a fucking thing except, "Bagoo! its different!" Or, "Bagoo, it has inelastic demand, therefore compulsory funded monopolies should supply it!" Or, "Bagoo! Asymmetry in knowledge therefore compulsory funded monopoly". All stupid shit, and doesn't answer the fucking question...

 

[MayhemMonkey]

How ego-centric of you. Just because you didn't pay for something doesn't mean someone else didn't dummy.

do they pay directly? or is it collected through taxation?

more importantly do they receive medical treatment without being left in debt?

 

[Greoric]

do they pay directly? or is it collected through taxation?

more importantly do they receive medical treatment without being left in debt?

Are you now shifting to the claim that HC is more efficiently allocated centrally versus decentrally, and away from your silly proposal that its free because you don't have to pay for it at the same time its provided?

 

[Rod1]

You think the image of that from a hospital turning someone away while they're having a widowmaker MI is good for business? I'd say that's actually really shitty for business, considering how fucking outraged people are when a black person is escorted out of starbucks.

They already do it, with people who cant pay for non-emergency medical work.

Does your magical solution involves hospitals providing service to people who cant pay out of charity? you are still in the position where people who arent paying are consuming resources.

You are also missing the position in which the hospital that manages to cut its costs massively by only taking people capable to pay will steal the competition away from the others who take Mr too sick to live and spend thousands on him.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Are you now shifting to the claim that HC is more efficiently allocated centrally versus decentrally, and away from your silly proposal that its free because you don't have to pay for it at the same time its provided?

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries

The U.S. spent $8,233 on health per person in 2010. Norway, the Netherlands and Switzerland are the next highest spenders, but in the same year, they all spent at least $3,000 less per person. The average spending on health care among the other 33 developed OECD countries was $3,268 per person.

The U.S. is a very rich country, but even so, it devotes far more of its economy — 17.6 percent of GDP in 2010 — to health than any other country. The Netherlands is the next highest, at 12 percent of GDP, and the average among OECD countries was almost half that of the U.S., at 9.5 percent of GDP.

well yeah, if this is what you call "efficiency"... and also if someone doesnt pay for a service it is free at the point of delivery and paid through taxation. So its free for the person receiving the treatment at the time.

its not my fault you cant wrap your head around the concept

 

[Ortegoat]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries

well yeah, if this is what you call "efficiency"... and also if someone doesnt pay for a service it is free at the point of delivery and paid through taxation. So its free for the person receiving the treatment at the time.

its not my fault you cant wrap your head around the concept

Yeah but what if they pay hardly any federal income tax or none then they would truly be getting something at the point of service for free.

Would you tax those people with higher sales tax off their EBT cards when shopping at Walmart? Maybe the government can stop paying out social security to people that already paid into it...well except the freeloaders. Social security is basically a tax as well since we won’t be seeing it when we are the age to retire. Can’t just keep taxing the middle class with more, especially with income tax. They basically already tried that with Obamacare but it didn’t work

 

[AndroidRage]

How are you coming to the conclusion by the way. That's a pretty substantial revolution on what we know about economic systems that efficiently allocate scarce resources. How do centralized markets distribute HC resources more efficiently than decentralized ones, precisely?

What decentralized markets are there to distribute health care? Are you referring to the hospitals that actually apply care or the worthless middlemen known as insurance companies?

If you are talking about insurance companies we can already look to other countries and see that a larger centralized middleman can actually negotiate prices much better. Alot like how Union jobs tend to pay more and have better benefits because they have more bargaining power.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Yeah but what if they pay hardly any federal income tax or none then they would truly be getting something at the point of service for free.

Would you tax those people with higher sales tax off their EBT cards when shopping at Walmart? Maybe the government can stop paying out social security to people that already paid into it...well except the freeloaders. Social security is basically a tax as well since we won’t be seeing it when we are the age to retire. Can’t just keep taxing the middle class with more, especially with income tax. They basically already tried that with Obamacare but it didn’t work

so? thats why its called public healthcare..... its for use by the public

thats on you guys to decide how to raise the taxes, but considering this will save you thousands of dollars per year on health insurance you will have enough cash to pay for the extra taxes

 

[Greoric]

What decentralized markets are there to distribute health care? Are you referring to the hospitals that actually apply care or the worthless middlemen known as insurance companies?

If you are talking about insurance companies we can already look to other countries and see that a larger centralized middleman can actually negotiate prices much better. Alot like how Union jobs tend to pay more and have better benefits because they have more bargaining power.

Great question. Why don't we have them?

 

[Greoric]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries

well yeah, if this is what you call "efficiency"... and also if someone doesnt pay for a service it is free at the point of delivery and paid through taxation. So its free for the person receiving the treatment at the time.

its not my fault you cant wrap your head around the concept

Thanks for making my point with compliance costs. ...@Rod1