Bernie Sanders proving he knows nothing about Capitalism

[Greoric]

Pardon if this is a stupid question, but why can't you have public and private healthcare?

Because then you're forcing people to double pay, both through their taxes and through insurance/ out of pocket.

It's a simple solution really. If you want the most people to get healthcare for the lowest cost then you get government out of the way, and allow the less well off to be handled by cooperative organizations looking out for them, not a coercive organization only looking out for more votes.

 

[electricfuneral]

Quality of care isn't better from my experience ( im sure there are outliers and regional disparities )

I spent no time in hospitals while attending canisus in Buffalo.

 

[ncordless]

Your argument boils down to effectively saying, healthcare has an inelastic demand.... therefore it must be perfectly inelastic, and is best distributed by a compulsory funded monopoly.

Why does your conclusion necessarily follow?

More to your anecdote, joe six pack doesn't know what he wants out of his own individual and unique medical situation more than a bureaucrat presiding over a million other joe six packs? That's a pretty radical claim.

That's mistating my argument. I don't claim that a perfectly inelastic market is any better than an elastic one. My argument is that, essentially, either one can be more appropriate depending in the particulars. Which requires being able to control the amount of tension or elasticity.

 

[ncordless]

Case in point, no one has ever been able to explain to me what inputs or information a compulsory funded system is privy to that lends itself to a greater efficiency in its distribution.

Outcomes. A true market doesn't allocate based on outcomes. Normally, we'd think that the consumer would factor that in. But in health care, that breaks down. A compulsory funded system can allocate based on expected outcomes. This in turn makes it more efficient.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Right here is one of the problems we see in canada. there is a long line for doctors because people tend to go for more minor shit when they don't have to PAY for it.






We do have insurance in the states. I had a 32K shoulder surgery and paid nothing. It was covered. The was before ACA.

lol, you do know insurance pays so the consumer does not have to, right??

There has ALWAYS been limits on capitalism in the USA. Get fucking real dude. Capitalism needing some regulation is much different than government controlling it like Bernie wants.
Also, my limiting lawsuit amounts is nothing to do with regulating capitalism but with our court system




And by this meaning you pay for something and get your medical costs covered??? We have it in the states here and it is called insurance. Many of us getting it for free from our employer and can get our families on it.

But guess what? I don't have to get my shit stolen to pay for all these other assholes. I buy my own and for my family. Fuck paying for joe schmoe.

I bet i could see a doctor within half an hour , if i waited til dinner time or first thing tomorrow morning i wouldn't have to wait at all. We have a network of walk in clinics, no appointment neccesary

 

[Greoric]

That's mistating my argument. I don't claim that a perfectly inelastic market is any better than an elastic one. My argument is that, essentially, either one can be more appropriate depending in the particulars. Which requires being able to control the amount of tension.

Yes because I was affording you the best possible condition for a sector to be considered for compulsory funding, which is one with a perfectly inelastic demand. We know that's not even the case with healthcare. People do care about the price they're paying for it (outside of an insurance based system), so a government funded service is not appropriate.

 

[JosephDredd]

Because, you could get away with that in a competitive marketplace, and the US is a free market in healthcare, right?

In fact, you had the opposite situation in the US earlier in the 20th century. Workers pooled together to significantly decrease their healthcare costs, until the AMA stepped in to unionize physicians.

Well, we have all kinds of factual numbers that proves US healthcare is some of the worst in the developed world by many different metrics in terms of care delivered to the patient, and we have your hypothetical numbers proving that the US model is superior to the rest.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Well, we have all kinds of factual numbers that proves US healthcare is some of the worst in the developed world by many different metrics in terms of care delivered to the patient, and we have your hypothetical numbers proving that the US model is superior to the rest.

US health care outcomes are actually pretty good, the issue is cost and the un and under insured

 

[Greoric]

Outcomes. A true market doesn't allocate based on outcomes. Normally, we'd think that the consumer would factor that in. But in health care, that breaks down. A compulsory funded system can allocate based on expected outcomes. This in turn makes it more efficient.

So how does compulsory funding take in factors of production to account for expected outcomes better than voluntary funding? Where is it getting the extra information from to better allocate the appropriate resources according to demand?

 

[ncordless]

Yes because I was affording you the best possible condition for a sector to be considered for compulsory funding, which is one with a perfectly inelastic demand. We know that's not even the case with healthcare. People do care about the price they're paying for it, so a government funded service is not appropriate.

They care about how much they are paying for it, sure. And they have next to zero ability to understand why they are paying that much, where they could get a better deal, what kind of care is appropriate, etc. If healthcare was widgets, and people could shop for the best price for their needs, that'd be one thing. But healthcare is not that. The consumer wouldn't know the best deal for them if it was smacking them in the face. Instead, whether a given consumer got a good deal is almost always a matter of chance.

 

[Greoric]

Well, we have all kinds of factual numbers that proves US healthcare is some of the worst in the developed world by many different metrics in terms of care delivered to the patient, and we have your hypothetical numbers proving that the US model is superior to the rest.

You should read some of my other posts.

 

[ncordless]

So how does compulsory funding take in factors of production to account for expected outcomes better than voluntary funding? Where is it getting the extra information from to better allocate the appropriate resources according to demand?

It's not getting extra information necessarily. It is just, or at least should, consider that information. It has the ability to consider it in a way that the market does not because the market cares about what someone is willing to pay for it. If I bought up all the polio vaccine to use as lube to masturbate with. The market would allow it as long as I paid more than everyone else. Rationing based on outcomes would not allow it.

 

[ocean size]

Humorously appropriate, ironic even that a Canadian senior citizen is complaining about socialized insurance, when that is what she would get in the US at her age with Medicare.

 

[Greoric]

They care about how much they are paying for it, sure. And they have next to zero ability to understand why they are paying that much, where they could get a better deal, what kind of care is appropriate, etc. If healthcare was widgets, and people could shop for the best price for their needs, that'd be one thing. But healthcare is not that. The consumer wouldn't know the best deal for them if it was smacking them in the face. Instead, whether a given consumer got a good deal is almost always a matter of chance.

Your rationality for medical procedures need not apply. That's the job of the physician to take you under their care in confidence. However, like in any other technical field if the counsel isn't passing the smell test that's why there's other providers to point that out to you. i.e. getting a second opinion.

 

[ncordless]

Your rationality for medical procedures need not apply. That's the job of the physician to take you under their care in confidence. However, like in any other technical field if the counsel isn't passing the smell test that's why there's other providers to point that out to you. i.e. getting a second opinion.

Ahh. Sure a physician can tell you what procedures are reasonable and necessary, but they aren't so good at telling you which insurance you should purchase to cover it and where to go to have it done.

As someone who works with Drs. and insurance companies, I can tell you for sure that a doctor is a poor choice for advice making healthcare purchases.

 

[Greoric]

It's not getting extra information necessarily. It is just, or at least should, consider that information. It has the ability to consider it in a way that the market does not because the market cares about what someone is willing to pay for it. If I bought up all the polio vaccine to use as lube to masturbate with. The market would allow it as long as I paid more than everyone else. Rationing based on outcomes would not allow it.

Of course, information through prices is how products in the market are distributed, something a compulsory funded monopoly couldn't possibly take into account. That's the only way the factors of production are proportioned efficiently and correctly. Otherwise without those signals flowing downstream from consumers ratifying the service at any given price, the allocation is just arbitrary.

 

[VivaRevolution]

US health care outcomes are actually pretty good, the issue is cost and the un and under insured

US acute HC treatment outcomes, are the best in the world. Our preventive care is rivaled only by 3rd world shit holes.

No profit motive in keeping people healthy.

 

[Greoric]

Ahh. Sure a physician can tell you what procedures are reasonable and necessary, but they aren't so good at telling you which insurance you should purchase to cover it and where to go to have it done.

As someone who works with Drs. and insurance companies, I can tell you for sure that a doctor is a poor choice for advice making healthcare purchases.

Sure. No argument with that, but consider the incentive structure that's set up with an employment tied insurance system. That organization isn't by virtue of the market mind you. The MDs don't know what the cost of a procedure is, because the patient typically doesn't care with the costs handled by the insurance company. Only in major medical emergencies should that be the case.

Also thank you for your rational and thoughtful responses. It's always enjoyable to have these conversations with people that care about the issue more than they care about winning a debate.

 

[ncordless]

Of course, information through prices is how products in the market are distributed, something a compulsory funded monopoly couldn't possibly take into account. That's the only way the factors of production are proportioned efficiently and correctly. Otherwise without those signals flowing downstream from consumers ratifying the service at any given price, the allocation is just arbitrary.

I agree that information through pricing is an advantage of the market. I disagree that's the end all be all. It's almost like a variation on the utility monster. Just because I will pay more to use the polio vaccine as lube than a million children in Africa will pay to avoid polio doesn't mean that it's better used by me as a sexual lubricant.

 

[Greoric]

I agree that information through pricing is an advantage of the market. I disagree that's the end all be all. It's almost like a variation on the utility monster. Just because I will pay more to use the polio vaccine as lube than a million children in Africa will pay to avoid polio doesn't mean that it's better used by me as a sexual lubricant.

Sure, but just because you'll pay more doesn't necessitate an either-or situation. You're just giving more signals to the vaccine producers that it has to account for more demand and therefore adjust their production accordingly.

And let's actually take that one step further and say you didn't like the vaccine all that much afterall as a lubricant, and just stopped buying it one day. The producer immediately gets the information through a drop in revenue, and the resources used for that extra production can now be deployed differently. That's a dynamic, which a compulsory funded system has neither the incentive nor the capability to grasp.