15 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Well, the problem by using profit-motivated private sector solutions is that from a profit perspective, effective healthcare is simply bad business. If you practice good preventative health care for instance, you're robbing yourself of the opportunity for selling more expensive treatments down the line. The same thing with curing patients. That's just a bad business decision if you can treat them ad infinitum.

Hence why insurance companies would prefer you die rather than continuing to allow coverage for treatment at a certain point. (Obviously, they don't outright say this, but it's clear.)

42 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Well, the problem by using profit-motivated private sector solutions is that from a profit perspective, effective healthcare is simply bad business. If you practice good preventative health care for instance, you're robbing yourself of the opportunity for selling more expensive treatments down the line. The same thing with curing patients. That's just a bad business decision if you can treat them ad infinitum.

Wow is that a logical fallacy. Effective healthcare is the most profitable solution. Just like in the short term auto repair shops saying you need more work than is actually needed might be profitable in the short term but in the long term people catch on to the scam. and most autoshops dont pull that scam method. Because it always backfires.

32 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Hence why insurance companies would prefer you die rather than continuing to allow coverage for treatment at a certain point. (Obviously, they don't outright say this, but it's clear.)

all the more reason to not use insurance for most things

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wow is that a logical fallacy. Effective healthcare is the most profitable solution. Just like in the short term auto repair shops saying you need more work than is actually needed might be profitable in the short term but in the long term people catch on to the scam. and most autoshops dont pull that scam method. Because it always backfires.

Uh, no, he's right. In a for-profit health care system, you need sick people for the profits. If you have more healthy people, there's less chance for a company (whether it be insurance, or a pharmaceutical company, or a medical device company, ect.) to make the big money on expensive treatments.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

all the more reason to not use insurance for most things

You dodged my questions - how else do you do it? How do we ensure the millions of people have affordable health care? (And you can't say charity, because that's already been shown to be not a solution.)

4 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Uh, no, he's right. In a for-profit health care system, you need sick people for the profits. If you have more healthy people, there's less chance for a company (whether it be insurance, or a pharmaceutical company, or a medical device company, ect.) to make the big money on expensive treatments.

You dodged my questions - how else do you do it? How do we ensure the millions of people have affordable health care? (And you can't say charity, because that's already been shown to be not a solution.)

We seem to manage to make sure millions of people have TVs. We manage to make sure millions of people have food using this method. We manage to make sure millions of people have everything from cell phones to computers to cars etc. And everything we try and use government to fix ends up having skyrocketing costs and less availability. So I say lets use the method that results in better, cheaper, more available. But people like you want to use the more expensive, lower quality, less available method. Not sure why. I like the fact that computers that used to cost 5 grand can now be gotten for 500 bucks. And I have never seen the government do anything well. but for some reason that is who you want to handle healthcare.

Another discussion where good faith went right out of the window.

This whole “but... but... the government”-nonsense can be stopped quite easily by looking at countries that privatized their public transportation and countries that didn’t and hey! whadda you know! the prices in countries with privatization of public transport went up (way up in many cases) and the products and services are deemed worse then they were before.

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Well, the problem by using profit-motivated private sector solutions is that from a profit perspective, effective healthcare is simply bad business. If you practice good preventative health care for instance, you're robbing yourself of the opportunity for selling more expensive treatments down the line. The same thing with curing patients. That's just a bad business decision if you can treat them ad infinitum.

You just highlighted another problem with the US healthcare industry its predatory. Cancer research being the perfect example money pouts into cancer research, yet theres no cure in site, no real progress even as cancer rates go up year after year. If there ever was a cure found the whole industry would dry up and blow away.

How many people die of chemotherapy, instead of cancer?

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

We seem to manage to make sure millions of people have TVs. We manage to make sure millions of people have food using this method. We manage to make sure millions of people have everything from cell phones to computers to cars etc. And everything we try and use government to fix ends up having skyrocketing costs and less availability. So I say lets use the method that results in better, cheaper, more available. But people like you want to use the more expensive, lower quality, less available method. Not sure why. I like the fact that computers that used to cost 5 grand can now be gotten for 500 bucks. And I have never seen the government do anything well. but for some reason that is who you want to handle healthcare.

There are millions of people who can barely afford to have food in this country. Have you ever heard of food deserts?

There are millions of people who don't have TVs. I don't have a car, and most of my friends don't have cars and we're in our 30s - we don't have them because we can't afford them because of being underpaid, crippling student loans, insurance costs, medical bills for chronic conditions, and a multitude of other factors.

You still fail to answer how we ensure over 20 million people in this country who are uninsured can get access to health care, or how we can fix the industry because even people with insurance must pay inane prices.

UHC does not equal less quality or less available. That's been refuted countless times over. But, if you won't want that - HOW do you we do this? What policy do we use? Lay it out - which you've failed to do thus far.

16 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

There are millions of people who can barely afford to have food in this country. Have you ever heard of food deserts?

There are millions of people who don't have TVs. I don't have a car, and most of my friends don't have cars and we're in our 30s - we don't have them because we can't afford them because of being underpaid, crippling student loans, insurance costs, medical bills for chronic conditions, and a multitude of other factors.

You still fail to answer how we ensure over 20 million people in this country who are uninsured can get access to health care, or how we can fix the industry because even people with insurance must pay inane prices.

UHC does not equal less quality or less available. That's been refuted countless times over. But, if you won't want that - HOW do you we do this? What policy do we use? Lay it out - which you've failed to do thus far.

Many of those problems are self inflicted. You didnt have to get student loans.

I already answered that the insurance question. and have shown that it does work.And that it does dramatically decrease costs. Yet you keep fighting for the system that drives up costs and limits access. And no you have not demostrated UHC does not cause shortages because it does cause shortages. It causes massive ones. and never addresses the shortage of healthcare workers. In fact it tends to drive people out of the profession.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

You didnt have to get student loans.

Spoken like a true doctor’s son.

12 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Many of those problems are self inflicted. You didnt have to get student loans.

I already answered that the insurance question. and have shown that it does work.And that it does dramatically decrease costs. Yet you keep fighting for the system that drives up costs and limits access. And no you have not demostrated UHC does not cause shortages because it does cause shortages. It causes massive ones. and never addresses the shortage of healthcare workers. In fact it tends to drive people out of the profession.

Cool, so poverty is self-inflicted, nice. Also, college should be free or more affordable so people don't have to get student loans which are predatory in nature and virtually no relief is given to those who can't make payments on the regular because they are underpaid and exploited at work.

Facts. Data. Peer-reviewed research. Let's see them - hard data, too. Not YouTube videos.

And you STILL haven't answered the question of how we ensure that 20+ million people can get the care they need. HOW do we do it? Clearly, the system we have doesn't work - and according to you, UHC doesn't work - so how do we fix it?

11 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Spoken like a true doctor’s son.

Why would anyone else be responsible for a choice you voluntarily made? If you didnt pick a major that can pay off that loan whose fault is that?

Healthcare is a service, not a consumer goods you can flood the market with while driving down the price by ignoring or exporting the costs pertaining to labor, resources and the environment.

Unless your plan includes importing criminally underpaid doctors from the third world, the system that builds cheap tvs will not provide cheap healthcare.

3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Cool, so poverty is self-inflicted, nice. Also, college should be free or more affordable so people don't have to get student loans which are predatory in nature and virtually no relief is given to those who can't make payments on the regular because they are underpaid and exploited at work.

Facts. Data. Peer-reviewed research. Let's see them - hard data, too. Not YouTube videos.

And you STILL haven't answered the question of how we ensure that 20+ million people can get the care they need. HOW do we do it? Clearly, the system we have doesn't work - and according to you, UHC doesn't work - so how do we fix it?

Who chose to get those expensive loans? I didnt make you do that? Who picked a major that did not provide enough revenue to pay for those loans?

And why is it my responsibility to make sure 20 million are insured? how many of those people choose to not have insurance? Why do we need to give them insurance when we could take steps to bring the costs down out of the stratosphere so that insurance is not actually needed?

And why do I need to prove to you something you already agree happens. Cosmetic surgery and Lasik have ever decreasing costs. Unlike the rest of the healthcare system. yet somehow you fight the idea of using the same methods to reduce the cost in other parts of the healthcare field. Not sure why. seems obvious to me that maybe the way we do things for Lasik and Cosmetic surgery is better.
https://aapsonline.org/surgery-centers-with-cash-friendly-pricing/ shop around see what you think. the alternative is already being used.

2 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Healthcare is a service, not a consumer goods you can flood the market with while driving down the price by ignoring or exporting the costs pertaining to labor, resources and the environment.

Unless your plan includes importing criminally underpaid doctors from the third world, the system that builds cheap tvs will not provide cheap healthcare.

So is fast food. So is IT. So is car repair. So hospitality. Your argument doesnt hold much weight.

5 hours ago, kaosoe said:

I know we live in interesting times when I begin to agree with HappyDaze. It's not often, but good to know it can happen.

Remember that I worked in hospital leadership and administration until very recently (now doing the same in an outpatient clinic), and that includes for-profit and not-for-profit systems plus an Army medical center. There's a difference between the crap I fling on boards with all the randos and my IRL persona. IRL, I'm actually a rather compassionate person.

Just now, Daeglan said:

So is fast food. So is IT. So is car repair. So hospitality. Your argument doesnt hold much weight.

Only if you think doctors should have education and wages on par with fast food workers, who are already underpaid in the US.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Who chose to get those expensive loans? I didnt make you do that? Who picked a major that did not provide enough revenue to pay for those loans?

And why is it my responsibility to make sure 20 million are insured? how many of those people choose to not have insurance? Why do we need to give them insurance when we could take steps to bring the costs down out of the stratosphere so that insurance is not actually needed?

And why do I need to prove to you something you already agree happens. Cosmetic surgery and Lasik have ever decreasing costs. Unlike the rest of the healthcare system. yet somehow you fight the idea of using the same methods to reduce the cost in other parts of the healthcare field. Not sure why. seems obvious to me that maybe the way we do things for Lasik and Cosmetic surgery is better.
https://aapsonline.org/surgery-centers-with-cash-friendly-pricing/ shop around see what you think. the alternative is already being used.

5 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

I dont know why you think the only way to care for other people is by using the government.

10 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Only if you think doctors should have education and wages on par with fast food workers, who are already underpaid in the US.

Do you think Cosmetic surgery doctors are underpaid? Do you think Lasik Surgeons are underpaid? I havent heard either complain.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Do you think Cosmetic surgery doctors are underpaid? Do you think Lasik Surgeons are underpaid? I havent heard either complain.

I doubt we could even import third world doctors the AMA would fight it tooth and nail. I can just imagine the fear mongering and nationalist jingo.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Do you think Cosmetic surgery doctors are underpaid? Do you think Lasik Surgeons are underpaid? I havent heard either complain.

They are talking about fast food service workers - not doctors.

They are saying they only buy your point if you think doctors should make as much as fast food service workers.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I dont know why you think the only way to care for other people is by using the government.

It works in other countries.

America has spent the past 50+ years proving the private sector doesn't give a **** about people, yet people think that's better.

Just now, StarkJunior said:

They are talking about fast food service workers - not doctors.

Yeah. belies the problem with their argument. Cosmetic surgeons are Doctors. Do work in the with the method I am suggesting. are perpetually decreasig costs and seem to be making money just fine. So I dont see why we couldnt apply the same model to the rest of healthcare decreasing costs for patients cutting out much of the insurance and paperwork overhead.

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

It works in other countries.

America has spent the past 50+ years proving the private sector doesn't give a **** about people, yet people think that's better.

Well no it doesnt work very well in other countries. and no we have not used the methof I am suggesting. And I laid out a bunch of the ways the government interferes that causes increased costs. And when I suggest getting rid of the things that increase costs you fight it and suggest the only wayu to solve this is government. Which last I checks has never solved anything really.