48 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Total bullcrap. I can tell you that the doctors and nurses working for the Department of Defense alongside me did far more than the bare minimum to keep the soldiers in our care alive. Don't believe we couldn't be fired or otherwise censured for bad decisions; practice acts don't care who you work for, just where you practice/are licensed to practice. As for the most money, that's crap too--experienced civilian healthcare workers employed by the DoD can make more money under private employers (and don't have to fear shutdowns).

And yet how many stories do we see of Vets waiting to get care dying. And have you been to the DMV? Not exactly the model for efficiency. Especially when they dont really have any incentive...

4 hours ago, DarthDude said:

https://www.healthtv.de/mediathek/757/Das_Deutsche_Gesundheitssystem_Teuer_ineffizient_und_frueher_sterben.html

I stand corrected

Still your country's health care is a lot cheaper than USA and on par with other modern countries

So my point still stands

2 minutes ago, MB -Fr- said:

I stand corrected

Still your country's health care is a lot cheaper than USA and on par with other modern countries

So my point still stands

Not really. We just need to remove the interventions. Not add more.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Not really. We just need to remove the interventions. Not add more.

except that, as previously mentioned, private health care isn't proven to be cheaper & more efficient than public

indeed 30 secs of googling & reading studies that are online, the opposite seems to be the norm

9 hours ago, Daeglan said:

And yet how many stories do we see of Vets waiting to get care dying. And have you been to the DMV? Not exactly the model for efficiency. Especially when they dont really have any incentive...

Stories of failure in any healthcare setting, government-run or private, are highly visible because of the extremely low tolerance for error. If you dig down to the numbers, the VA is not significantly different from private systems in number of patients with adverse outcomes d/t access limits. The details do differ: VA patients are extremely unlikely to be turned away for inability to pay, but they may have longer wait times as a result of backup. In the private sectors, those that have the means to pay may not have to wait as long because those without the means to pay don't even make it into the waiting pool. So again, the private sector only looks better because those it turns away are not considered in their numbers at all.

DMV is not healthcare. That's like comparing apples to acorns--they both come from trees, but beyond that, there's not much more to the connection.

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Stories of failure in any healthcare setting, government-run or private, are highly visible because of the extremely low tolerance for error. If you dig down to the numbers, the VA is not significantly different from private systems in number of patients with adverse outcomes d/t access limits. The details do differ: VA patients are extremely unlikely to be turned away for inability to pay, but they may have longer wait times as a result of backup. In the private sectors, those that have the means to pay may not have to wait as long because those without the means to pay don't even make it into the waiting pool. So again, the private sector only looks better because those it turns away are not considered in their numbers at all.

DMV is not healthcare. That's like comparing apples to acorns--they both come from trees, but beyond that, there's not much more to the connection.

Here is the thing. Private is cheaper and works better. And while single payer may be cheaper than the mess we have it is completely unable to deal with Covid19. Im looking at you Italy. I would much rather have the private system that results in cheaper access. The other advantage to private healthcare is it tends to give you a range of options allowing you to choose the option you can afford. Which also results in less shortages.

Also private healthcare does not use coercion. Unlike singlepayer.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Here is the thing. Private is cheaper and works better. And while single payer may be cheaper than the mess we have it is completely unable to deal with Covid19. Im looking at you Italy. I would much rather have the private system that results in cheaper access. The other advantage to private healthcare is it tends to give you a range of options allowing you to choose the option you can afford. Which also results in less shortages.

Also private healthcare does not use coercion. Unlike singlepayer.

so, I told myself I wouldn't come back to this thread but what is your proposed fix? I keep seeing you talk about how crappy things are elsewhere and how this system could be great, but have yet to see you actually state how it could be made better. What's your proposal?

Also, can't help but notice you just decide not to answer questions that don't align with your views but would still like an answer to this:

On 3/11/2020 at 1:40 PM, DangerShine Designs said:

Going back to your "where has Socialism worked" comment that drew me in, can you tell me where this system of healthcare has worked well? How many other countries in the world have a health system like ours?

And from all the other countries in the world that DO have healthcare, how many have 13% of their population with zero coverage (that's what we have here)? Canada? Australia? Britain? New Zealand? Any country in the EU?

Lastly, your comments about "I didn't force you to get into debt" as just ridiculously asinine. Not everyone comes from money so unless you want a nation of gas station attendants and retail workers, people HAVE to go in debt due to the idiotic nature of education in the country.

51 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Here is the thing. Private is cheaper and works better. And while single payer may be cheaper than the mess we have it is completely unable to deal with Covid19. Im looking at you Italy. I would much rather have the private system that results in cheaper access. The other advantage to private healthcare is it tends to give you a range of options allowing you to choose the option you can afford. Which also results in less shortages.

Also private healthcare does not use coercion. Unlike singlepayer.

Yes, private healthcare does offer you the option of choosing an approach you can afford--even if that means no coverage at all for many, and you're again right that there will never be a shortage of "no care" plans. Being correct on those points doesn't mean that it is the correct solution on anything more than a financial balance form. Even then, it's only "correct" for those that can afford private coverage and/or those that are healthy, for the rest... Well, you don't seem to care about them, so why should I bother to continue.

OK, enough real life, now back to being a grouchy Star Wars grognard chasing Disney kids off my lawn.

1 hour ago, DangerShine Designs said:

so, I told myself I wouldn't come back to this thread but what is your proposed fix? I keep seeing you talk about how crappy things are elsewhere and how this system could be great, but have yet to see you actually state how it could be made better. What's your proposal?

Also, can't help but notice you just decide not to answer questions that don't align with your views but would still like an answer to this:

Lastly, your comments about "I didn't force you to get into debt" as just ridiculously asinine. Not everyone comes from money so unless you want a nation of gas station attendants and retail workers, people HAVE to go in debt due to the idiotic nature of education in the country.

I have already said what thensolution is multiple times. If you cant read i cant help you.

I didnt come from money. But i also chose a field where i can make plenty of money and didnt get my self into debt to get a career to do so.

59 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Yes, private healthcare does offer you the option of choosing an approach you can afford--even if that means no coverage at all for many, and you're again right that there will never be a shortage of "no care" plans. Being correct on those points doesn't mean that it is the correct solution on anything more than a financial balance form. Even then, it's only "correct" for those that can afford private coverage and/or those that are healthy, for the rest... Well, you don't seem to care about them, so why should I bother to continue.

OK, enough real life, now back to being a grouchy Star Wars grognard chasing Disney kids off my lawn.

Well when you remove the government drivingnup the costs things become affordable again. Like before we put all the government obstacles in.

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I didnt come from money

Didn’t you also say your mother is a doctor?

12 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

i also chose a field where i can make plenty of money and didnt get my self into debt to get a career to do so.

Plenty of people don’t actually chose their career based on “making money”. My mother in law has been a care professional taking care of elderly people in their homes for decades for terrible wages but still had to study her *** off in order to be able to do that job.
Her > you.

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I have already said what thensolution is multiple times.

You really have not even once.

11 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

You really have not even once.

He’s said several times the market will correct it, given actually implementing capitalism in healthcare. Given some external force like government making the healthcare industry reform itself I don’t see either capitalist or socialist medicine ever going into practice.

With the system now doctors get the most money and are protected from competition via the AMA, and the fact that they (doctors) are state agents like lawyers.

1 minute ago, Eoen said:

With the system now doctors get the most money and are protected from competition via the AMA

Ask me anything?

3 minutes ago, Eoen said:

He’s said several times the market will correct it

Which, of course, is naive libertarian nonsense.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Which, of course, is naive libertarian nonsense.

Libertarians are their own special type of Utopianism, Galt’s Gulch being especially romantic.

4 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Ask me anything?

Are you in the medical field?

2 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Are you in the medical field?

Nope. Against Medical advice?

I googled ama but that was what came up

4 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I googled ama but that was what came up

American Medical Association, it’s the doctors union in all but name.

44 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Well when you remove the government drivingnup the costs things become affordable again. Like before we put all the government obstacles in.

Taken to the extreme (like anarchy), only those with power (usually through the tools and will to use violence) can "afford" anything. Everyone else just has to suck it up.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

I have already said what thensolution is multiple times. If you cant read i cant help you.

No, you haven’t, all you have done is said “I don’t think this should happen” but you haven’t once said clearly HOW this should happen. You keep saying other systems suck and ours wouldn’t be fixed by having more government intervention but haven’t stated an alternative.

I can say all day ”governments shouldn’t be corrupt” but that doesn’t give any indication on how to fix it.

and even after pointing out you aren’t answering questions except the ones you think you can twist or argue against, you still didn’t answer my question which would indicate the huge hole in your argument so I have to conclude you really are just trolling.

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

You really have not even once.

No; he hasn’t, not even once.

So, looking back in here....no one has convinced anyone to change their minds. And, some posters dislike each other a bit more. Way to go folks. Can we put the same zeal in some threads that are still on track regarding Star Wars and RPGs?

2 hours ago, DangerShine Designs said:

No, you haven’t, all you have done is said “I don’t think this should happen” but you haven’t once said clearly HOW this should happen. You keep saying other systems suck and ours wouldn’t be fixed by having more government intervention but haven’t stated an alternative.

I can say all day ”governments shouldn’t be corrupt” but that doesn’t give any indication on how to fix it.

and even after pointing out you aren’t answering questions except the ones you think you can twist or argue against, you still didn’t answer my question which would indicate the huge hole in your argument so I have to conclude you really are just trolling.

No; he hasn’t, not even once.

On 3/12/2020 at 11:09 PM, Daeglan said:

And here you go making assumptions about me you have no clue about.

1. I know hospitals have a hidden list of what they charge for services. (Wouldnt fly if we were paying the bills.)

2. I know that list of charges is multiplied by 10 to start and insurance companies get a "discount that still has the service cost significantly more." Wouldn't fly if we were paying directly

3. If hospitals had to actually compete because you got rid of the certificate of need they couldnt do this. Government intervention designed to keep competing hospitals out.
4. if you had insurance companies actually having to compete for buisiness they wouldnt do this. They have government rules to prevent across state lines insurance. Kind of like how cable companies work.

5. If we only used insurance for catastrophic events so paid for most services out of pocket they couldnt do this.
6. If we used health savings accounts this would work better because people would price shop for services. Instead of doing the insurance network crap.
7. If we paid cash for most services doctors would need huge staffs to process insurance paperwork and so costs would be cheaper.
8. If we used cash we wouldnt have this whole coding industry creating a bunch of make work to try and get money out of insurance companies.

So basically my point about how using the same method we use for tvs to make things cheaper is actually correct. Because we currently have a bunch of BS used to obfuscate the costs so that you can make informed decisions like you do when you buy a tv and a bunch of people are inserted between you and your doctors increases costs with out increasing value. And a bunch of government regulations designed to limit competition. A lot of this wouldnt fly if we were directly involved in making cost choices.

It is almost like My mom was a Dr and and RN for 40 years and the whole time we talked about what was happening and how it was jacking up costs and decreasing efficiency. How things like government meddling in Emergency rooms drove a bunch of hospitals out of business and created the urgent care system. So how bout we get rid of a bunch of this BS driving up costs and take control of our own health care.

Geeee it seems I actually did in a step by step process......