View Full Version : The truth about America's "health-care crisis"...
...the part you'll never hear from the media or the liberal politicians?
Prepare to be relieved of your ignorance.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php
Hmm.. In the video, the narrator talks about how hospitals must treat ER patients that show up on their doorsteps, but it doesn't mention that clinics are only required required to stabilize patients in imminent danger.
So if you show up after a car accident, they are legally obligated to resuscitate you and raise your condition from critical to stabilized, but once you can walk again, you're out the door.
If you need physical therapy? Too bad. It's not life threatening. If you have cancer? That's a long term illness.
They do have a point saying that some people just don't buy insurance even though they can afford it, but many of these arguments are lack-luster.
Hmm.. In the video, the narrator talks about how hospitals must treat ER patients that show up on their doorsteps, but it doesn't mention that clinics are only required required to stabilize patients in imminent danger.
Clinics (per se) are neither intended nor equipped for "emergencies" (ER patients).
It seems you have misapprehended; clinics are to be utilized for non-emergent/preventive treatments, so as to minimize costs.
Do you go to the emergency room for a common cold?
Flu?
A rash, perhaps?
If so, you are misusing health care.
In short, clinics are not hospitals, hospitals are not clinics.
So if you show up after a car accident, they are legally obligated to resuscitate you and raise your condition from critical to stabilized, but once you can walk again, you're out the door.
Again, it is not clear whether you refer to clinics or hospitals...in any case, I'm sure you would agree that, after the car accident in question, to be resuscitated and stabilized to the extent you can walk again is preferable to, say, death.
If you need physical therapy? Too bad. It's not life threatening. If you have cancer? That's a long term illness.
What's not life-threatening?
Cancer treatment?
You're leaping about here, but there is treatment available for indigents in both cases you mention.
They do have a point saying that some people just don't buy insurance even though they can afford it, but many of these arguments are lack-luster.
Now I'm confused.
Who has the point, who is making what arguments, and what has "luster" (or it's lack) got to do with anything at all? :whistling
saqib
03-22-2008, 10:01 AM
...the part you'll never hear from the media or the liberal politicians?
Prepare to be relieved of your ignorance.
http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php
that looks weird :O
what's the point of getting the only shitty plan I could afford, if I fell into crisis I would go bankrupt trying to pay for the deductibles and co-pays alone.
what's the point of getting the only shitty plan I could afford, if I fell into crisis I would go bankrupt trying to pay for the deductibles and co-pays alone.
Bullshit.
Any medical facility will work with you to get your deductibles and co-pays taken care of without bankrupting you.
So you go to the doctor/hospital and come away with a bill for a thousand or two?
Maybe you forget clubbing for six months, or eating out for a while.
Ftw, even a burger-flipper can do that.
You might consider spending some effort questioning the third-party payment system that makes care as expensive as it is, but that would require a bit of the same sort of effort required to pay off a deductible.
Smith
03-22-2008, 10:54 PM
I think its a crime that you have to pay for health care period.
C-mos
03-22-2008, 10:56 PM
I think its a crime that you have to pay for health care period.
I agree with smith:ermm:
I think its a crime that you have to pay for health care period.
I think its a crime that you have to pay for health care period.
I agree with smith:ermm:
Why is it a crime?
We all need occasional dashes to the doc to stay healthy, eh?
We all need to eat, too, and much more often than occasionally.
We all need housing.
Should these things be free as well?
And if everything should be free, why not your labor?
After all, if the things which sustain us should be provided at no cost, what would you need money for?
You see where I'm going with this.
Septimus
03-23-2008, 04:37 AM
i think money should not exist... is the main cause of the biggest problems of the whole world.... money and power
deuce6000
03-23-2008, 09:05 AM
i think money should not exist... is the main cause of the biggest problems of the whole world.... money and power
If money didn't exist there would be way more problems then there is now.
j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?
Septimus
03-23-2008, 10:26 AM
i think money should not exist... is the main cause of the biggest problems of the whole world.... money and power
If money didn't exist there would be way more problems then there is now.
camon
j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?
One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.
A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.
The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.
Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.
Rat Faced
03-23-2008, 03:23 PM
j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?
One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.
A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.
The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.
Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.
Evidence please?
The US Government pays huge amounts more per head of population than (as an example) the UK and the US people still need Health insurance on top of this.
How is this better than just having the Universal Health Care and refusing to allow the Pharmacutical to charge your own people 10 times the amount they charge other countries for the same thing?
The main (only) argument I could come close to accepting last time we debated, was the size:head of population ratio of the US vs European Countries. However no one was willing to come back to explain how Australia and Canada, which are far pooper countries with greater ratios, could afford it.
Fact:
Any civilised country should be providing at least basic Universal Health Care for its citizens. It is, after all a Governments ONLY job: Looking after it's citizens.
health insurance has not nothing to do with health, it is a business that like any other that seeks to maximize profits. if the efficiency and cost saving measure you're talking about means having an entire division that seeks ways to deny claims (no waiting lists...try spending the next few months phoning and writing appeals)and finding errors in the initial application so you can drop their insurance in their most desperate hour.
never moved toward socialized medicine, what the hell do you think Medicare for individuals for over 65 is. Diagnosis-related groups are used by Medicare to cut costs, patients with similar conditions are grouped together and a set amount is pay adjusted to based on certain criteria. Hospitals must use the amount pay to best of their ability.
If what you worry about is the poor and indigent overcrowding our systems, the best course of action is to do what parts of China does. Which is require the relatives or family to pay up front or they just turn the patient away and leave him or her to die.
[QUOTE=j2k4;2737229]
One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.
A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.
The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.
Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.
Evidence please?
The US Government pays huge amounts more per head of population than (as an example) the UK and the US people still need Health insurance on top of this.
That's only an indication of how wasteful government involvement is - due to the incredible, overlapping and redundant entitlements and programs our legislators have concocted.
The fly in the ointment of your argument is indicated by your phrase,"...the US people still need Health insurance on top of this..." - you are under the misapprehension that those whose medical is subsidized by the government require additional insurance to pay the bills.
It's one or the other, not both.
You have here (very generally defined) two segments of the population for whom the cost of medical coverage falls far from home, insofar as any real contribution they themselves make to payment is a drop in the bucket, relative to the cost.
In the case of those lucky enough to have coverage of their own, the costs are spread out among the common holders of such policies.
Those who fall under government auspices pay none of their bill whatsoever; rather, the costs fall into the laps of the taxpayer (poor people don't pay taxes, either).
Very simply, the tremendous amount of money the government pays on their behalf is due to the fact no single entity exists to make the taxpayer's case, and they are loathe to expend the effort in their own interest; they are left with their "vote", the impact of which is lost in the shuffle of electioneering and campaigning.
How is this better than just having the Universal Health Care and refusing to allow the Pharmacutical to charge your own people 10 times the amount they charge other countries for the same thing?
I've said this before, Rat:
If they didn't charge us 10 times the amount they charge other countries, other countries would have to foot the bill themselves.
Just consider it a case of government-enforced largesse.
The main (only) argument I could come close to accepting last time we debated, was the size:head of population ratio of the US vs European Countries. However no one was willing to come back to explain how Australia and Canada, which are far pooper countries with greater ratios, could afford it.
Far "pooper" countries? :huh:
Whatever.
From what I've heard, their (and your) systems are far from perfect in practice, and are running all of you to financial ruin.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Fact:
Any civilised country should be providing at least basic Universal Health Care for its citizens. It is, after all a Governments ONLY job: Looking after it's citizens.
1 - Define "basic" care.
I dare you to even try.
2 - Your understanding of a "Government's job" is somewhat different than mine.
I think my federal government should secure the borders and otherwise stay the fuck out of the way.
Our state governments can handle anything else their citizens consider them capable of.
On the whole, though, congratulations for constructing a sterling advert for the nanny-state.
As an aside, how are you, sir? :)
Rat Faced
03-25-2008, 09:22 PM
pfft.
It was 4.30am when I wrote that, on a knackered keyboard and after an 18 hour day, Im pleased I had so few spelling mistakes etc :P
I'm fine thanks kev.
As to a Governments job, securing the borders is part of looking after it's citizens.
Think about it: the citizens are the Nation, not the Corporates. Unfortunatly the Corporates run the USA. Unfortunatly, that pattern is spreading.
Regarding the Drugs Companies, we've already debated this too. It's a myth that the US Drugs companies take a loss in the rest of the world, many of the companies are in Europe too.
Most of their research is paid for by the Government's of the country in which they are based (via various means including direct Grants, Use of facilities, University Funding etc etc etc) and Charities, and they then cash in on what the market will stand.
The US Government doesnt want to upset them, so they basically charge what the "market" will pay there. European countries are willing to give them a healthy profit, but are not willing to both pay for the research and then get fleeced on the market price of the drug.
The problem in the USA is caused by the Drugs Companies and the Medical Profession generally putting obsticals in the way of Universal Health Care.
It's much harder to compete with a free service (and yes, the NHS is far from perfect) however we have a healthy Private Sector too, this is MUCH cheaper than the USA regarding Insurance Premiums etc. Why cheaper? The "Market" created by competing with the social system.
The fact is that the US economy is so much bigger than the UK's that its off the scale, yet the population is only 6x the UK's. For every $1 per head of population we are paying, you must be paying at least $20-$30, without the benefits to the population.
Generally the US is far cheaper than the UK in most areas... It doesn't take a genius to see that there is something wrong.
I honestly believe that if they bring in a Universal Health System in the US and take the opportunity to learn from other systems around them and abroad, the cost of Health Care generally there will plummit. Personally, I think they should look to see how Germany, France and (don't have a heart attack) Cuba do things, not the UK.
j2 wouldn't you personally be/have been better off if there was socialised healthcare?
One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.
A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.
The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.
Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.
I'm glad to see you sticking to your principles even when they're hammering your wallet. You are the very personification itself of the phrase "better dead than red".Whether you take that as a compliment or as it was intended is up to you :P
One could argue so, but my point is that, if we'd never begun our move toward socialized medicine, it would never have become so cumbersome and unaffordable to begin with.
A well-ordered and competitive system beats socialized medicine, hands-down.
The third-party payer system (which is merely a step along the road) has given us things like $50 band-aids, $60 cottonballs, and $70 aspirins.
Replacing individual care-entities with bloated bureaucracies only cancels accountability and aggravates the cost problem.
I'm glad to see you sticking to your principles even when they're hammering your wallet. You are the very personification itself of the phrase "better dead than red".Whether you take that as a compliment or as it was intended is up to you :P
Here's a question, Ian; please don't take offense...
What sort of tax rate do you pay, and/or what rate of government subsidy do you receive?
Not really too bothered about saying how much i earn and stuff, so no offence taken.
basically works out at about 22% income tax. (annual wage just shy of 26k)
Other taxes: 17.5% VAT on lots of stuff and about £30 a month council tax
Don't receive any benefits/subsidies etc.
Please allow me to back-track to my original point, which was the incredible mess made of the entire health-care system by the third-party-payer process, which has had the effect of removing the beneficial effect of competition from the health-care market.
I use as a prime example the process called LASIK, by which process miraculous eye surgeries are performed, and vision improved or restored.
A few facts:
LASIK surgery circa 1998 cost, on average, about $2200 per eye.
Ten years later it has dropped to the $500-$1000 range, even while the procedure itself has become more technically advanced, proficient, and safer than ever.
Here's the kicker:
LASIK surgery is rarely covered by insurance, and so is not subject to socialist "market" forces, which aren't capable (never have been, never will be) of slashing prices while simultaneously improving quality.
Bottom line:
You who favor a national health-care scheme are choosing to resign yourselves to a scenario by which costs are guaranteed to skyrocket, while quality-of-care remains an afterthought.
Please allow me to back-track to my original point, which was the incredible mess made of the entire health-care system by the third-party-payer process, which has had the effect of removing the beneficial effect of competition from the health-care market.
I use as a prime example the process called LASIK, by which process miraculous eye surgeries are performed, and vision improved or restored.
A few facts:
LASIK surgery circa 1998 cost, on average, about $2200 per eye.
Ten years later it has dropped to the $500-$1000 range, even while the procedure itself has become more technically advanced, proficient, and safer than ever.
Here's the kicker:
LASIK surgery is rarely covered by insurance, and so is not subject to socialist "market" forces, which aren't capable (never have been, never will be) of slashing prices while simultaneously improving quality.
Bottom line:
You who favor a national health-care scheme are choosing to resign yourselves to a scenario by which costs are guaranteed to skyrocket, while quality-of-care remains an afterthought.
Its a nice example, but since you have no idea how LASIK surgery costs have varied in a socialised health care system its a bit meaningless.
Why are costs guaranteed to skyrocket and why does quality of care need to remain an afterthought? whats the mechanism for guaranteeing this?
Please allow me to back-track to my original point, which was the incredible mess made of the entire health-care system by the third-party-payer process, which has had the effect of removing the beneficial effect of competition from the health-care market.
I use as a prime example the process called LASIK, by which process miraculous eye surgeries are performed, and vision improved or restored.
A few facts:
LASIK surgery circa 1998 cost, on average, about $2200 per eye.
Ten years later it has dropped to the $500-$1000 range, even while the procedure itself has become more technically advanced, proficient, and safer than ever.
Here's the kicker:
LASIK surgery is rarely covered by insurance, and so is not subject to socialist "market" forces, which aren't capable (never have been, never will be) of slashing prices while simultaneously improving quality.
Bottom line:
You who favor a national health-care scheme are choosing to resign yourselves to a scenario by which costs are guaranteed to skyrocket, while quality-of-care remains an afterthought.
Its a nice example, but since you have no idea how LASIK surgery costs have varied in a socialised health care system its a bit meaningless.
Why are costs guaranteed to skyrocket and why does quality of care need to remain an afterthought? whats the mechanism for guaranteeing this?
Okay, I'll bite - give me the history of LASIK under the socialized scenario.
Costs skyrocket because the brake of competition is not applied; the service is available, the service is used, and the cost is born by the amorphous "third party", which has no "voice".
Those who have coverage are not bothered in the least about costs, and so are silent.
It's human nature, after all...you should have some familiarity with it.
The "quality-of-care" is guaranteed by the customer who shops for the best service, which decision is arrived at after due consideration of the cost/quality issues.
If you own a car, did you shop for the best you could afford, or buy the first thing you saw?
The Flying Cow
04-06-2008, 10:08 PM
Whatever you Americans may think, (and there is no prejorative tone here), do NOT follow Europe's Health Care model.
Forget what the idiot Michael Moore, and I'm gonna quote Bush here, for emphasis, who needs to "get a real job", said, and please oh PLEASE do NOT go down that road.
Health care in the USA is millenia ahead of the European so-called "State-funded" ("National") health care system which is a failure. Tons are spent, and efficiency is not a result. There are waiting lists for 5 years ahead. I can debate endlessly the total chaos that it is, at least from experience of living among it in Europe.
So, for once, if not twice, lets ignore Michael Moore's "Sicko" crap. Him and that clown Chomsky who suggested the twin towers were bombed by the Bush Administration need to be bombed.
"...but since you have no idea how LASIK surgery costs have varied in a socialised health care system..."
I'm not sure that kind of surgery even exists in a "socialised" model. Take the word of living through this. I have heard wonders about the American democratic format, and it is most definitely more successful than this crap I see for myself whenever I have the distasteful experience of venturing into a hospital here.
Okay, I'll bite - give me the history of LASIK under the socialized scenario.
Costs skyrocket because the brake of competition is not applied; the service is available, the service is used, and the cost is born by the amorphous "third party", which has no "voice".
Those who have coverage are not bothered in the least about costs, and so are silent.
It's human nature, after all...you should have some familiarity with it.
The "quality-of-care" is guaranteed by the customer who shops for the best service, which decision is arrived at after due consideration of the cost/quality issues.
If you own a car, did you shop for the best you could afford, or buy the first thing you saw?
i don't think LASIK is a good example, happy to discuss it if you want, but in the UK you can't choose to have it done on the NHS, you have to demonstrate that you need it done. You are of course free to pay to have it done... I think its currently about a grand per eye
i think overuse of a service (rather than the cost of providing a particular service for a single person) is what you're pointing to and i don't think that really happens with surgery as you can't volunteer yourself for surgery afaik. I'm sure overprescription does happen with drugs and antibiotics, especially ones for minor things like colds, but i just can't envision a scenario where use skyrockets
one system pleases all the people some of the time (and chooses the times based on how much they need it), and the other system pleases some of the people all the time (and chooses the people according to how rich they are)
Does that sound fair?
As for MisterSister, it really depends on what you measure, undoubtedly if you can afford it the US health care system is probably the best (or at least one of the top 3 in the world), but if you can't afford it, it is one of the worst of any developed nation in the world. Which is why when nations get assessed on averages the US sometimes loses to countries you might not expect like Costa Rica and Cuba
4play
04-09-2008, 01:25 PM
From what i have read the price of lasik's really has not dropped considerably.
Also, there can be wide variation in what an advertised price will include. Beware of advertising that, for example, promises "LASIK from $500 per eye." Look for the fine print. Typically, only a few select people are actually eligible for LASIK at that price, because most eyes require more extensive correction or more follow-up after the surgery.
A leading industry analyst in 2007 said only 6.9 percent of conventional LASIK procedures cost less than $1,000 per eye. These procedures are performed with the less expensive options of bladed microkeratomes and conventional excimer lasers, not guided by wavefront analysis. Most customized wavefront procedures that also use laser-created flaps (IntraLase) cost from $1,000 to $2,500 per eye (see charts below).
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/7179/lasikavgcosts565x234lk9.gif
source (http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/cost.htm)
im just curious j2k4 but would you not like the safety net of a national health service?
i don't think LASIK is a good example, happy to discuss it if you want, but in the UK you can't choose to have it done on the NHS, you have to demonstrate that you need it done. You are of course free to pay to have it done... I think its currently about a grand per eye
LASIK is a perfect example, because the point is that it's price-per-procedure has dropped due to the fact it is not generally covered by insurance (here in the States, at any rate).
An easy surmise for this is it's status as an elective surgery.
i think overuse of a service (rather than the cost of providing a particular service for a single person) is what you're pointing to and i don't think that really happens with surgery as you can't volunteer yourself for surgery afaik. I'm sure overprescription does happen with drugs and antibiotics, especially ones for minor things like colds, but i just can't envision a scenario where use skyrockets
Your slip is showing, Ian.
Only a socialist mind-set would regard free access to elective procedures as threatening "overuse".
The market should be able to expand (or contract, as in the case of "buggy-whip" manufacturers) to accomodate the demand for service.
It is a medical procedure.
It is elective, insofar as it is a more expensive alternative to spectacles or contact lenses (which have also gotten cheaper over time; capitalism, again).
I'm pretty sure no LASIK provider would subject you to a procedure you didn't need, that is to say, if you weren't a candidate for, or wearer of, glasses/contact lenses.
one system pleases all the people some of the time (and chooses the times based on how much they need it), and the other system pleases some of the people all the time (and chooses the people according to how rich they are)
Does that sound fair?
What does "fair" have to do with it?
The price of LASIK (heretofore available to those who could afford it out-of-pocket) is dropping to the point those less-well-off can afford it as well, owing to a competitive situation created by the former.
You seem to want to advocate either of two scenarios:
1 - LASIK is (upon conception) made immediately available to the masses via government fiat, and at public expense.
The cost of any technological improvements will also be borne by the public, and these will progress at a snail's pace; after all, it is not a necessary procedure.
The care and feeding of the "procedure" will further burden the already massively expensive National Health Care system.
2 - LASIK dies on the vine, because it's costs preclude universal availability, and if the poor can't afford it, the rich can't have it either.
From what i have read the price of lasik's really has not dropped considerably.
Also, there can be wide variation in what an advertised price will include. Beware of advertising that, for example, promises "LASIK from $500 per eye." Look for the fine print. Typically, only a few select people are actually eligible for LASIK at that price, because most eyes require more extensive correction or more follow-up after the surgery.
A leading industry analyst in 2007 said only 6.9 percent of conventional LASIK procedures cost less than $1,000 per eye. These procedures are performed with the less expensive options of bladed microkeratomes and conventional excimer lasers, not guided by wavefront analysis. Most customized wavefront procedures that also use laser-created flaps (IntraLase) cost from $1,000 to $2,500 per eye (see charts below).
http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/7179/lasikavgcosts565x234lk9.gif
source (http://www.allaboutvision.com/visionsurgery/cost.htm)
There is a natural proclivity to maintain a level "profit-per-patient", but this is a by-product of the inprovements in technique and the ever-widening palette of procedures offered.
The providers are, to an extent, salesmen as well.
The costs of basic procedures have dropped, bottom line.
im just curious j2k4 but would you not like the safety net of a national health service?
I would prefer my "safety-net" consist of affordable health-care, and that my choices therein not be constrained by government/third-party-payer regulation and bureaucracy.
i think overuse of a service (rather than the cost of providing a particular service for a single person) is what you're pointing to and i don't think that really happens with surgery as you can't volunteer yourself for surgery afaik. I'm sure overprescription does happen with drugs and antibiotics, especially ones for minor things like colds, but i just can't envision a scenario where use skyrockets
Your slip is showing, Ian.
Only a socialist mind-set would regard free access to elective procedures as threatening "overuse".
The market should be able to expand (or contract, as in the case of "buggy-whip" manufacturers) to accomodate the demand for service.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by "Costs skyrocket because the brake of competition is not applied; the service is available, the service is used, and the cost is born by the amorphous "third party", which has no "voice"."
if that doesn't mean overuse of a service what does it mean?
one system pleases all the people some of the time (and chooses the times based on how much they need it), and the other system pleases some of the people all the time (and chooses the people according to how rich they are)
Does that sound fair?
What does "fair" have to do with it?
nothing i was just paraphrasing lincoln (?) to summarise the differences between the two systems. Neither is capable of providing a perfect health care system
1 - LASIK is (upon conception) made immediately available to the masses via government fiat, and at public expense.
The cost of any technological improvements will also be borne by the public, and these will progress at a snail's pace; after all, it is not a necessary procedure.
what costs of technological improvement are borne by the public? what in particular is slower to develop than in a captilist approach?
Your slip is showing, Ian.
Only a socialist mind-set would regard free access to elective procedures as threatening "overuse".
The market should be able to expand (or contract, as in the case of "buggy-whip" manufacturers) to accomodate the demand for service.
i was just trying to understand what you meant by "Costs skyrocket because the brake of competition is not applied; the service is available, the service is used, and the cost is born by the amorphous "third party", which has no "voice"."
if that doesn't mean overuse of a service what does it mean?
Not overuse, surely.
In the third-party payer (one step from socialism) system, medicare/medicaid or insurance foots the bill for many of whom you would refer to as poor or needy.
The point is that medicare/medicaid and insurance are bureaucracies, and bureaucracies exist to perpetuate themselves, not to run a lean-and-mean service.
Overuse has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
one system pleases all the people some of the time (and chooses the times based on how much they need it), and the other system pleases some of the people all the time (and chooses the people according to how rich they are)
Does that sound fair?
What does "fair" have to do with it?
nothing i was just paraphrasing lincoln (?) to summarise the differences between the two systems. Neither is capable of providing a perfect health care system
1 - LASIK is (upon conception) made immediately available to the masses via government fiat, and at public expense.
The cost of any technological improvements will also be borne by the public, and these will progress at a snail's pace; after all, it is not a necessary procedure.
what costs of technological improvement are borne by the public? what in particular is slower to develop than in a captilist approach?
I think I explained the difference above - any system lacking a compulsion toward competitive pricing and practical economics quickly becomes onerously burdensome financially.
Medical care needs to function as a business, which necessity is antithetical to any government-sponsored endeavor.
That's a fact.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.