Posted: May 09, 2012 3:11 pm
by FACT-MAN-2
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
This is the theoretical argument that's always posed to justify privately operated healthcare. The problem with it is doesn't reflect the facts of actual outcomes. It's just a theory, and the actual practice of it does not measure up to the theoretical notion.

I think a reasonable alternative view is that the problem is the industry has too much influence over the laws, making for stilted markets that serve the interests of the businesses rather than the consumers.


And, if by some miracle, this influence the "industry" has over the laws were to be eliminated or even moderated you think that would change the expenditure/outcome relationship?

Possibly. I haven't considered every possible arrangement.

Wiggle, wiggle. Anything to avoid facing the facts.

Loren Michael wrote:
fact-man-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
I think your framing of incentives here is simplistic to the point of being useless. Doctors also want to enjoy their lives, make money, take holidays, have nice things, enjoy their families, etc.

Who says they don't? Doctors and other medical practitioners are no different than anyone else in this regard, except that some are greedy

This is also uselessly simplistic. You're ignoring incentives to say that some people are just qualitatively evil. That's a reflexively easy thing to believe with essentially no explanatory power.

You don't think the existence of greed isn't a factor in deciding that healthcare should be a for profit endeavor? You don't think that an economy that both facilitates and glorifies and celebrates greed doesn't outweigh the moral imperative that healthcare shouldn't be a profit making endeavor and thus fights UHC at every turn?

Sometimes, simplistic explains things a lot better than clouds of inane complexity that's no more than gibberish intended to obfuscate, confuse and mislead.

Loren Michael wrote:
You failed to address the fundamental question, though, and that is the USA spends $6K per capita on healthcare whereas Canada sends $3K per capita and gets better outcomes pretty much right across the board.

Now, if privately operated healthcare was all so vaunted for its efficiency, how could this be?


I haven't said that "privately operated healthcare" is good for efficiency. I've used specific terms to describe my thoughts on efficiency. You can try again.

More wiggle, more dodge ball, more trying to defend the indefensible. A shameful parade of avoiding reality.

Try pulling your head out of the sand sometime, you'd be amazed. I must admit, it does take balls to do this, it takes oomph and courage and a free mind, and even a little hutzpah never hurt.

You should be ashamed, as should all who attempt to defend the indefensible.

But I know you're not ashamed because you've drank all the Kool Aid and can't see the forest for the trees, utterly blinded by the voodoo of capitalism, an archaic system that belongs to the past and has no place in the future.

The facts and evidence are in, the USA spends $6K per capita on healthcare whereas Canada sends $3K per capita and gets better outcomes pretty much right across the board. It takes a rigid mind to not recognize the implications of this reality vis-a-vis which is the better way to do healthcare, rigid and froze in the past, a living dinosaur with no clue, otherwise known as a capitalist apologist who supports a system of greed at any cost and to hell with the health of their fellow citizens.

That wouldn't be you, would it? Nawwwwww.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. :dance: