Health care: conservative callout

[abj13]

Except that the cost for the adult has already been incurred while educating the child is a future expense.

Factories constantly get more efficient. Imagine you inherit two empty lots. You decide to put factories on both, but one at a time. So you put a factory on one of the lots but just as it finishes, disaster strikes and you have to lose one of the lots including any structure that exists upon it. Silly you, forgot to get insurance so it will be a total loss. With your logic, you always choose to lose the lot with the factory already upon it because the empty will hold a factory in the future which might be more productive. But you blatantly ignore all risk involved in building a factory, that efficiency gains are not guaranteed, that efficiency gains accrue to both factories, and that losing an already built factory is a much larger actual loss.

I can't think of anyone who'd rationally choose to lose the newly minted factory over the empty lot.

Hilarious. Not only do you have to abandon your oversimplified example about children, but now you move the goalposts and include a bunch of "if this happens, if that..." qualifications. One cannot apply "if this happens" to one situation AND not apply it to the other situation. How does one know if the existing factory, reliant on current technology will degrade in a much more rapid pace than future technology, etc? I can go on for days with statements like that regarding the output of the current factory. Do I see you also include that in your suddenly new and revised example? Of course not. You cannot critique a future factory with ifs and buts and not turn it around and also apply it to the current factory. Like I've said multiple times, you haven't seriously thought about the implications of your poor examples, and this is yet another that highlights that very point.

And then you top it off with: "losing an already built factory is a much larger actual loss." That statement infers that future productivity is of benefit, despite your denial of trying to invoke future productivity. The day a factory is built, it is a net detriment to society because it hasn't produced anything and has invoking costs for construction. Its yield to society is based on what it will produce.

That's the problem with ideas of "libertarianism" and "communism." They sound great when somebody does math on a napkin, but when reality strikes, it all breaks down.

1) Sure, but keep in mind that the difference between a young adult and a young child isn't that great. And any gains in productivity accrue to both while they are working, so your entire premise is that the huge productivity gains in the last few years of work for the child will offset the entire guarantee of my already incurred loss. I guess this should be a lesson in risk for you.

Over the past 20 years, productivity has increased by 33%. Trying to diminish that by calling it "isn't that great" is revising history. Maybe you should also consider the lesson that same risk applies to the adult because they have their own future risk. Seriously, think about what you are saying before saying it, you are just refuting your own logic.

2) That productivity gains mean that the human itself has a large marginal value. You can pick specific sectors (manufacturing being a commonly used example) and see that productivity gains have an inverse effect on employment due to automation: https://seekingalpha.com/article/40...whelmingly-increases-productivity-coming-back. Ironically, your much vaunted productivity gains increase the risk that the child will not be adding productive labor at all (essentially replaced by a robot). Once we've automated enough (and that may actually be now), it might actually be possible to increase per capita productivity by having *fewer* workers, not more (per capita productivity is just GDP divided by people).

Did do you even consider the fact that when a worker leaves the manufacturing field, they can work in other fields and that productivity isn't accounted in that table? You keep adding more and more nuances which just end up shooting yourself in your foot.

 

[mdram]

Why shouldn't the gov't be in the insurance business? Why shouldn't every American have equal access to healthcare services?

what services do all americans not have access to?
people cannot be denied care for lack of ability to pay

look at the shape of the Va healthcare. do you really want the gov to run all healthcare?

why shouldnt every person have the exact same house? car? tv? ect ect
that called communism/socialism/ect. it doesn't work


the more you hand out things to people they less incentive there is to work.

 

[abj13]

what services do all americans not have access to?

Around 12% of American lack health coverage. While ER's cannot refuse treatment of individuals based on health insurance, primary care clinics and physicians can (or at least provide them with a full medical bill). This means that a significant proportion of Americans don't have access to regular physician care, which is cheaper, more efficient, and associated with better health outcomes. And that percentage does not take in account the group that is "underinsured."

people cannot be denied care for lack of ability to pay

Only in the emergency setting. It wasn't until the Affordable Care Act that insurers were forced to cover individuals irregardless of pre-existing conditions.

 

[mdram]

Around 12% of American lack health coverage. While ER's cannot refuse treatment of individuals based on health insurance, primary care clinics and physicians can (or at least provide them with a full medical bill). This means that a significant proportion of Americans don't have access to regular physician care, which is cheaper, more efficient, and associated with better health outcomes. And that percentage does not take in account the group that is "underinsured."

some doctors actually offer lower prices if you dont have health insurance
yes its true

and some americans dont have insurance because they dont want it
many younger americans fall into this category. they are invincible and dont feel the need to pay for it

Only in the emergency setting. It wasn't until the Affordable Care Act that insurers were forced to cover individuals irregardless of pre-existing conditions.

not everywhere. the state of maryland had a law about this for many years

what about the VA?

 

[realibrad]

Hilarious. Not only do you have to abandon your oversimplified example about children, but now you move the goalposts and include a bunch of "if this happens, if that..." qualifications. One cannot apply "if this happens" to one situation AND not apply it to the other situation. How does one know if the existing factory, reliant on current technology will degrade in a much more rapid pace than future technology, etc? I can go on for days with statements like that regarding the output of the current factory. Do I see you also include that in your suddenly new and revised example? Of course not. You cannot critique a future factory with ifs and buts and not turn it around and also apply it to the current factory. Like I've said multiple times, you haven't seriously thought about the implications of your poor examples, and this is yet another that highlights that very point.

And then you top it off with: "losing an already built factory is a much larger actual loss." That statement infers that future productivity is of benefit, despite your denial of trying to invoke future productivity. The day a factory is built, it is a net detriment to society because it hasn't produced anything and has invoking costs for construction. Its yield to society is based on what it will produce.

That's the problem with ideas of "libertarianism" and "communism." They sound great when somebody does math on a napkin, but when reality strikes, it all breaks down.



Over the past 20 years, productivity has increased by 33%. Trying to diminish that by calling it "isn't that great" is revising history. Maybe you should also consider the lesson that same risk applies to the adult because they have their own future risk. Seriously, think about what you are saying before saying it, you are just refuting your own logic.


Did do you even consider the fact that when a worker leaves the manufacturing field, they can work in other fields and that productivity isn't accounted in that table? You keep adding more and more nuances which just end up shooting yourself in your foot.

Hello,

I believe you are mixing the word cost with detriment. By your argument, stimulus is a detriment because things are built with the presumption that it will help the economy. Were you trying to make the case that stimulus is a detriment to society?

 

[abj13]

Hello,

I believe you are mixing the word cost with detriment. By your argument, stimulus is a detriment because things are built with the presumption that it will help the economy. Were you trying to make the case that stimulus is a detriment to society?

I think you need to read more of the string of the conversation. That poster wants to avoid discussion of the long-term benefits of a particular item or investment and wants to entail what it means to us today, at this moment to justify his worldview. He is also conflating costs with an inherent value of an object (and then tries to secretly insert that it has long-term benefit), hence why I avoid that term. Using his logic, a stimulus is a detriment because he ignores the long-term benefits of it.

I don't see things from his skewed worldview. A stimulus in the short-term has a negative influence/cost/detriment to society, but in the long-term the benefits could outweigh those short-term costs.

 

[realibrad]

I think you need to read more of the string of the conversation. That poster wants to avoid the long-term benefits of a particular item or investment and wants to entail what it means to us today, at this moment. He is also conflating costs with an inherent value of an object, hence why I avoid that term. Using his logic, a stimulus is a detriment because he ignores the long-term benefits of it.

I don't see things from his skewed worldview. A stimulus in the short-term has a negative influence/cost/detriment to society, but in the long-term the benefits could outweigh those short-term costs.

The reason I disagree with call it a detriment, is the idea that an exchange is inherently a detriment. Saying a cost is the same as detriment is to imply that any exchange there is inherently a loss. Exchange is not loss, its well... exchange. Thus, the money spent on the building is just an exchange for the ability to do productive things. Even in the short run, there is not a true economic cost outside of opportunity. There is a financial which is what I suspect is your point.

That said I don't disagree with your overall argument, just the use of that one thing because I think it could be said better.

 

[abj13]

The reason I disagree with call it a detriment, is the idea that an exchange is inherently a detriment. Saying a cost is the same as detriment is to imply that any exchange there is inherently a loss. Exchange is not loss, its well... exchange. Thus, the money spent on the building is just an exchange for the ability to do productive things. Even in the short run, there is not a true economic cost outside of opportunity. There is a financial which is what I suspect is your point.

Yes, please go back and read the string. His entire argument stems from an economical argument (his economical worldview that we should save adults over children). Hence, when talking about any investment (and ignore the long-term benefits), that investment incurs a negative result on society because it is taking economical resources away from other production. Like I said, he doesn't understand the connotation when using the term "cost" so I selected a different word to express the economical price of investment in an object (when ignoring the long-term benefits).

 

[realibrad]

Yes, please go back and read the string. His entire argument stems from an economical argument (his economical worldview that we should save adults over children). Hence, when talking about any investment (and ignore the long-term benefits), that investment incurs a negative result on society because it is taking economical resources away from other production. Like I said, he doesn't understand the connotation when using the term "cost" so I selected a different word to express the economical price of investment in an object (when ignoring the long-term benefits).

ah, so you are just using cost because he used it incorrectly. Ok fair enough.

 

[Homerboy]

what services do all americans not have access to?
people cannot be denied care for lack of ability to pay

look at the shape of the Va healthcare. do you really want the gov to run all healthcare?

why shouldnt every person have the exact same house? car? tv? ect ect
that called communism/socialism/ect. it doesn't work


the more you hand out things to people they less incentive there is to work.

But you're OK with "socialized" fire prevention? (something most everyone pays into but never uses)
But you're OK with "socialized" public education? (something many pay into but never utilize - no kids/private school)

Are you really equating health care to "exact same house? car? tv? ect ect"
You do realize those are physical objects, right? Not a service being provided. Should different Americans have different fire protection? Different police coverage? Different quality of roads etc?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

what services do all americans not have access to?
people cannot be denied care for lack of ability to pay

look at the shape of the Va healthcare. do you really want the gov to run all healthcare?

why shouldnt every person have the exact same house? car? tv? ect ect
that called communism/socialism/ect. it doesn't work


the more you hand out things to people they less incentive there is to work.

The VA treated my Father in law amazingly well and all for close to zero cost.
When he passed there were almost zero bills to pay. He was only billed for some silly things like ice cream at dinner and other trivial items. I’d happily reduce my dr visits and any future care to pocket change with the downside being, I have to schedule dr visits further in advance and generic medication is used whenever possible.

 

[mdram]

But you're OK with "socialized" fire prevention? (something most everyone pays into but never uses)
But you're OK with "socialized" public education? (something many pay into but never utilize - no kids/private school)

Are you really equating health care to "exact same house? car? tv? ect ect"
You do realize those are physical objects, right? Not a service being provided. Should different Americans have different fire protection? Different police coverage? Different quality of roads etc?

fire prevention here is done by volunteers, and fund raisers.
socialized education is failing. private is much better. i pay for it, and dont use, dont like it either. i should be able to have the option of paying for it if i dont use it.

americans do have different police coverage, and fire coverage. it varies on where you live. as do road qualities

you dont get out much do you?

 

[mdram]

The VA treated my Father in law amazingly well and all for close to zero cost.
When he passed there were almost zero bills to pay. He was only billed for some silly things like ice cream at dinner and other trivial items. I’d happily reduce my dr visits and any future care to pocket change with the downside being, I have to schedule dr visits further in advance and generic medication is used whenever possible.

one of the lucky ones not placed on the waiting list

speaking of waiting lists
hows the british healthcare system doing now?
have they began rescheduling all the operations they cancelled?

 

[IronWing]

A Randian has entered the building; hide yo kids, yo wife, and any sense of decency.

 

[sdifox]

Xx

one of the lucky ones not placed on the waiting list

speaking of waiting lists
hows the british healthcare system doing now?
have they began rescheduling all the operations they cancelled?

So, conservatives cut funding to uhn, resulting in longer wait time, then conservative across the pond points at wait time and calls it failure?

 

[mdram]

Xx



So, conservatives cut funding to uhn, resulting in longer wait time, then conservative across the pond points at wait time and calls it failure?

just pointing out the problems with the system

but was it cut?
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/news/nhs-health-care-doctors-hospitals/index.html

"The NHS was given top priority in the recent budget with an extra £2.8 billion allocated over the next two years," the Department of Health said in a statement

"The NHS is in the middle of the longest funding squeeze in its history," he said. "Historically funding for the NHS has risen by approximately 4% each year -- above inflation -- but since the global recession this has slowed to only 1% growth."


nope not cut, just not increased as much

 

[jackstar7]

General, non-emergency healthcare for most people shouldn't be an insurance model. Clinics of all types with a simple and affordable menu system should be as prevalant as fast food places.

Now explain how. Real estate costs combined with the costs of the professionals and equipment involved don't leave a lot of room for this to exist without being prohibitively expensive for their services.

Or did you want minimum wage doctors and nurses?

 

[sdifox]

just pointing out the problems with the system

but was it cut?
http://money.cnn.com/2018/01/12/news/nhs-health-care-doctors-hospitals/index.html

"The NHS was given top priority in the recent budget with an extra £2.8 billion allocated over the next two years," the Department of Health said in a statement

"The NHS is in the middle of the longest funding squeeze in its history," he said. "Historically funding for the NHS has risen by approximately 4% each year -- above inflation -- but since the global recession this has slowed to only 1% growth."


nope not cut, just not increased as much

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html

 

[Sunburn74]

what services do all americans not have access to?
people cannot be denied care for lack of ability to pay

look at the shape of the Va healthcare. do you really want the gov to run all healthcare?

why shouldnt every person have the exact same house? car? tv? ect ect
that called communism/socialism/ect. it doesn't work


the more you hand out things to people they less incentive there is to work.

VA healthcare is quite good actually in my opinion and certainly has an incredible drug pricing plan that simply doesn't exist anywhere else in the US.