| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Epignosis 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
 Posted: September 19 2012 at 18:28 |
 Dean wrote:
 What am I missing here? To me this seems a non-sensical analogy. Who chooses to get sick? Who goes into hostpital with a cut finger (choice steak) and demands a tripple bypass operation (prime steak)?
It's confusing enough without confusing it futher. |
Who chooses who needs food? (No one)
Who goes into a hospital with a cut finger and demands triple bypass operation (No one that I know, but many people opt for tests which costs much more than they need, which comforts the doctors- who fear litigation- and which comforts the patients- who want assurance).
My analogy is not confusing. It's apt. The CATO article I linked to provides further data.
Edited by Epignosis - September 19 2012 at 18:28
|
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 18:41 |
Oh, so you have a medical system where the patients dictate the treatments and not the trained professional doctors.
Okay, I think I can see a possible flaw in that system.
|
|
What?
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 18:44 |
Dean wrote:
Oh, so you have a medical system where the patients dictate the treatments and not the trained professional doctors.
Okay, I think I can see a possible flaw in that system. |
That alters my analogy none.
Still supply and demand. Still increase demand = increase in price.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 19:38 |
Dean wrote:
Oh, so you have a medical system where the patients dictate the treatments and not the trained professional doctors.
Okay, I think I can see a possible flaw in that system. |
Patients don't dictate the treatments, but they do have a say in them. If a doctor says "I'm going to cut your leg off" you can say "no" or get a second opinion. If a doctor says "It's probably nothing, but we can do a CT Scan to find out for sure" the patient can say "ok" or "no thanks, I think it's nothing." Are you saying that patients are slaves to the doctors' whims in Britain?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 19:42 |
|
Do not forget that in my analogy, some would be able to grow their own food.
I saved thousands by delivering my boy Ephraim this past May.
|
|
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 19:51 |
Epignosis wrote:
My analogy is not confusing. It's apt. The CATO article I linked to provides further data.
|
Personally I'm instantly skeptical seeing the article was written by Stan Liebowitz and published by the hawkishly anti-government Cato Institute. That said, I also find a basic flaw in his premise at a macro level. He argues (as do you) that patients use health care services more when a 3rd party (insurer) is footing the bill, suggesting that if patients had to pay the bill themselves that demand, and therefore cost, would decrease. This is counter-intuitive on several levels, not the least of which is that many health care devices, particularly diagnostic imaging and laboratory equipment, represent very significant capital expenses for providers, who rely on high volumes of usage to make them affordable. In other words, reducing the 'addressable market' of customers by reducing the number of people with insurance would mean that either those capital investments would not as likely be made by providers, or the cost of those procedures would rise for those who were able to afford them. The other thing about his theory that doesn't make sense to me is that health care costs have escalated more in the past ten years than ever before, yet during that same time frame the number and percentage of Americans who have health insurance has steadily fallen. That just doesn't make mathematical sense and strongly suggests there are other, more significant forces at work causing costs to rise.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 19:55 |
Epignosis wrote:
I saved thousands by delivering my boy Ephraim this past May.
|
Where did you deliver him to? Can I order one?
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 20:18 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My analogy is not confusing. It's apt. The CATO article I linked to provides further data.
|
Personally I'm instantly skeptical seeing the article was written by Stan Liebowitz and published by the hawkishly anti-government Cato Institute. That said, I also find a basic flaw in his premise at a macro level. He argues (as do you) that patients use health care services more when a 3rd party (insurer) is footing the bill, suggesting that if patients had to pay the bill themselves that demand, and therefore cost, would decrease. This is counter-intuitive on several levels, not the least of which is that many health care devices, particularly diagnostic imaging and laboratory equipment, represent very significant capital expenses for providers, who rely on high volumes of usage to make them affordable. In other words, reducing the 'addressable market' of customers by reducing the number of people with insurance would mean that either those capital investments would not as likely be made by providers, or the cost of those procedures would rise for those who were able to afford them. The other thing about his theory that doesn't make sense to me is that health care costs have escalated more in the past ten years than ever before, yet during that same time frame the number and percentage of Americans who have health insurance has steadily fallen. That just doesn't make mathematical sense and strongly suggests there are other, more significant forces at work causing costs to rise.
|
CATO offers data. Whether you disagree with them in general or not is irrelevant. Is their data correct or not?
"Many health care devices" you say...does not mean most. Very few people relative to the population need a pacemaker, but that does not change the illustration I gave on the previous page. But your second paragraph has a more important implication: "A lack of insurance causes things to be more expensive." Please show me in history where this is true in the US. If you have not read my grocery analogy, then please do so.
For your third paragraph, please provide data. I'm not interested in escalation. It was cheaper in 1920, and someone could get a house call. Nowadays we have to drive somewhere and, if uninsured, pay $135 for an office visit. What changed and why?
|
|
|
|
AlexDOM
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 02 2011
Location: Indianapolis
Status: Offline
Points: 775
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 21:40 |
UMUR wrote:
Andy Webb wrote:
AlexDOM wrote:
UMUR wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
UMUR wrote:
If I was an American, would I then vote for a religious fanatic? Hmm...let me see...hmm...hell noooooo!!! |
What does a candidate's religion have to do with anything? If you don't like his policies, fine, but that seems like as stupid a reason not to vote for someone as race or sexual orientation.
|
...well for starters his view on abortion is strongly affected by him being religious (Iīm not saying all religious people are like him. Iīm only commenting on his views). In my country a man like him would be the subject of ridicule. He would quite frankly be considered sligthly mad.  . Would I trust a man I consider mentally unstable to rule one of the worldīs super powers? Itīs bad enough the world had to endure Bush, but this seems even worse to me.
...his plan to roll back Obamacare is socially irresponsible too. Finally the poor and the needy are able to receive qualified health care, and of course the "good Samaritan" (that would be Romney) with his big Christian heart wants it rolled back because itīs oh so bad that the filthy rich 1% of the American population has to pay a little extra tax for it to work. Whereīs the Christian ideals, the human dignity and unity in that?
Itīs "to each his own" and I canīt stand that egocentric idiology. How about a broader perspective on the society where you live. |
Romney is not a Christian, he's a Mormon. Completely different! |
I dearly hope that exclamation point indicates sarcasm. |
If it doesnīt he is screwed
|
No i'm totally serious so I guess I'm screwed...
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 21:42 |
|
In that case I hate to break it to you that Mormons are Christians. They believe that Christ is the Messiah and the son of God ergo they are Christian. QED
Edited by thellama73 - September 19 2012 at 21:43
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 21:49 |
thellama73 wrote:
In that case I hate to break it to you that Mormons are Christians. They believe that Christ is the Messiah and the son of God ergo they are Christian. QED
|
Whether Mormons are or not Christian is irrelevant to this discussion. I've shown that much earlier.
|
|
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 19 2012 at 22:01 |
Epignosis wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
In that case I hate to break it to you that Mormons are Christians. They believe that Christ is the Messiah and the son of God ergo they are Christian. QED
|
Whether Mormons are or not Christian is irrelevant to this discussion. I've shown that much earlier.
|
It's completely irrelevant to this discussion except that AlexDOM is wrong and must be corrected according to the laws of internet forums.
|
|
|
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24297
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 03:15 |
UMUR wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
someone_else wrote:
The T wrote:
I wonder if the candidate was muslim instead of Mormon people on the other side of the pond would be mentioning his religion as a negative point about him. |
According to some sources, Barack Hussein Obama is in truth a muslim. If that is true, ye US citizens can choose between a muslim and a mormon.
|
A Muslim who drinks beer? Somehow I find that unlikely.
|
...well we have a couple of moderate muslim members of parlament, who have been known to drink alcohol, so itīs not completely unlikely. |
It is not completely unlikely indeed. In the Netherlands, many moderate muslims drink a beer or a wine now and then. So in the worst case, BHO practises a more enjoyable form of taqiyya  .
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 03:23 |
someone_else wrote:
UMUR wrote:
thellama73 wrote:
someone_else wrote:
The T wrote:
I wonder if the candidate was muslim instead of Mormon people on the other side of the pond would be mentioning his religion as a negative point about him. |
According to some sources, Barack Hussein Obama is in truth a muslim. If that is true, ye US citizens can choose between a muslim and a mormon.
|
A Muslim who drinks beer? Somehow I find that unlikely.
|
...well we have a couple of moderate muslim members of parlament, who have been known to drink alcohol, so itīs not completely unlikely. |
It is not completely unlikely indeed. In the Netherlands, many moderate muslims drink a beer or a wine now and then. So in the worst case, BHO practises a more enjoyable form of taqiyya . |
Many christians commit adultery, work on the sabbath, use religious swear-words, steal and covet their neighbour's ass and some seem to behave like the prohibitions listed in the OT are a check list of 613 things to do before you die. Do as I say not say as I do seems to be prevalent across many religions.
|
|
What?
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 08:07 |
Epignosis wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
My analogy is not confusing. It's apt. The CATO article I linked to provides further data.
|
Personally I'm instantly skeptical seeing the article was written by Stan Liebowitz and published by the hawkishly anti-government Cato Institute. That said, I also find a basic flaw in his premise at a macro level. He argues (as do you) that patients use health care services more when a 3rd party (insurer) is footing the bill, suggesting that if patients had to pay the bill themselves that demand, and therefore cost, would decrease. This is counter-intuitive on several levels, not the least of which is that many health care devices, particularly diagnostic imaging and laboratory equipment, represent very significant capital expenses for providers, who rely on high volumes of usage to make them affordable. In other words, reducing the 'addressable market' of customers by reducing the number of people with insurance would mean that either those capital investments would not as likely be made by providers, or the cost of those procedures would rise for those who were able to afford them. The other thing about his theory that doesn't make sense to me is that health care costs have escalated more in the past ten years than ever before, yet during that same time frame the number and percentage of Americans who have health insurance has steadily fallen. That just doesn't make mathematical sense and strongly suggests there are other, more significant forces at work causing costs to rise.
|
CATO offers data. Whether you disagree with them in general or not is irrelevant. Is their data correct or not?
"Many health care devices" you say...does not mean most. Very few people relative to the population need a pacemaker, but that does not change the illustration I gave on the previous page. But your second paragraph has a more important implication: "A lack of insurance causes things to be more expensive." Please show me in history where this is true in the US. If you have not read my grocery analogy, then please do so.
For your third paragraph, please provide data. I'm not interested in escalation. It was cheaper in 1920, and someone could get a house call. Nowadays we have to drive somewhere and, if uninsured, pay $135 for an office visit. What changed and why?
|
I suspect we'll never come to a meeting of minds on this, but I'm at least enjoying the conversation... Liebowitz references some statistics which he uses to quantify his problem statement, but I don't see where he offers any data that proves his theory. As with any scientific theory, Liebowitz needs to test his in order to generate supporting data, which would involve something like a control group of people and a second very similar group who were required to pay for their own health care, and then measure the resulting behavior. Instead he simplistically relies on historical information and makes inferences about how that old data supports his prediction of future consumer behavior. Getting back to your question about how lack of insurance can cause things to be more expensive, it's simple math. Let's take your grocery analogy for example. Let's say your local grocery store decides to start offering fresh swordfish steaks. And let's say you live in Montana, meaning those steaks have to be flown in daily from the Pacific coast. So the distributor will only deliver if your store purchases a minimum of one crate per week, which consists of 200 pounds of swordfish and costs $900. If your grocer can consistently get 50 customers to each purchase 4 pounds of swordfish every week, then he can sell it for $5 per pound, make a profit and have no waste. If he can only get 20 customers to purchase 4 pounds each, then he either has to charge more per pound to compensate for the unsold fish he will need to dispose of, or he will have to stop selling swordfish. Now think about a CT scanner that costs millions of dollars and apply the same logic. I suggest you also read about something called the Giffen effect since we're talking about economic theory and groceries, as this theory explains how consumers can be motivated to consume more and more of staple goods such as food even as the price for those goods rise. Or read Alfred Marshall's theories on indifference curves in which he vigorously disputes the simplistic supply-and-demand economic model in cases where the good or service in question does not have an acceptable substitute or alternative. But IMHO health care is one of those consumer items where economy meets psychology and so sterile economic models don't often work. I would point instead to psychological theories such as Maslow's Law to explain how people are more likely to view and approach consumer health questions, as opposed to viewing them from a commodity perspective. Lab tests and preventive health services are not exactly pork bellies, after all.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
thellama73
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 29 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8368
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 08:10 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I suggest you also read about something called the Giffen effect since we're talking about economic theory and groceries, as this theory explains how consumers can be motivated to consume more and more of staple goods such as food even as the price for those goods rise.
|
Giffen goods are largely theoretical and are almost never observed in the market.
|
|
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 08:15 |
oops
Edited by ClemofNazareth - September 20 2012 at 08:16
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 08:16 |
ClemofNazareth wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
For your third paragraph, please provide data. I'm not interested in escalation. It was cheaper in 1920, and someone could get a house call. Nowadays we have to drive somewhere and, if uninsured, pay $135 for an office visit. What changed and why?
|
Healthcare was cheaper in 1920 than it is today. We also lived on average about 22 years less in 1920 than we do today, largely thanks to advances in health care and supporting technologies. And billions of dollars of the funding for the research that led to these medical and technology advances came from our federal government (along with governments of many other nations). And you could get a house call in 1920, although you had to rely on the local doctor being available, sober, and within easy driving/walking/horsebacking distance when you needed him or her. Today there are 4 acute-care clinics and 3 emergency rooms within 15 minutes of my home, and I can get first-class emergency care 24x7x365. That was not possible in 1920. You also weren't guaranteed lifesaving care if you showed up at an ER in 1920, since it wasn't until 1986 that our federal government had to pass a law telling hospitals that they were not allowed to take patients who had no insurance and dump them in an ally somewhere to fend for themselves or die. Back in your glorious 1920s that behavior was not only legal, but practiced. |
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher
Joined: August 17 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4659
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 08:24 |
thellama73 wrote:
ClemofNazareth wrote:
I suggest you also read about something called the Giffen effect since we're talking about economic theory and groceries, as this theory explains how consumers can be motivated to consume more and more of staple goods such as food even as the price for those goods rise.
|
Giffen goods are largely theoretical and are almost never observed in the market.
|
Yes, you're right. I was just trying to demonstrate that even within the world of economic theory the impact of demand on price is not as simple as someone like Liebowitz suggests.
|
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus
|
|
manofmystery
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
|
Posted: September 20 2012 at 12:52 |
I would flip 1 and 2 but this is basically how the election breaks down, if voters are being honest with themselves:
Simple as that.
|
 Time always wins.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Romney or Obama (or Third party)
