View Poll Results: If the cost of cancer treatment goes up significantly, which of the following results?

Voters
31. You may not vote on this poll
  • Less people get cancer - supply and demand.

    0 0%
  • More people get cancer.

    1 3.23%
  • The cost of cancer treatment has nothing at all to do with the number of people with cancer.

    30 96.77%
Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 168 of 168

Thread: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

  1. #161
    Guru

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,938

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    One time when we "crunched some numbers" in a previous argument with another poster, we came up with approximately three trillion dollar cost for UI. That means, since the Poor tend to spend most of their incomes sooner rather than later, You are claiming that the healthcare sector could not "make sufficient profit", with a three trillion dollar infusion to our economy, as an automatic stabilizer.
    #1: A considerable chunk of that is taxed back.

    #2: An even larger chunk of that is not going into healthcare.

    #3: The argument is not that healthcare providers can't make 'sufficient profit', it's that, as again repeatedly stated to the point of ad nauseum, the narrow breadth of the margin can only permit so much discounting through volume, none of which will reduce the cost of health expenditures to be nearly as efficient as other developed UHC systems. You cannot circle the square of 40-50% savings even with maximum participation per the American system as it exists; it is simply impossible. Fundamental structural reform is required.
    "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandolini

  2. #162
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    Per the way healthcare is structured in the states, yes, 'capitalism' is factually and clearly less efficient than UHC arrangements, and this would remain true even with full employment and full market participation (which again, a higher minimum wage absolutely cannot make happen); if you would insist that theoretically this cannot be true, your theory simply doesn't cleave to reality. Moreover, capitalism and the private sector also factors prominently into the formation of UHC systems; none of them are completely public just as the American system is not completely private, but as a rule, the greater the extent of private involvement in healthcare, the less efficient and more costly it tends to be (which likely has much to do with the fact that your audience is captive, demand is inflexible, and people will pay whatever it costs not to die).
    You seem to have some "vested interest in UHC".

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    #1: A considerable chunk of that is taxed back.

    #2: An even larger chunk of that is not going into healthcare.

    #3: The argument is not that healthcare providers can't make 'sufficient profit', it's that, as again repeatedly stated to the point of ad nauseum, the narrow breadth of the margin can only permit so much discounting through volume, none of which will reduce the cost of health expenditures to be nearly as efficient as other developed UHC systems. You cannot circle the square of 40-50% savings even with maximum participation per the American system as it exists; it is simply impossible. Fundamental structural reform is required.
    We are "increasing the breath of potential market participation". Your claim that it is, "less efficient" than capitalism seems subjective. And, your claim that full employment capital resources won't solve our problem under Capitalism is meaningless; since it must.

  4. #164
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    #3: The argument is not that healthcare providers can't make 'sufficient profit', it's that, as again repeatedly stated to the point of ad nauseum, the narrow breadth of the margin can only permit so much discounting through volume, none of which will reduce the cost of health expenditures to be nearly as efficient as other developed UHC systems. You cannot circle the square of 40-50% savings even with maximum participation per the American system as it exists; it is simply impossible. Fundamental structural reform is required.
    Solving simple poverty, is the fundamental, structural reform. Increasing market participation has to matter to any insurance pool. And, you seem to be omitting the six trillion dollars in economic activity from that three trillion dollar investment due to the positive multiplier effect.

    Since, even the Poor could have recourse to an income of last resort; it must have an automatic stabilization effect and enable greater cost reductions in that capital intensive sector than without it.

  5. #165
    Guru

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,938

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    You seem to have some "vested interest in UHC".
    No, it's just demonstrably far better and more efficient than the existing multipayer, non-universal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    We are "increasing the breath of potential market participation". Your claim that it is, "less efficient" than capitalism seems subjective. And, your claim that full employment capital resources won't solve our problem under Capitalism is meaningless; since it must.
    #1: 'It must' according to what/who?

    #2: My claim is that the greater the extent of private involvement in healthcare, the more expensive it tends to be, which is borne out by the facts if you care to research them. At the very least, the significantly greater public sector involvement in other developed countries permits vastly more efficient and less ethically dubious healthcare systems than America's.

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    Solving simple poverty, is the fundamental, structural reform. Increasing market participation has to matter to any insurance pool. And, you seem to be omitting the six trillion dollars in economic activity from that three trillion dollar investment due to the positive multiplier effect.

    Since, even the Poor could have recourse to an income of last resort; it must have an automatic stabilization effect and enable greater cost reductions in that capital intensive sector than without it.
    No it isn't, because your inputs costs are still greater: your drugs cost more, your supplies cost more, your massive administrative spend remains bloated, labour still costs more, and everything that increased participation can have an influence on only has so much margin to decrement costs with by ramping up volumes.


    To be honest, I think I'm done repeating myself at this point. If you want to persist in your essentially baseless belief that increasing the purchasing power and market participation of the poor is some magical panacea to the serious problems, including ethical problems, of the American multipayer, for profit healthcare system, you're welcome to do so, but I'm done highlighting, and at this point largely reiterating how this is simply not the case per the numbers and facts as they stand.
    "The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandolini

  6. #166
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistik View Post
    No, it's just demonstrably far better and more efficient than the existing multipayer, non-universal system.



    #1: 'It must' according to what/who?

    #2: My claim is that the greater the extent of private involvement in healthcare, the more expensive it tends to be, which is borne out by the facts if you care to research them. At the very least, the significantly greater public sector involvement in other developed countries permits vastly more efficient and less ethically dubious healthcare systems than America's.



    No it isn't, because your inputs costs are still greater: your drugs cost more, your supplies cost more, your massive administrative spend remains bloated, labour still costs more, and everything that increased participation can have an influence on only has so much margin to decrement costs with by ramping up volumes.


    To be honest, I think I'm done repeating myself at this point. If you want to persist in your essentially baseless belief that increasing the purchasing power and market participation of the poor is some magical panacea to the serious problems, including ethical problems, of the American multipayer, for profit healthcare system, you're welcome to do so, but I'm done highlighting, and at this point largely reiterating how this is simply not the case per the numbers and facts as they stand.
    Cost should go down due to greater stabilization in that sector. That sector will need to restructure to achieve better profit margins. That can happen easier, with full employment of capital resources through automatic stabilization of that market.

    And, you are omitting the positive multiplier effect of two, for that policy, hence the six trillion that could be generated from that economic activity. Better products at lower cost, anyone?

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    The health care sector in the United States consists of an array of clinicians, hospitals and other health care facilities, insurance plans, and purchasers of health care services, all operating in various configurations of groups, networks, and independent practices. Some are based in the public sector; others operate in the private sector as either for-profit or not-for-profit entities. The health care sector also includes regulators, some voluntary and others governmental. Although these various individuals and organizations are generally referred to collectively as “the health care delivery system,” the phrase suggests an order, integration, and accountability that do not exist. Communication, collaboration, or systems planning among these various entities is limited and is almost incidental to their operations. For convenience, however, the committee uses the common terminology of health care delivery system.

    Source: The Health Care Delivery System - The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century - NCBI Bookshelf
    I can understand why you believe single payer healthcare can be less expensive. However, that could be attributed to less efficient public sector oversight and regulation. Communication is important to any given sector, but especially the healthcare sector.

    Do you have any case studies or examples of innovation in the healthcare sector due to single payer regimes?

    Here is what it cost Gillette to discover how to make a three blade razor:

    Gillette announced the Mach3 razor on April 14, 1998,[8] following more than $750 million in research and development costs.[9]
    Source: Gillette Mach3 - Wikipedia
    Once fundamental principles are discovered, it is easier to advance those technologies. We have five blade razors now.

    Profit margins on Gillette razor blades are high.[13] In June 2009, Gillette manufactured and packaged razor blades for about US$0.10 each, and customers paid 48 times that amount in stores.[13]
    Last edited by danielpalos; 10-15-19 at 08:22 AM.

  8. #168
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    US, California - federalist
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    13,360

    Re: Necessary Healthcare - Supply and Demand

    What if, the US Public Health Service were tasked with creating a Healthcare Service, high speed network connecting all healthcare service providers?

    In that manner, the public sector can provide for the latest in research and development via a high speed network specific to that sector.

    It would address the administrative cost concerns regarding multi payer systems.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •