American Healthcare...For Profit

Originally posted by Wajoma
Money is just a tool shav, no need to get all frothy. It is a tool to exchange value for value and I put it to you that you have a relationship with your gf precisely for that reason i.e. what you can get out of it, how you can profit from that relationship, and if you're both doing it right she's there for the same reason. Good luck to you both ,may you both profit from your relationship with each other.

I wish I was your partner.
You sound soooooooo romantic.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I wish I was your partner.
You sound soooooooo romantic.

So your relationship with your gf is entirely for her benefit?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
just calling out bill718 for his posting style .

OK...bill718 is here, now that you've called me out, now what?? You are still on the wrong side of the argument!

Originally posted by bill718
Taking the profit motive out of the American healthcare system would clearly be the best way to provide at least a moderate standard of healthcare for all. Consider the untold billions of dollars made by Insurance Companies, HMO's and Drug Companies every year. If these dollars were put to use providing healthcare services, rather than paying for drug advert ...[text shortened]... d medical operation. If you believe this is true, I have a bridge I'll sell you...cheap!!😏

Milton Friedman predicted that ANY system that is regulated by the government and/or relies on third-party payers tends to become more and more inefficient and expensive as the level of regulation increases. The reason regulation does this is that it interferes with the competition mechanism which is the primary means by which prices are kept down.

Health care is extremely highly regulated -- who is certified to provide it, who can say what about it, who can sell what to whom.

Health care needs to be less regulated and more open to competition.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Milton Friedman predicted that ANY system that is regulated by the government and/or relies on third-party payers tends to become more and more inefficient and expensive as the level of regulation increases. The reason regulation does this is that it interferes with the competition mechanism which is the primary means by which prices are kept down.

H ...[text shortened]... o can sell what to whom.

Health care needs to be less regulated and more open to competition.

Of course, like with most things he said, Milton Friedman was wrong.

Last month, I paid more than 50 eurocents for a text message abroad within the EU, even though the doe-eyed "free market" laws suggest competition should drive prices to a few cents at most. Now I pay 11 cents due to EU government intervention in the telecommunications cartel.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Of course, like with most things he said, Milton Friedman was wrong.

Last month, I paid more than 50 eurocents for a text message abroad within the EU, even though the doe-eyed "free market" laws suggest competition should drive prices to a few cents at most. Now I pay 11 cents due to EU government intervention in the telecommunications cartel.

Rather than whinging about it why didn't you put together a business plan, find some investors and sell text messages for 12 cents, you'd be extremely popular and you could give all profits away.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Rather than whinging about it why didn't you put together a business plan, find some investors and sell text messages for 12 cents, you'd be extremely popular and you could give all profits away.

Are you really that naive?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Are you really that naive?

stunning, ooof, you really landed a blow there.

Originally posted by Wajoma
stunning, ooof, you really landed a blow there.

I am genuinely wondering if it's the case; do you not know about the obstructions that exist when trying to start a new telecommunications business? And even if I did, joining the cartel would be better for the business.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am genuinely wondering if it's the case; do you not know about the obstructions that exist when trying to start a new telecommunications business? And even if I did, joining the cartel would be better for the business.

You're saying 50 cents was too much and that text messages can be sent for 11 cents, do you realise what profit you could make massively undercutting the opposition, people would be knocking your door down trying to sign up.

...and the bonus, it would all be voluntary.

but you'd rather cry cry to gummint.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I am genuinely wondering if it's the case; do you not know about the obstructions that exist when trying to start a new telecommunications business? And even if I did, joining the cartel would be better for the business.

Somebody has to do it, what obstructions besides all that regulation you're in love with?

If it's a sound plan you would have no problem selling it voluntarily and since you're so concerned about wealth re-distribution you could give all profits away, again, voluntarily.

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're saying 50 cents was too much and that text messages can be sent for 11 cents, do you realise what profit you could make massively undercutting the opposition, people would be knocking your door down trying to sign up.

...and the bonus, it would all be voluntary.

but you'd rather cry cry to gummint.

Your denial is staggering. People did not make such a company because they couldn't. It takes initial capital, advertising, etc. etc. etc. to get people to sign up. There are companies which offer cheaper texting and calling abroad, but they tend to have lackluster domestic coverage, and they don't have the capital to start national advertising campaigns. Also, people tend not to switch providers easily.

And, once again, companies which did manage to penetrate in the market happily signed up with the cartel to maximize their profits, as one would expect them to do in a free market.

But of course, it's all the government's fault!

Originally posted by bill718
OK...bill718 is here, now that you've called me out, now what?? You are still on the wrong side of the argument!

respond to the article posted by whodey

Originally posted by shavixmir
Of course, running healthcare systems for profit instead of for health is obviously a much better way of doing things.
And you'd be a fool and communist to think otherwise.

If nobody's making money out of it, it's clear it can't work.
Because everybody in the whole wide world is so shallow that they can only be motivated by financial profit.

.

Healthcare is an odd industry: In most profit and benefit to society are linked. e.g if you make computers, clothes then it clearly provides an incentive to make a good product.

But in health care, there are 'morbid' conflicts of interest if you consider only profit,
I think the US system suffers from this although am no expert. In the UK there's difference between public and private (although the NHS is very good)

The drugs method of treating diseases is most profitable , which is why companies invest so much in it. Tools like CT scanners are still very expensive. Vaccines less profitable.

Also in reaserch into drugs is extremely difficult, as fewer people get terminal illness then
depression etc.. these fall to the bottom of the list although they are of most benefit to cure.

I think private companies can still treat them ... but in a way it what the share holders ask of them?
I'd buy share in glaxo if my life depended on there drugs for sure... but not for x% growth.

Still believe in state funded health system tho as it provides a level of decency.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Your denial is staggering. People did not make such a company because they couldn't. It takes initial capital, advertising, etc. etc. etc. to get people to sign up. There are companies which offer cheaper texting and calling abroad, but they tend to have lackluster domestic coverage, and they don't have the capital to start national advertising campaign ...[text shortened]... would expect them to do in a free market.

But of course, it's all the government's fault!

Do you see that KN

"People did not make such a company because the couldn't"

"And, once again, companies which did..."

Because it can be done, and it does get done, and no one owes you 10 cent text messages. Oh boo hoo it takes "initial capital, advertising, etc, etc" somebody did it didn't they? Here you are saying you can undercut their price by 80%, put together a plan not only will you have customers banging your down but you'll have investors too. That would be the true test of your 'brilliant' economic ideas, that they were sound enough to stand without resorting to gummint force.