[iLney]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Because they are for-profits, it is their mandate to pay out as little as possible, to dump people who use the product, and maximize the profit.

Huh? And maximizing the profits is the goal of all businesses.

That is exactly the problem. Their mission charter is not to achieve a reasonable-cost-for-reasonable-health result. There is little serious competition because they're all using the same page from the same playbook.

Many medical insurance companies USED to be non-profit - during the 80s and 90s, almost all of the non-profits were bought out by the for-profits to eliminate the competition.

And people were so naive to feed those evil companies, you suggested? They won the competition for a reason.

The reason for health insurance is the exorbitant cost of health care which leads us back to the supply and demand curve. And what are people suggesting? Fix the insurance policy? What kind of logic is that?

Then you haven't studied the problem and are unprepared to discuss it. Even those factions that support the status quo don't try to assert that.

They don't have the balls to, simple as that. As it stands now, whoever touches the two "Medi" will burn. People can propose whatever they want but mark this: whatever violates the laws of nature, including the law of simply and demand, will be bound to failure.

Imagine a physics paper starts with: "Suppose heat is transferred from a cold reservoir to the a hot one...." I don't care who wrote that paper. It will fail.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's not how healthcare works. I explained this already, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and try this one more time. You go to the doctor for a check up. The doctor runs labs. If anything is abnormal, the doctor then either starts to diagnose what could be wrong, or sends you to a specialist.

... you refuse to understand, don't you? That doctor's labor is not FREE. And a doctor's labor is his TIME. Seeing 100 insignificant cases cost him more than 1 serious case.

Doctors don't scan for each disease individually. You're either greatly mistaken or deliberatly trying to misrepresent how preventive care work

I don't know what you are getting at.

Also rich people are far more likely to have a disease caught early and be able to get treatment for it, giving them a higher survival rate.

And rich people still die. Far more likely? Where do you get that from?

Why would the government do a better job? Simple, because they wouldn't be running it for profit.

This is exactly why it will fail.

Insurance companies tend to deny coverage for people that won't be as profitable as others and set coverage caps, not paying anything over that amount.

Otherwise, they will all go bankrupt. You want to see a typical example of a fail model? Simple: Medi"..." But why the heck are they still in "business?"

Umm... yes you will pay more for treatment for heart disease, unless that upset stomach is a symptom of a larger problem that'll require further treatment. However, I'll assume you mean a simple upset stomach. The price for the office visit to the general practitioner may be the same, but following that for the heart disease you will be referred to a cardiac specialist who will run quite a few tests and you'll have multiple visits. You dont' just pay the doctor once upfront then all your treatment costs the same regardless of what it is. It'll be the same under socialized medicine, only instead of you paying each time, the doctor submits a claim each time. either way, he's getting more for the heart condition.

OK, enough of this. Until you see the difference between cost in term of capital and cost in terms fiat money, I don't see the need to discuss furthermore.

Here, read this:

http://www.publicagenda.org/facingup...Choicework.pdf


A fair paper. You know my stance: I'm all for option 1, for it is the only one that talks economic.