Clement Attlee was not a good Prime Minister. Discuss.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

What is fair? Define fair in a consistent, logical way. Until you do that, I'm going to assume that the most efficient distribution of goods is the fairest.

The dubious arrangements of trains, shower-blocks and crematoria at Auschwitz were extremely efficient.

You'll struggle to convince me that it made the place fair.

[Hauldren Collider]

It would really suck if the government was deciding which things a government program would cover, right?

It's not just what a government program will cover. It determines what insurance companies should cover. But yeah, it would suck if you could achieve the same effect with a market based system, which is totally doable.

[Hauldren Collider]

The dubious arrangements of trains, shower-blocks and crematoria at Auschwitz were extremely efficient.

You'll struggle to convince me that it made the place fair.

Fallacy of equivocation.

[giblets]

It's not just what a government program will cover. It determines what insurance companies should cover. But yeah, it would suck if you could achieve the same effect with a market based system, which is totally doable.

Right, could you provide a credible source that says Obamacare was at some point intended to tell private insurance companies what treatments they could cover?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Fallacy of equivocation.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing bureaucratic methods of leaving people dead.

[Kuciwalker]

While Death Panel is a rather harsh term, PPACA creates a board which, in its supposedly infinite wisdom, selects what treatments should be available to which people.

There is a massive body of evidence that should leave you roughly agnostic about whether market mechanisms work for healthcare.

For example, the fact that a market for healthcare existed long before healthcare did.

[Kuciwalker]

Right, could you provide a credible source that says Obamacare was at some point intended to tell private insurance companies what treatments they could cover?

The practical effect of those panels would, in fact, be to make private insurance covering those treatments virtually unobtainable.

The relevant question is whether this is a bad thing, not whether it would happen.

[Kuciwalker]

Right, could you provide a credible source that says Obamacare was at some point intended to tell private insurance companies what treatments they could cover?

btw this is what "bending the cost curve" means.

[DaShi]

I believe that market mechanisms can work for healthcare. Just none of the one's we are currently using in the US do.

[Kuciwalker]

I believe that market mechanisms can work for healthcare.

Why?

[Hauldren Collider]

There is a massive body of evidence that should leave you roughly agnostic about whether market mechanisms work for healthcare.

For example, the fact that a market for healthcare existed long before healthcare did.

I'm aware of your claim that healthcare can't efficiently be provided by a market, but I think this is yet another case (among a long list of such cases) where you read an article, take its thesis to its logical conclusion, and become thoroughly convinced you are correct about it until a few months later when you change your mind.

I don't think that the fact that people hired quacks in the middle ages and renaissance should mean that markets wouldn't work today for healthcare.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm aware of your claim that healthcare can't efficiently be provided by a market, but I think this is yet another case (among a long list of such cases) where you read an article, take its thesis to its logical conclusion, and become thoroughly convinced you are correct about it until a few months later when you change your mind.

1) What article are you talking about?

2) This leaves me far better off than you. At least I'm not consistently wrong.

I don't think that the fact that people hired quacks in the middle ages and renaissance should mean that markets wouldn't work today for healthcare.

Why not? We observe people still hiring quacks and buying snake oil wherever the FDA hasn't cracked down.

psst: the FDA is a far bigger intrusion into the market than PPACA, and is the original death panel.

[giblets]

The practical effect of those panels would, in fact, be to make private insurance covering those treatments virtually unobtainable.

The relevant question is whether this is a bad thing, not whether it would happen.

btw this is what "bending the cost curve" means.

You've lost me.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm not surprised.

[Kuciwalker]

Let's play the economics game. Look at the current production, distribution, and consumption of various medical goods and services. This appears to require a substantial fraction of our aggregate national productive capacity. You want it to be a smaller fraction. Since your plan isn't substantially based around increasing the denominator, you must want to reduce the numerator. You want us to produce and consume fewer medical goods and services. How do you plan to do so?