Clement Attlee was not a good Prime Minister. Discuss.

[Kuciwalker]

Note that "let's pay doctors less for doing all the same things they are currently doing" does not achieve this! It simply redistributes wealth from doctors to non-doctors. Nor does "let's pay less money for all the same pharmaceuticals", unless by doing so you hope to reduce the amount of drug R&D that takes place.

[Hauldren Collider]

1) What article are you talking about?

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

You told me a few months ago that you read the snake oil observation in an article by some economist on the internet...so, I don't know what article you were talking about, but I'm going to trust that you read it in an article because you said so.

Also, I'm not consistently wrong either, I just don't always agree with your divine wisdom.

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.

I don't see it as likely that the government would be much better at figuring out what is snake oil and what isn't, given the incredible amount of worthless garbage Congress insists on wasting our money on. The FDA isn't exactly a marvelous organization, either. At least it isn't threatening to drive an entire industry bankrupt.

Regardless, I don't see the issue with Americans spending tons of money on worthless healthcare--it's their money to spend how they please. The problem is that they aren't spending their money, they're spending other people's money. I am okay with allowing people to buy worthless crap as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to intelligently spend my money.

The main issue we have with the snake oil medicine is that medicare is paying for a lot of it. That's why we need vouchers--at the end of the day, we need to put a cap on how much someone is allowed to take from the government for medical care. What they decide to spend their allotment on doesn't matter to me--they will pay the consequences of their stupidity.

[giblets]

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?

I don't know, maybe medicare should look for things that aren't sufficiently cost effective and refuse to pay for them? If they already do this, then never mind.

[Hauldren Collider]

Note, if there isn't a political will to change medicare to vouchers, I would still rather have these "death panels" than the current system which is going bankrupt.

[DaShi]

Why?

A competitive market based around increasing value for customers rather than just shifting costs among different payers would be far more efficient.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know, maybe medicare should look for things that aren't sufficiently cost effective and refuse to pay for them? If they already do this, then never mind.

Boom, that's a death panel!

"They could always pay for it themselves" - irrelevant. If they could pay for it themselves we wouldn't need Medicare, and if they could pay for it themselves this wouldn't achieve your goal of reducing the proportion of our total economic production allocated to healthcare anyway.

[giblets]

Boom, that's a death panel!

"They could always pay for it themselves" - irrelevant. If they could pay for it themselves we wouldn't need Medicare, and if they could pay for it themselves this wouldn't achieve your goal of reducing the proportion of our total economic production allocated to healthcare anyway.

So? When did I ever condemn death panels?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't see it as likely that the government would be much better at figuring out what is snake oil and what isn't, given the incredible amount of worthless garbage Congress insists on wasting our money on.

And yet this is precisely the job of the FDA, something that it seems to have been moderately effective at. It seems even more effective when you look at the prior state of medicine.

The FDA isn't exactly a marvelous organization, either. At least it isn't threatening to drive an entire industry bankrupt.

Of course it is. Countless drugs are never developed because of the enormous costs the FDA imposes. And yet the benefits of forbidding Americans from buying drugs the bureaucrats in Washington think might not work are also pretty large.

Note that this is very specifically a benefit of banning free trade in goods and services between consenting adults. This benefit comes about because left to their own devices people buy the wrong things.

Regardless, I don't see the issue with Americans spending tons of money on worthless healthcare--it's their money to spend how they please. The problem is that they aren't spending their money, they're spending other people's money. I am okay with allowing people to buy worthless crap as long as it doesn't interfere with my ability to intelligently spend my money.

i.e. you think the problem is that Americans poorer than you are commandeering too large a share of our nation's production of goods and services, and think those goods and services should be redistributed to people like yourself?

The main issue we have with the snake oil medicine is that medicare is paying for a lot of it. That's why we need vouchers--at the end of the day, we need to put a cap on how much someone is allowed to take from the government for medical care.

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

So? When did I ever condemn death panels?

#109. You got very defensive when it was alleged that PPACA contained death panels.

[giblets]

#109. You got very defensive when it was alleged that PPACA contained death panels.

Uhh... what?

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?

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly.

[giblets]

I have no ****ing clue how you managed to interpret that as a condemnation of all forms of "death panels".

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, so you do condemn death panels applied to private insurance?

Why?

[giblets]

I was asking HC to provide evidence for his claim. I didn't think it was true. I hope that clears up the meaning of my very ambiguous post.

[kentonio]

Also, I'm not consistently wrong either

Ironically, you're wrong there too.