Adam Smith. Communist

[Felch]

That's selling, not rationing.

[Lorizael]

We have the top cancer survival rate in the world biotch and it ain't even close.

This isn't actually true. For a comprehensive explanation of why, see the link below.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cancer-care-in-the-u-s-versus-europe/

Here's the short summary. Two observational effects, known as lead time bias and length bias, make it seem as if US cancer survival rates are better than those in other countries when it's not actually clear that's the case. Both are a result of the fact that the US does a lot more screening for certain types of cancer.

Lead time bias means that because we screen more, we're more likely to detect cancers earlier in their development than countries that screen less. But if we prescribe the same treatment regimen regardless of when the cancer is diagnosed, then the eventual outcome is the same. So if a person with breast cancer usually lives 10 years after the breast cancer pops up, then detecting the cancer at 2 years in as opposed to 5 years in makes it seem as if the person lives 3 years longer when the survival rate is really the same.

Length bias refers to the fact that screening is more likely to detect slowly developing cancers than it is to detect quickly developing ones. There is a window in which a cancer will be detected via screening that closes when the cancer's symptoms present themselves. Slowly developing cancers, which aren't as deadly, have a longer window, and thus are more likely to be found by screening. The effect is that screening widens the population of patients with cancer by including people that have slowly developing cancers that might not even kill them, regardless of treatment. Again, this makes it look as if US treatment is more effective, when the reality is that the US and Europe are just looking at different data sets.

[Sava]

Don't pollute this discussion with facts.

[regexcellent]

Lorizael none of that matters (whether it's true or not and I don't feel like investigating further) because more people survive getting cancer here, however that happens is irrelevant.

[Sava]

Seems like not getting cancer in the first place is a better option... and also, living longer.

BUT SCREW READING THINGS

[Lorizael]

Lorizael none of that matters (whether it's true or not and I don't feel like investigating further) because more people survive getting cancer here, however that happens is irrelevant.

Err, no. What the data show is that judging the medical treatment of cancer by survival rates introduces statistical artifacts that can make it appear as if more people survive here. It's like saying China is better at treating cancer because it has more survivors than the United States does. That may be true, but only because they have a much higher population. The same kind of confounding factor is at work here, but it's a little more complicated. I really suggest you read the article.

[kentonio]

That's selling, not rationing.

Only if you consider healthcare to be a product, which is something most of the civilized world considers pretty vile.

Say your kid has some deadly disease and needs a specialist urgently, you're the first in line and you have the money but then some rich guy steps in and offers more money for that appointment just so he doesn't have to wait in a queue. You're going to sit and watch your kid die and then turn around and say 'Well that's fair, it's a product/service they were selling after all'?

[Felch]

Do you not know what rationing means?

[regexcellent]

Do you not know what rationing means?

Considering he referred to the free market as rationing, I would guess not.

[kentonio]

Do you not know what rationing means?

A formulated system to regulate the distribution of a commodity or service which is has limited supply and greater demand.

Please explain what advantage there is between that distribution being based on wealth rather than need.

[Felch]

No that's not the definition of rationing at all. The free market is a formulated system that regulates the distribution of a commodity or service which has limited supply and greater demand. But it isn't rationing.

[Felch]

Here's a hint: If you are free to buy as much of something as you want, then it isn't being rationed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

For some unknown reason some folks have issue that some people have more resources at their disposal than others and as such are free to use them as they see fit. They then claim this process as rationing. Puzzling.

The two great sins in the above

1) Some people have more resources than others.
2) People are free to buy things they wish as opposed to what they "should" buy.

[kentonio]

Here's a hint: If you are free to buy as much of something as you want, then it isn't being rationed.

You aren't free to buy as much as you like, the quantity is extremely limited. Rationing does not mean everyone is entitled to a perfectly equal share, the form of rationing is basically irrelevant.

You didn't answer my question: 'Please explain what advantage there is between that distribution being based on wealth rather than need.'

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If limitted supply is the issue, what form of delivery allows for better outcomes for increasing supply?

Time and again it has been shown that price controlled goods and services result in shortages and breadlines.