Comments on: Health Care Apples And Oranges

By: Standard Mischief » Blog Archive » Health Care Apples And Oranges

Standard Mischief » Blog Archive » Health Care Apples And Oranges — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:18:08 +0000

[...] …Unlike Canada, I’d also allow private practitioners to provide pay-out-of-pocket care to those who are willing and able to do so, noting that doing so does not exempt you from paying your share toward the larger system. Think of this like education, where putting your kids in private school, home schooling them, or simply not having any kids are all perfectly legal options, but they do not exempt you from chipping in to pay for the school system.] [...]

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:59:32 +0000

“Perhaps you’ve confused me with Dan G.?”

Yes, I did. My apologies to Dan G.

By: Dan M.

Dan M. — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 22:18:44 +0000

Okay, Fred, usually you’re inane and wrong-headed, but usually one can tell at least what the hell you’re going on about. What did that last comment even mean? Perhaps you’ve confused me with Dan G.?

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 15:10:07 +0000

“Dan M. Says:
June 29th, 2007
Ah yes, higher education and health past one’s child-bearing years aren’t needed; we lasted millenia without them. Let’s go back to sitting in huts asking the sky beings to not let Dad and Grandma suffer too long before they finally croak. ”

The subject of this blog is religion?

By: Fred

Fred — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:37:27 +0000

“Protecting the profit margins of health care providers is by law a higher priority than accessibility or cost control, in many (probably most) cases.”

Let’s take the profits out of health care and see what kind of health care we all get.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 13:36:52 +0000

Oh I assure you, I’m not eager to live in Dan’s world of false dilemmas.

Pointing out that medical care that is both inherently expensive and necessary only represents a small portion of healthcare spending doesn’t mean I think all of the potentially cheap and/or elective care ought to be eliminated.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:00:38 +0000

Yeah, Stormy, I'm with Dan M on this one. When you define "needs" like you just did, you've created a pretty bleak outlook for life. I'm not sure why you're eager to live in a world like that.

By: Dan M.

Dan M. — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:17:33 +0000

Ah yes, higher education and health past one’s child-bearing years aren’t needed; we lasted millenia without them. Let’s go back to sitting in huts asking the sky beings to not let Dad and Grandma suffer too long before they finally croak.

By: Stormy Dragon

Stormy Dragon — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 01:54:48 +0000

Things that are inherently expensive aren’t universally needed and vice versa. If the were, mankind would have gone extinct long ago.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 20:44:12 +0000

Then I’ll broaden the question. In modern history, has there ever been an example of anything that’s inherently expensive but nearly-universally needed, where the free market alone has done a good job of providing it equitably and nearly universally?