yea that.. I still fail to see how the idea in the OP is a bad thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FM go ahead and delete my posts. I was just playing around with you. I honestly didn't think you would go for it after the second post. Sorry.
Less than $55. As I said, "How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service get it for free?"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, how the hell do you know how much it costs to say hello to the doctor?AussieReaper wrote:
It's not $55 to say hello to a doctor...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
PUBLIC HEALTHCARE NOT FREE
Keep trying to twist the "free" to mean not taxed dollars because you can't come up with a counter argument. You know the context I'm using "free" is to walk in and pay nothing.
ok FM - if my company offers me 100%, and i have no co-pay, what part of hree don't you get?
If by OP you mean Harmor I don't think he thinks it is. If by OP you mean the article then there is a negative slant towards any idea that physical well-being has an absolute cost associated with it. The idea that your health can be equated to dollars and cents is too much of an ego hit for a lot of people to accept.Kmarion wrote:
yea that.. I still fail to see how the idea in the OP is a bad thing.
13/f/taiwan wrote:
FM go ahead and delete my posts account. I was just playing around with you. I honestly didn't think you would go for it after the second post. Sorry.
Proof, or you are talking out of your ass.AussieReaper wrote:
Less than $55. As I said, "How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service get it for free?"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, how the hell do you know how much it costs to say hello to the doctor?AussieReaper wrote:
It's not $55 to say hello to a doctor...
Keep trying to twist the "free" to mean not taxed dollars because you can't come up with a counter argument. You know the context I'm using "free" is to walk in and pay nothing.
Who the hell uses free to mean "I don't pay anything right now, but I do pay for something"? If you pay for something with a credit card is it free because you delay payment? Is the store compensated?
if you aren't fucking with me:burnzz wrote:
ok FM - if my company offers me 100%, and i have no co-pay, what part of hree don't you get?
Health insurance is part of your compensation.
Imagine the big bad evil Wal Mart ends up saving American Health care.
I'm just talking about increased availability. I don't see much difference between a Walmart offering and a walk in clinic offering.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If by OP you mean Harmor I don't think he thinks it is. If by OP you mean the article then there is a negative slant towards any idea that physical well-being has an absolute cost associated with it. The idea that your health can be equated to dollars and cents is too much of an ego hit for a lot of people to accept.Kmarion wrote:
yea that.. I still fail to see how the idea in the OP is a bad thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'll answer this for my bigheaded friend. That 100% is out of your pay, you just don't see it because it is "paid" for by the employer before it gets deducted out of your check. Now your employer might not actually give you the option of 100% pay or that amount on your check, but it's part of your compensation.burnzz wrote:
ok FM - if my company offers me 100%, and i have no co-pay, what part of hree don't you get?
it's 100% coverage! FM, are you deliberately ignoring me!?
Yeah but the people writing the article don't know about walk-in clinics and how they are already offering a service exactly like this. That would be people stepping up to do privately what the government is supposed to do for us.Kmarion wrote:
I'm just talking about increased availability. I don't see much difference between a Walmart offering and a walk in clinic offering.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If by OP you mean Harmor I don't think he thinks it is. If by OP you mean the article then there is a negative slant towards any idea that physical well-being has an absolute cost associated with it. The idea that your health can be equated to dollars and cents is too much of an ego hit for a lot of people to accept.Kmarion wrote:
yea that.. I still fail to see how the idea in the OP is a bad thing.
Still no counter argument hey? Just crying that it's not free, wah wah.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Proof, or you are talking out of your ass.AussieReaper wrote:
Less than $55. As I said, "How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service get it for free?"Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, how the hell do you know how much it costs to say hello to the doctor?
Keep trying to twist the "free" to mean not taxed dollars because you can't come up with a counter argument. You know the context I'm using "free" is to walk in and pay nothing.
Who the hell uses free to mean "I don't pay anything right now, but I do pay for something"? If you pay for something with a credit card is it free because you delay payment? Is the store compensated?
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Try to keep up.
What would be really great is if Walmart employees used government benefits to go to Walmart clinics. The cycle is complete!
I guess.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah but the people writing the article don't know about walk-in clinics and how they are already offering a service exactly like this. That would be people stepping up to do privately what the government is supposed to do for us.Kmarion wrote:
I'm just talking about increased availability. I don't see much difference between a Walmart offering and a walk in clinic offering.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If by OP you mean Harmor I don't think he thinks it is. If by OP you mean the article then there is a negative slant towards any idea that physical well-being has an absolute cost associated with it. The idea that your health can be equated to dollars and cents is too much of an ego hit for a lot of people to accept.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The cost is not lowered, it is spread. I already said that. The cost is fixed - the number of people who get sick (largely) doesn't change depending on who is paying. The cost of the doctor visit is not necessarily less.AussieReaper wrote:
Still no counter argument hey? Just crying that it's not free, wah wah.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Proof, or you are talking out of your ass.AussieReaper wrote:
Less than $55. As I said, "How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service get it for free?"
Keep trying to twist the "free" to mean not taxed dollars because you can't come up with a counter argument. You know the context I'm using "free" is to walk in and pay nothing.
Who the hell uses free to mean "I don't pay anything right now, but I do pay for something"? If you pay for something with a credit card is it free because you delay payment? Is the store compensated?
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Try to keep up.
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The cycle is complete!
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
qftKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
here's my take; when we commoditize healthcare (thx Obama) it will be low cost, and those riding on the backs of the proletariat will have it virtually free. as in, no cost to us.
No, he isn't even using the efficiency of scale argument. What he said:KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of cooperation and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
If you only read the last line the reasonable assumption is he is using the economics of scale to make his case, but you read what he wrote above that and he is saying a cost spreading model lowers the cost.Aussiereaper wrote:
Not every single person will visit a doctor in the year. They may not visit the doctor for a number of years.
How hard is it to work out that the costs are easily offset when those who don't use the service pay a very small amount so that those who do use the service (and in many cases NEED to use the service) get it for free?
When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math...
The cost is lowered for the individual, they pay less of their tax dollars towards the health care because it is spread throughout the entire population. I'm still just repeating myself though...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The cost is not lowered, it is spread. I already said that. The cost is fixed - the number of people who get sick (largely) doesn't change depending on who is paying. The cost of the doctor visit is not necessarily less.AussieReaper wrote:
Still no counter argument hey? Just crying that it's not free, wah wah.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Proof, or you are talking out of your ass.
Who the hell uses free to mean "I don't pay anything right now, but I do pay for something"? If you pay for something with a credit card is it free because you delay payment? Is the store compensated?
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Try to keep up.
Can you offer any reason why the user pay system is superior?
What works in Australia's small, homogenous population may not work well in America's large, diverse population. People in other nations often forget that factKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Yup Yup, then we have all those illegals that don't pay into the system and such.S.Lythberg wrote:
What works in Australia's small, homogenous population may not work well in America's large, diverse population. People in other nations often forget that factKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
It would make a little more sense to do it on the state level.S.Lythberg wrote:
What works in Australia's small, homogenous population may not work well in America's large, diverse population. People in other nations often forget that factKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Not necessarily. It's supposed to work like that but often doesn't in the real world (aka not theoretical). We all understand the idea of co-ops and concentration of resources. Society doesn't act according to theoretical or statistical models, especially on a large scale.AussieReaper wrote:
As I said a few posts ago "When an entire population supports the health care the cost is lowered. You know simple math..."
Xbone Stormsurgezz