According to R-Money, uninsured can get care paid for. Oh Really?

[lazlohollyfeld]

Agreed. There are several excellent texts I could recommend to you.

He is referencing basic game theory, I think he has it covered. Perhaps he could recommend some texts for you?

 

[CharminTide]

He is referencing basic game theory, I think he has it covered. Perhaps he could recommend some texts for you?

Bodhi and I have danced this dance before, and we're both quite familiar with what the other advocates. Thanks for the input though.

 

[ValuJet]

Bodhi and I have danced this dance before, and we're both quite familiar with what the other advocates. Thanks for the input though.

You've danced with Bodhi??

He may have somethin' to say about that.

 

[Tide1986]

You've danced with Bodhi??

He may have somethin' to say about that.

Maybe you should change CharminTide's name to TwinkleToes?

 

[Tider@GW_Law]

He is referencing basic game theory, I think he has it covered. Perhaps he could recommend some texts for you?

Game theory does not apply in the manner described in the modern American healthcare system. Again, healthcare is something everyone will need at one point or another (and there are, of course, broader economic implications when people don't get it).

For instance, there are extremely high underlying fixed costs to the American healthcare system, many of which have more to do with what we, as Americans, expect from the healthcare system (e.g., the most intelligent and capable being attracted to careers in medicine, which takes appropriate salaries) - regulations flow from this too (e.g., people expect sanitary hospitals and no post-service price gouging). With anything that involves very large, unexpected bills there is almost certainly an insurance product for it.

This is one of a myriad of underlying, overarching issues that have led us to the system we have today and why health economics is treated quite separately by most institutions of higher learning (aside from the history of WWII tax deductions, Kaiser, and the Blues). There are even more basic ones than this, such as the fact that "what the market will bear" is whatever is all the money to which a person (and most likely the family too) has access when that person is gravely ill.

Unfortunately, some folks here are just unwilling to learn, so I'll probably not waste anymore time on this one.

 

[CharminTide]

You've danced with Bodhi??

He may have somethin' to say about that.

I don't dance and tell, mister.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Game theory does not apply in the manner described in the modern American healthcare system. Again, healthcare is something everyone will need at one point or another (and there are, of course, broader economic implications when people don't get it).

For instance, there are extremely high underlying fixed costs to the American healthcare system, many of which have more to do with what we, as Americans, expect from the healthcare system (e.g., the most intelligent and capable being attracted to careers in medicine, which takes appropriate salaries) - regulations flow from this too (e.g., people expect sanitary hospitals and no post-service price gouging). With anything that involves very large, unexpected bills there is almost certainly an insurance product for it.

This is one of a myriad of underlying, overarching issues that have led us to the system we have today and why health economics is treated quite separately by most institutions of higher learning (aside from the history of WWII tax deductions, Kaiser, and the Blues). There are even more basic ones than this, such as the fact that "what the market will bear" is whatever is all the money to which a person (and most likely the family too) has access when that person is gravely ill.

Unfortunately, some folks here are just unwilling to learn, so I'll probably not waste anymore time on this one.

It's funny that your response to everything is that economics/human nature/game theory/whatever don't apply. Apparently the only things that do apply are the whims of mis-educated bureaucrats and wonks.

Government programs are expensive failures that rarely solve problems and almost always involve unfortunate consequences. We see that with health care, education, defense spending, housing policy, affirmative action, the war on drugs, etc. Virtually everything is a disaster, yet you advocate more.

The simple fact is that a policy that incentivizes bad behavior is foolish and should be ended, not expanded. I posed some analogies earlier. Instead of disproving my analogies, you cop out and say it doesn't apply. It's human nature; it most certainly does apply. I mean, it is humans that are buying and paying for this service, right?

We see this nonsense everyday. I've relayed the abuse of tax payer-provided services that my wife has witnessed in hospitals many times. Why is there abuse? Because government policy ignores the basics. When someone else pays your bills, you have no incentive to hold down costs. You can't get around that fact.

 

[JPT4Bama]

Game theory does not apply in the manner described in the modern American healthcare system. Again, healthcare is something everyone will need at one point or another (and there are, of course, broader economic implications when people don't get it).

For instance, there are extremely high underlying fixed costs to the American healthcare system, many of which have more to do with what we, as Americans, expect from the healthcare system (e.g., the most intelligent and capable being attracted to careers in medicine, which takes appropriate salaries) - regulations flow from this too (e.g., people expect sanitary hospitals and no post-service price gouging). With anything that involves very large, unexpected bills there is almost certainly an insurance product for it.

This is one of a myriad of underlying, overarching issues that have led us to the system we have today and why health economics is treated quite separately by most institutions of higher learning (aside from the history of WWII tax deductions, Kaiser, and the Blues). There are even more basic ones than this, such as the fact that "what the market will bear" is whatever is all the money to which a person (and most likely the family too) has access when that person is gravely ill.

Unfortunately, some folks here are just unwilling to learn, so I'll probably not waste anymore time on this one.

I must thank you for helping me save on future healthcare costs. I no longer need a prescription for Ambien thanks to you and your sleep inducing verbiage.

 

[seebell]

I must thank you for helping me save on future healthcare costs. I no longer need a prescription for Ambien thanks to you and your sleep inducing verbiage.

You health care thief. You can count sheep instead. If you can't sleep it's your own fault and choice!

 

[swoop10]

You health care thief. You can count sheep instead. If you can't sleep it's your own fault and choice!

Hey look if Sandra Sl....ah,ah, I mean Fluck can get free birth control then why shouldn't JPT get free Ambien?

 

[NationalTitles18]

It is partially true that the uninsured can get care paid for.

Better not be a guy and you better not work, though. And you'd better find someone who can navigate the myriad programs out there, both private and public. And you'd better not be a provider tryingto provide free services or the federal government is coming after you unless you play the game their way.

 

[Tide1986]

You health care thief. You can count sheep instead. If you can't sleep it's your own fault and choice!

Maybe his wife should just hit him over the head each evening.

 

[swoop10]

Maybe his wife should just hit him over the head each evening.

No she better not do that, I honestly think that is what is wrong with seebell. He's a little soft upstairs now and I think he has a warped skillet to prove it.

 

[seebell]

Hey look if Sandra Sl....ah,ah, I mean Fluck can get free birth control then why shouldn't JPT get free Ambien?

I think she and JPT should sleep together. Solve both problems:biggrin:

 

[chanson78]

That's not what I said. I said the standard should be that people are responsible for their own health and the consequences of being smart or lax with one's eating and exercise habits.

But as long as someone can receive care with no insurance there is no economic incentive for people who cannot afford insurance to purchase it. Hence the reason that I said you favor changing the law. That law is the single reason that people are not lining up to take responsibility because there are no consequences. When you said that the standard should be that people take responsibility that seems an awful lot like wishing for a segment of the population to begin doing something they have shown that they are unwilling or unable to do.

Example ..... In a basic 2 x 2 game involving money and what is bought, there are four possible scenarios. (1) If you are buying something for yourself using an unknown person's money, you will indulge on quality and not care about about the cost. (2) When you are buying something for someone you'll never meet and using your money, you'll hold the line on cost and not care at all about the quality of the purchase. (3) When you are buying something for a stranger and using a different stranger's money neither holding down cost nor acquiring quality is the incentive. (4) When you pay your own bills you are vigilant about the amount of money you are spending and the quality of the product/service your are acquiring. I advocate scenario 4 as the standard, which incentivizes both lowering cost and increasing quality. The government pushes scenario 3, which is to make everyone buy expensive crap.

Your representation of what the government is doing is disingenuous at best. Sure they are helping to subsidize the poors contribution to Medicare but by and large the most unpopular provision of the ACA is the government mandate that everyone must have insurance of some kind. That was the legal challenge all the way up to the USSC.

So I guess my next question would be that if you believe everyone should take personal responsibility when it comes to buying some form of insurance, why not legislate that responsibility, since the personal responsibility thing hasn't been working so hot in the past?

 

[seebell]

No she better not do that, I honestly think that is what is wrong with seebell. He's a little soft upstairs now and I think he has a warped skillet to prove it.

This is first thing I see every morning!:blush:

Then Wham!!

 

[swoop10]

This is first thing I see every morning!:blush:

Then Wham!!

Hey, she is better looking than I had pictured in my mind. You know how most lib women look like Big Siss, that is what I had pictured for you.

 

[CajunCrimson]

Hey look if Sandra Sl....ah,ah, I mean Fluck can get free birth control then why shouldn't JPT get free Ambien?

I will personally pay for permanent contraception for her and any lib gladly...I would consider it an investment in our future

 

[seebell]

I will personally pay for permanent contraception for her and any lib gladly...I would consider it an investment in our future

You mean like castration?:eek2::biggrin:

 

[Bodhisattva]

But as long as someone can receive care with no insurance there is no economic incentive for people who cannot afford insurance to purchase it. Hence the reason that I said you favor changing the law. That law is the single reason that people are not lining up to take responsibility because there are no consequences. When you said that the standard should be that people take responsibility that seems an awful lot like wishing for a segment of the population to begin doing something they have shown that they are unwilling or unable to do.

I don't advocate mandatory insurance for basic medical needs. The problem with insurance for regular and routine expenses is similar to my previously posted analogies. Goverment involvement just intensifies the incentive to waste.

Your representation of what the government is doing is disingenuous at best.

Heh. You do realize the government is not spending its own money, right? And the people spending it are not buying the widget for themselves, right? Since I currently work for the federal government in acquisitions, you statement should read, "Your representation of what the government is doing is spot on." I see this everyday. The government wants a widget, and there is very little incentive to get it at a good price. And I've seen the lead time in these acquisitions grow from about 45 days to 6 months thanks to additional layers of bureaucracy (all in the name of efficiency). So, yeah, it always amuses me when someone claims the government does things well. One can only say that if they are clueless or dishonest. (But, you'll still get seebell to "like" your posts. )

Sure they are helping to subsidize the poors contribution to Medicare but by and large the most unpopular provision of the ACA is the government mandate that everyone must have insurance of some kind. That was the legal challenge all the way up to the USSC.

So I guess my next question would be that if you believe everyone should take personal responsibility when it comes to buying some form of insurance, why not legislate that responsibility, since the personal responsibility thing hasn't been working so hot in the past?

It's not taking personal responsibility if someone else is paying the bills. Making Peter buy insurance (when insurance for basic care is not a great idea in the first place) with Paul's money sounds like good policy to you?