This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[jimbob]

I didn't mantion the cost of drugs at all in my post.

I simply asked about the cost of labor, capital, and loss of income.

Can you answer these questions convincingly?

I am sorry, but your questions are inane.

Well, can you explain why you consider them to be inane?

 

[Blue Mountain]

Yes, I had forgotten that technique used to obscure the salient points of a post.

So when we respond to only one part of a post it's because we're being pedantic and jumping on one little inconsequential point, but when we take the time to dissect all the silliness in a post it's because we're trying to obscure stuff. Great way for you to win all time.

Basically I decided to respond in kind to Architect. I wanted to see how many posts he would make following me around the forum stating that I do not provide evidence. His efforts are herculean.

As opposed to your efforts where you just spout off some right-wing free-market one-liners, then scamper away when you're called on it.

 

[Architect]

As opposed to your efforts where you just spout off some right-wing free-market one-liners, then scamper away when you're called on it.

Alas and alack, JDG employs no more than glib soundbites in a manner which suggests they are of far greater depth and import than is ever likely to be the case. Time and time again over the last few weeks he has spouted forth with some right-wing counterpoint which has evaporated under the spotlight of analysis like morning mist. And now, clearly upset at being shown to have opinions of no substance, he seeks to whine and claim it's all a cunning piece of bluff.

Sorry, Jerome, not convincing. You've lost the arguments; be a man, and admit it.

 

[Architect]

There are some here, yes. Many are only pretending.

I am surprised....this shows a level of self analysis that your posts had hitherto not hinted at. Keep working at it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Alas and alack, JDG employs no more than glib soundbites in a manner which suggests they are of far greater depth and import than is ever likely to be the case. Time and time again over the last few weeks he has spouted forth with some right-wing counterpoint which has evaporated under the spotlight of analysis like morning mist. And now, clearly upset at being shown to have opinions of no substance, he seeks to whine and claim it's all a cunning piece of bluff.

Sorry, Jerome, not convincing. You've lost the arguments; be a man, and admit it.

Which right-wing?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sorry, Jerome, not convincing. You've lost the arguments; be a man, and admit it.

I would not attempt to win an argument against those that hold fast to their faith. This is an impossible task. Some worship the Gods and others worship the State.

As Joe Friday would say: "Just the facts".

 

[Architect]

If that's your idea of a witty retort, son, you'd better start reading a lot more books.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If that's your idea of a witty retort, son, you'd better start reading a lot more books.

Was I attempting wit?

 

[jimbob]

But they wouldn't make any money in selling inherently expensive treatment at below cost.

According to this the median net worth of a renting household was $4k in 2004 (if I am reading the data correctly)

How could a household with a net worth of that actually pay any more than $4k for anything? Especially as they are likely to be poor credit risks, so borrowiong the money would be difficult.

Can we get the coronary healthcare cost below $4k?

5-hour bypass surgery: General surgeon with less than 1-year experience, $170k, Anaesthetist , less than 1-year experience, median salary $145k.

Both work 60 hour weeks for 50 weeks a year. This means that their combined equivalent hourly rate is $105/hour.

Now they are not performing surgery all of that time, so the actual money that the they are paid as an hourly rate whilst in theatre has to be higher.

As well as the two highly-skilled doctors, you need support staff, (in one photo, the team seemed to be four people), so that makes two other wages that need paying directly during the surgery.

You also need to pay for the use of the theatre, and expensive equipment, say $3million, depreciated over 5-years, when the equipment is in yse 52 weeks per year, gives a theatre cost of $11.5k/week. Now the theatre can't be in use all this time, there has to be preparation, so (generously) we could also assume a 60-hour week for the theatre, which gives $190/hour just for the theatre. Actually it will cost a lot more than this, but I am making a conservative point.

So far just taking the cost of the theatre depreciation and the salaries of the surgeon and anaesthetist, both at the bottom of their respective pay scales, and both working 60-hr weeks in theatre, we get to $295/hour, or $14745 for the five-hour surgery.

You could probably double this for more realistic utilisation rates.

You now need to add in the cost of the other two team members, and of the provision of facilities, and of the proportion of the hospital capital cost that is being depreciated (say over 30 years), and the cost of the bed and accomodation over (three days) stay inhospital.

It soon costs more than the $4k that these people have.


Rolfe works in a free-market system providing medical care to animals, so I will ask him this next question:

If someone's pet needs treatment that costs more than they can afford, do you (as the representative of the free market pixie) reduce the price of the treatment, or does the animal not get any treatment?

All those numbers are ridiculously high because of governmental interference with the market.

These questions are not inane, the answer is.

 

[jimbob]

Further, this is in response to Jerome's assertion that if there was an unfettered free market everyone in the US would be able to afford healthcare.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If that's your idea of a witty retort, son, you'd better start reading a lot more books.

I can understand that with a mighty history such as the United Kingdom's that citizens would feel envy, embarrassment, and resentment for the support America gives freely that allows for the socialist life-style currently enjoyed.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Well, can you explain why you consider them to be inane?

You are asking for an explanation for the reworking of the global economy. That is inane.

 

[jimbob]

No I am not, I am asking how someone on $7/hr with less than $4K savings could afford a week in hiospital including paying the wages of the nurses, the anaesthetist, the general surgeon, and the amortised capital costs, involved in a 5-hour surgary,, couple of days in intensive care, and three days in a general ward.

Nothing to do with reworking the global economy.

 

[Architect]

the support America gives freely that allows for the socialist life-style currently enjoyed.

Prove that the US in some way subsidised the economies of comparable western nations such as to allow them to provide citizens with a socialist welfare state.


I'll not hold my breath, as it's clear that this is just another oot-yer-erse soundbite that you'll be wholly unable to substantiate.........although whining will doubtless ensue.

 

[Architect]

I would not attempt to win an argument against those that hold fast to their faith. This is an impossible task. Some worship the Gods and others worship the State.

As Joe Friday would say: "Just the facts".

Yes, and the moment you start posting facts will be quite a day. In the meantime we'll expect more unsubstantiated waffle, eh?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No I am not, I am asking how someone on $7/hr with less than $4K savings could afford a week in hiospital including paying the wages of the nurses, the anaesthetist, the general surgeon, and the amortised capital costs, involved in a 5-hour surgary,, couple of days in intensive care, and three days in a general ward.

Nothing to do with reworking the global economy.

Do you accept that taxes are taken from this America worker and the American health-care industry for the result of subsidizing the economies in socialist nations around the world?

 

[Architect]

Do you accept that taxes are taken from this America worker and the American health-care industry for the result of subsidizing the economies in socialist nations around the world?

Nope. Prove it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Prove that the US in some way subsidised the economies of comparable western nations such as to allow them to provide citizens with a socialist welfare state.

Are you unaware of the American armies in Europe?

Are you unaware of the American contributions to the United Nations?

 

[volatile]

Do you accept that taxes are taken from this America worker and the American health-care industry for the result of subsidizing the economies in socialist nations around the world?

So you're saying that the reason the US pays more and gets less is because nations with nationalised healthcare systems are somehow not paying the full price for them?

How? Where? What is subsidised? By how much? Which parts are we in the UK not paying the full amount for? How does the US taxpayer ensure our surgeons work for less than they deserve, or that our operating costs are lower than they really should be?

Spell it out...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Prove that the US in some way subsidised the economies of comparable western nations such as to allow them to provide citizens with a socialist welfare state.

It is hard to believe that you don't know any of this.

Here is a bone.

Marshall Plan

The U.S. Congress approved Marshall's long-sighted proposal in 1948, and by 1952 the United States had channeled some $13 billion in economic aid and technical assistance to 16 European countries. During the program's four years, participating countries saw their aggregate gross national product rise more than 30 percent and industrial production increase by 40 percent over prewar levels.

Notice that this is ABOVE prewar levels.