Poverty today in America

[HangLow]

Level of risk assumption.

I suppose... no one blind here...
Clearly, the decision was to assume the risks.
-peace

 

[Ug make hammer]

Because many cities will charge them for the ambulance run if it is a non-emergency.

If you had Free Market healthcare, then anyone could buy $50,000 worth of ER only coverage for about $6.80/month and they could get a rider to cover the cost of ambulance service for another $0.04/month, but you don't have Free Market healthcare.

If you had Free Market healthcare, you could buy doctor office visits only for about $0.80/month with a $100 deductible or $0.92/month with no deductible.

Unfortunately, you have old Soviet-style Command Market healthcare, where people are forced to obtain doctor office visits whether the actually want them or not, and then because the deductible is typically $4,000 or higher, healthy people can't even take advantage of the service they are paying for because they never have $4,000 in medical bills.

In my world, we call that "stealing."

If you had Free Market healthcare, people could buy a $1 Million catastrophic care policy for about $64/month and they might choose to get a rider for ambulance services for another $0.04/month.

Or they might choose to get a rider for doctor office visits for another $0.80/month, or both.

Where are you getting those figures? Fantasy land?

Selling "catastrophic cover" that only covers the cost of a bullet, is not as attractive as you suppose. People who couldn't afford proper insurance would simply not insure.

In your condemnation of public healthcare, you're overlooking that it bears the burden of all the customers (particularly the elderly) that private insurers don't want.

 

[Mircea]

Who wasted? Im talking about people who are insured yet still have a lot of trouble affording insulin. The free market aint working where healthcare is concerned.

You don't have a Free Market.

You don't see to have a good grasp on Economics.

Property Theories (Capitalism, Socialism & Communism -- the 3 prevailing theories) answer one question only: Who should control Capital? - ie, the means of production.

Economic Systems answer 3 questions:

1) What shall we produce?
2) How shall we produce it?
3) For whom shall we produce it?

You answer the questions by substituting the System, and there is currently Free Market, Command Market, Traditional (still used by about 2.5 Billion people) and hybrids of those.

What shall we produce? The Market decides. Or the Command Group decides and the Command Group can be government, a government agency, a quasi-government agency or a non-government agency. Or, Tradition decides.

How shall we produce it is not a stupid question. The Market has decided to produce corn. Can you not produce corn using classical farming methods, neo-traditional farming methods or organic farming methods?

Yes, you can. You can even produce GMO corn. Are we going to let the Market decide if we want GMO or are we going to allow a Command Group to force it on us?

It works the same for all services. Healthcare is a service as is health insurance, except no one in the US has had health insurance since the 1950s --thanks to your State and federal governments. What you have is fee-for-service which is not the same thing as insurance.

People like you refuse to acknowledge that your hospitals are monopolies or organized as monopolistic cartels (like TriHealth).

That is not Free Market no matter how much you scream. On another thread, I posted all the State statutes that allow hospitals to legally operate as monopolies without punishment, because the American Hospital Association -- a non-governmental Command Group --lobbied your States to get it.

Your hospital system is Command Market, not Free Market.

Your health plan coverage -- again, no one has had health insurance since he 1950s -- is Command Market. Your State's insurance commission vis-a-vis your State legislature dictates what you must buy. That is not Free Market. That is Soviet-style Command Market.

You are barred from purchasing prescription drug coverage only, because the Command Group says you can't. That is Command Economics, not Market Economics.

And for the record, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the legal definition of insurance. If you sincerely believe you have insurance, then you can go get your policy and tell us what the cash pay-out is.

We'll wait....Good luck with that.

 

[bomberfox]

You don't have a Free Market.

You don't see to have a good grasp on Economics.

Property Theories (Capitalism, Socialism & Communism -- the 3 prevailing theories) answer one question only: Who should control Capital? - ie, the means of production.

Economic Systems answer 3 questions:

1) What shall we produce?
2) How shall we produce it?
3) For whom shall we produce it?

You answer the questions by substituting the System, and there is currently Free Market, Command Market, Traditional (still used by about 2.5 Billion people) and hybrids of those.

What shall we produce? The Market decides. Or the Command Group decides and the Command Group can be government, a government agency, a quasi-government agency or a non-government agency. Or, Tradition decides.

How shall we produce it is not a stupid question. The Market has decided to produce corn. Can you not produce corn using classical farming methods, neo-traditional farming methods or organic farming methods?

Yes, you can. You can even produce GMO corn. Are we going to let the Market decide if we want GMO or are we going to allow a Command Group to force it on us?

It works the same for all services. Healthcare is a service as is health insurance, except no one in the US has had health insurance since the 1950s --thanks to your State and federal governments. What you have is fee-for-service which is not the same thing as insurance.

People like you refuse to acknowledge that your hospitals are monopolies or organized as monopolistic cartels (like TriHealth).

That is not Free Market no matter how much you scream. On another thread, I posted all the State statutes that allow hospitals to legally operate as monopolies without punishment, because the American Hospital Association -- a non-governmental Command Group --lobbied your States to get it.

Your hospital system is Command Market, not Free Market.

Your health plan coverage -- again, no one has had health insurance since he 1950s -- is Command Market. Your State's insurance commission vis-a-vis your State legislature dictates what you must buy. That is not Free Market. That is Soviet-style Command Market.

You are barred from purchasing prescription drug coverage only, because the Command Group says you can't. That is Command Economics, not Market Economics.

And for the record, yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has defined the legal definition of insurance. If you sincerely believe you have insurance, then you can go get your policy and tell us what the cash pay-out is.

We'll wait....Good luck with that.

Yes we do have essentially a free market. Ambulatory services are privatized, pharmaceuticals are privatized, insurance privatized, hospitals largely privatized. We even have privatized prisons.

Regulations =\= command economy.

Healthcare in the US is the most privatized in the world.

There is no perfect dichotomy between personal and environmental factors.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Yes we do have essentially a free market. Ambulatory services are privatized, pharmaceuticals are privatized, insurance privatized, hospitals largely privatized. We even have privatized prisons.

Regulations =\= command economy.

Healthcare in the US is the most privatized in the world.

There is no perfect dichotomy between personal and environmental factors.

I think the point is that monopolies behave more like a "command group" than a free market. The essential difference being that the competition advantages for the consumer (that Free Market supposedly supplies) are not present in a monopoly.

I'll add to that: US health insurance is not actually a monopoly, but within each hospital they are. You don't have two Radiology departments competing on price and service, so it's actually irrelevant whether Radiology is covered by a different insurer than Surgery is. If you need Radiology and there's a better price in some other hospital, are you going to check out and take a cab there and back?

 

[bomberfox]

I think the point is that monopolies behave more like a "command group" than a free market. The essential difference being that the competition advantages for the consumer (that Free Market supposedly supplies) are not present in a monopoly.

I'll add to that: US health insurance is not actually a monopoly, but within each hospital they are. You don't have two Radiology departments competing on price and service, so it's actually irrelevant whether Radiology is covered by a different insurer than Surgery is. If you need Radiology and there's a better price in some other hospital, are you going to check out and take a cab there and back?

Within each state actually. I believe healthcare unlike most other products has a very inelastic demand curve which makes market structures incapable of handling it. Markets work well when the demand curve is more elastic.

I brought up ambulances because that service is no longer treated as a public good and has been more and more privatized which is why people are more afraid yo call one lately.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Within each state actually. I believe healthcare unlike most other products has a very inelastic demand curve which makes market structures incapable of handling it. Markets work well when the demand curve is more elastic.

Even NHS systems have this problem. If there are two private radiology clinics, doctors will generally use the nearest one even if it's not cheaper. To them it's an "insurance job" and price doesn't matter because it's paid by government.

I brought up ambulances because that service is no longer treated as a public good and has been more and more privatized which is why people are more afraid yo call one lately.

Maybe Uber should start an ambulance service

 

[bomberfox]

Even NHS systems have this problem. If there are two private radiology clinics, doctors will generally use the nearest one even if it's not cheaper. To them it's an "insurance job" and price doesn't matter because it's paid by government.



Maybe Uber should start an ambulance service

People are using uber for ambulance services…… thats the ****in problem.

 

[Ug make hammer]

People are using uber for ambulance services…… thats the ****in problem.

Yeah, I'd rather have trained officers and all the equipment, than some guy whose day job is serving burgers. But it's still safer than driving yourself when you're sick.

Why ISN'T there competition in the ambulance market? Unlike departments in a hospital which all have to be co-ordinated, ambulances could be freelance. People who aren't very sick but have no other way of getting to hospital, could choose a cheaper and slower service. While people who need the defibrillator in a real ambulance would pay more.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[bomberfox]

Yeah, I'd rather have trained officers and all the equipment, than some guy whose day job is serving burgers. But it's still safer than driving yourself when you're sick.

Why ISN'T there competition in the ambulance market? Unlike departments in a hospital which all have to be co-ordinated, ambulances could be freelance. People who aren't very sick but have no other way of getting to hospital, could choose a cheaper and slower service. While people who need the defibrillator in a real ambulance would pay more.

Why does there need to be competition in ambulances? Why cant it be considered a public service like firefighters?

Right now private equity firms own a lot of those services and now people who drive ambulances

 

[Ug make hammer]

Why does there need to be competition in ambulances? Why cant it be considered a public service like firefighters?

Right now private equity firms own a lot of those services and now people who drive ambulances

People over-use ambulances if they're free. Whereas they don't set fire to their own houses.

In a public system, you could have Emergency ambulances, Urgent ambulances, and Transport ambulances. I guess.

 

[bomberfox]

People over-use ambulances if they're free. Whereas they don't set fire to their own houses.

In a public system, you could have Emergency ambulances, Urgent ambulances, and Transport ambulances. I guess.

Um no they dont overuse ambulances if they are free. Right now ambulance personnel are having to swipe materials from hospital staff just to make ends meet.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Um no they dont overuse ambulances if they are free. Right now ambulance personnel are having to swipe materials from hospital staff just to make ends meet.

Heart attack victims wait hours for ambulance

More than 40,000 people in England who called 999 with a “category 2” condition such as a stroke or a heart attack waited more than an hour and 40 minutes for a

www.thetimes.co.uk

(Sorry for the paywalled source, but relevant info is in the first paragraphs)

Average for an ambulance to turn up, 46 minutes. This defeats the purpose of having ambulances at all (to provide treatment on the spot and/or on the way to hospital) when someone could drive you to the hospital more quickly.

 

[bomberfox]

Heart attack victims wait hours for ambulance

More than 40,000 people in England who called 999 with a “category 2” condition such as a stroke or a heart attack waited more than an hour and 40 minutes for a

www.thetimes.co.uk

(Sorry for the paywalled source, but relevant info is in the first paragraphs)

Average for an ambulance to turn up, 46 minutes. This defeats the purpose of having ambulances at all (to provide treatment on the spot and/or on the way to hospital) when someone could drive you to the hospital more quickly.

Single source against a society wide issue in which Americans fear calling an ambulance mmkay?…

 

[Ug make hammer]

Single source against a society wide issue in which Americans fear calling an ambulance mmkay?…

I despise the habit some people have of providing six sources where one will do. The UK has a problem of underfunding, across their whole NHS (including it seems, ambulances) but there's also the problem that a minority of people over-use the service when it's free. It's a no-brainer that the US would have the same problem, and it wouldn't take decades of underfunding and over-use either. It would happen within years.

 

[XDU]

Single source against a society wide issue in which Americans fear calling an ambulance mmkay?…

Considering I've literally been called to do ambulance runs at least once a month as a rideshare driver including 120 mph down the highway for a pregnant woman in labor, it doesn't seem that outrageous.

 

[XDU]

Why does there need to be competition in ambulances? Why cant it be considered a public service like firefighters?

Right now private equity firms own a lot of those services and now people who drive ambulances

...because it costs $1000 for an ambulance run in some cities.

 

[Ug make hammer]

...because it costs $1000 for an ambulance run in some cities.

A lot to spend if it's only a junkie needing a shot of narcan.

 

[XDU]

A lot to spend if it's only a junkie needing a shot of narcan.

Junkies often don't get charged, nor are they the ones seeking alternatives to ambulances.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Junkies often don't get charged, nor are they the ones seeking alternatives to ambulances.

You understand that a junkie having an overdose is practically helpless, right? Someone else calls them an ambulance, the ambulance staff shoot them up with Narcan and hang around to check the dose is right. Then typically the junkie will cuss them out for wasting their hit! Staff don't want the junkie in their ambulance, and the junkie doesn't want to go to hospital anyway.

Junkies who aren't far gone, sometimes keep Narcan around the house in case they have an overdose. A small dose can bring them back from the brink of death without obliterating their high. This should be encouraged, if only because it's more immediate. Shops should also have legal immunity to administer Narcan to junkies who stagger in and collapse, or pass out on the street outside. Not only would it save ambulance time, it would also save lives.

 

[HangLow]

Did I just propose compulsory shareholding for the poor?
Yeah? Let's talk about minimum wage then. I'm not tolerating working people living in poverty, and not having a bar of that "they should upgrade their skills with the money left over from continually replacing their bootstraps" right wing moonshine.

​

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[HangLow]

Thanks. The links are a good read.

​

 

[Lafayette]

DIFFERENT STROKES FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS

Stigmatize those who let people die, not those who struggle to live.​

When somebody will get proper hospitalization because they cannot afford the cost, then it is an indication of a major failure of the country to provide the services that support any individuals health.

Healthcare is a "business" in the US. Practicing doctors make one helluva lot of money - and, of course, they feel they deserve to do so because their university instruction was so costly.

In Europe, that is rarely a question. A student can get a medical-degree for about the tenth of what it costs in the US. Whyzzat?

Because, unlike the US, Europeans think that having a much lower cost National Healthcare Service is far more important than maintaining a National Defense.

From here: Health Systems tracker

Health spending per person in the U.S. was $11,945 in 2020, which was over $4,000 more expensive than any other high-income nation. The average amount spent on health per person in comparable [EU] countries ($5,736) is roughly half that of the U.S.