Rand Paul headed to Canada for hernia surgery (1 Viewer)

DavidM

Admin Emeritus
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 1999
Messages
45,112
Reaction score
17,579
Offline

dtc

VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Messages
27,951
Reaction score
25,705
Location
Redneck Riviera
Offline
It's also important to remember that the average person can't easily afford $8,000 out of pocket for a medical procedure. The option for Paul to travel to Canada to buy "world-renowned" treatment isn't practical for many of the people he represents in Congress.

That's also a part of the discussion, even if his press secretary wants others to believe there is nothing to this story.
The other part of their argument was that going to a government managed system would eliminate any rights we have to seek specific, personalized or non-approved procedures.

Clearly that's all a lie.
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
542
Age
36
Offline
Slaves didn't have a choice in the matter, as they were the equivlent of livestock, and would be forced to consume enough food to perform their required tasks.


It is hypocritical.

Paul isn't paying, he is using the government to force his neighbor to pay.


He also used a practice outside of the country that has greatly benefited from universal health care, the very thing that he rails against. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.


Good for them. Has literally zero to do with whether or not he acted in a hypocritical fashion. Which he did.



The assault was over a longstanding disagreement, not politically motivated.
His democrat neighbor owes him the money. His neighbor is the one that initiated the force, so he is owed. He has to use the government to recoup the money from his violent demoncrat neighbor because that is the law.

It’s not hypocritical at all. Healthcare would be better and cheaper in a free market. It’s not hypocritical to use a doctor that is overpriced due to socialism.
 

Oye

shopgirl's metaphysic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
21,033
Reaction score
33,238
Location
Lebronto
Offline
Healthcare would be better and cheaper in a free market. It’s not hypocritical to use a doctor that is overpriced due to socialism.
yes.... that's a common complaint up here. Doctors are overpriced because socialism.

the more you post on this, the more I think the less you know
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
542
Age
36
Offline
yes.... that's a common complaint up here. Doctors are overpriced because socialism.

the more you post on this, the more I think the less you know
Same

Make sure not to pay for a service that you want. That would be hypocritical to your socialist share the wealth views.
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
542
Age
36
Offline
I’ll start by mentioning once again this will be yet another conversation you are trying to start with me while having abandoned our past ones. Climate Change and our discussion on China being the most recent examples.

And while based on past interactions I have serious doubts on the sincerity of this point, I'll go ahead and bite anyways because this incidentally is a good way to illustrate the underlying reasoning for what I said.

So lets start with a simple thought experiment by comparing two types of surgeries so maybe you catch on as well, your example, Lasik, and lets just pick stopping internal bleeding after a car crash.

What are some notable differences in the decision-making process for these two services?

The obvious one is duress. It's hard to make informed decisions under duress. Another obvious differing factor is level of knowledge, you or I are not doctors, and even if we were we would not have the tools to make an informed decision about what needs to be done to repair our bodies after a car wreck. A third differing factor is agency. If I am being escorted from the scene of an accident I am not in a place to make a value judgement about price, doctor rating, or hospital preference, in fact, that option isn't even an option if you are escorted in an ambulance.

Long story longer, the presumption in economics when it comes to decision-making is that they will follow the rational decision-making model. I.E. decisions are made with symmetrical information(both the buyer and seller are relatively equally informed and knowledgeable about the product/service they are selling/buying), the person is of sound, stable mind(not being coerced, in a panic etc.), and that the good or service and the buyer will have the time and capacity to follow an ordered, rational,decision-making process that works through and analyzes the pro's and con's of alternatives against one another. There is also the presumption that the goods and services you are deciding on are relatively elastic and non-critical.

All of those things are things that are often not capable of being fully satisfied in a lot of healthcare. Which leads to market failures. Is that shortness of breath a temporary issue or a sign of something much deeper? Is this particular pill the only thing that can keep you alive? Are there even any other qualified specialty doctors within 100 miles? I am concussed and bleeding in the back of an ambulance, what to do?

But this isn't one size fits all, there are plenty of places in the healthcare space where normal market forces can reasonably operate. Which is pretty much in areas of elective and cosmetic products and services. But these distinctions are often things I find libertarians and people like yourself look over and you just can't if you want to make an informed decision or opinion about healthcare economics. Because it is a bad assumption borne out by the results that the market for a life changing drug or decisions made under duress and/or poor information is going to end up operating efficiently and effectively like a normal market for something like Lasik or tennis shoes. Which is why no system has managed to work without a lot of subsidization, regulation, and intervention.





TLDR version:

Markets almost always require a rational-decision making process to function properly and much of the healthcare space lacks that. Lasik and other cosmetic surgeries are the exception to that.
I suppose I could possibly see some rationality in your theory if all healthcare decisions that’s aren’t cosmetic were made under extreme duress, but they’re not.

And some are under duress for cosmetic surgeries too. So yeh I disagree.
 

Yoweigh

is not a rookie
VIP Contributor
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
3,486
Reaction score
3,609
Location
Freret
Offline
Make sure not to pay for a service that you want. That would be hypocritical to your socialist share the wealth views.
Never share anything with anyone ever. That would make the frogs turn gay.
 

crosswatt

Bulldawg was my friend
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
31,437
Reaction score
43,616
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline
His democrat neighbor owes him the money. His neighbor is the one that initiated the force, so he is owed. He has to use the government to recoup the money from his violent demoncrat neighbor because that is the law.

It’s not hypocritical at all. Healthcare would be better and cheaper in a free market. It’s not hypocritical to use a doctor that is overpriced due to socialism.
Wow. You really have no understanding at all of what is happening here, do you?
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,443
Reaction score
7,737
Offline
I suppose I could possibly see some rationality in your theory if all healthcare decisions that’s aren’t cosmetic were made under extreme duress, but they’re not.

And some are under duress for cosmetic surgeries too. So yeh I disagree.
Try again Onthurday, this is exactly what I was prefacing about you NEVER engaging in these threads with respect or hoensty.

Long story longer, the presumption in economics when it comes to decision-making is that they will follow the rational decision-making model. I.E. decisions are made with symmetrical information(both the buyer and seller are relatively equally informed and knowledgeable about the product/service they are selling/buying), the person is of sound, stable mind(not being coerced, in a panic etc.), and that the good or service and the buyer will have the time and capacity to follow an ordered, rational,decision-making process that works through and analyzes the pro's and con's of alternatives against one another. There is also the presumption that the goods and services you are deciding on are relatively elastic and non-critical.
It is not simply duress that leads to these identifiable failures in many parts of this market space. Duress is but one issue that perverts the normal mechanisms that high functioning markets are hinged on. And none of that even got to the issues on the supply side that perverts the situation. Where you have issues of monopoly control of inelastic products and inadequate competitors and pricing mechanisms along with perverse market incentives in places like the employer market and amongst insurers.
 

onthurdays

All-Pro
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
542
Age
36
Offline
Try again Onthurday, this is exactly what I was prefacing about you NEVER engaging in these threads with respect or hoensty.

Long story longer, the presumption in economics when it comes to decision-making is that they will follow the rational decision-making model. I.E. decisions are made with symmetrical information(both the buyer and seller are relatively equally informed and knowledgeable about the product/service they are selling/buying), the person is of sound, stable mind(not being coerced, in a panic etc.), and that the good or service and the buyer will have the time and capacity to follow an ordered, rational,decision-making process that works through and analyzes the pro's and con's of alternatives against one another. There is also the presumption that the goods and services you are deciding on are relatively elastic and non-critical.
It is not simply duress that leads to these identifiable failures in many parts of this market space. Duress is but one issue that perverts the normal mechanisms that high functioning markets are hinged on. And none of that even got to the issues on the supply side that perverts the situation. Where you have issues of monopoly control of inelastic products and inadequate competitors and pricing mechanisms along with perverse market incentives in places like the employer market and amongst insurers.
You really have trouble articulating your arguments.

Why do you think healthcare has become so expensive since the 1960s.

It wasn’t always this way, what changed then.
 

UriUT

Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2001
Messages
348
Reaction score
447
Offline
Lol. Like for example, when people deliver babies back then, you call some lady who's done it b4 and hope it goes well. Today, you do a bunch of screening, counseling to avoid stuff that can harm your babies, etc, to ensure the best possible outcome.

You're really asking about medical advancement?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom