President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#43,782
#43,782
OHvol40 said:
Agreed, and funding is being cut by this admin. The fallacy that for-profit healthcare drives innovation is exactly that, a fallacy. This is for several reasons.
1. Healthcare is altruistic in nature, removing for-profit providers does not reduce the drive to innovate for the good of humanity.
2. Research can and should be publicly funded. If the people get to choose what and how to fund research based on their own needs rather than what would bring the most profits, we are removing a hurdle toward pure-intentioned research.
3. Having a single payor or primary payor system creates a reliable and competitive market for better and more efficient products, but with better incentive. Instead of cheapest being best, effectiveness and efficiency will be king.
4. Incentive for preventative public health, and innovation in this sector. Proactive instead of reactive healthcare.
5. Reduction in administrative waste.
Click to expand...
1. Provider care will become worse if they can’t get their hands on up to date technology. So if you want a cardiologist to use a 1st generation stent or your orthopedist use an antiquated joint then roll with your plan.

2. Can’t be serious. This is a joke right?

3. A single payor creates competition? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

4. Lots of words. No plan.

5. Remove government from healthcare and it would help.

This guy basically needs to move to Cuba. Hopefully he can score one of those 50s era sedans they have
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and LadyVolette
#43,784
#43,784
OHvol40 said:
Agreed, and funding is being cut by this admin. The fallacy that for-profit healthcare drives innovation is exactly that, a fallacy. This is for several reasons.
1. Healthcare is altruistic in nature, removing for-profit providers does not reduce the drive to innovate for the good of humanity.
Click to expand...
True. But profit motive also is a driver for innovation.
OHvol40 said:
2. Research can and should be publicly funded. If the people get to choose what and how to fund research based on their own needs rather than what would bring the most profits, we are removing a hurdle toward pure-intentioned research.
Click to expand...
Depends.
OHvol40 said:
3. Having a single payor or primary payor system creates a reliable and competitive market for better and more efficient products, but with better incentive. Instead of cheapest being best, effectiveness and efficiency will be king.
Click to expand...
I am unaware of this single payor efficiency model.
OHvol40 said:
4. Incentive for preventative public health, and innovation in this sector. Proactive instead of reactive healthcare.
Click to expand...
some systems are based staying healthy. Ours is based on sick care.
OHvol40 said:
5. Reduction in administrative waste.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not familiar with less bureaucracy when there is more government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, LadyVolette, hog88 and 1 other person
#43,785
#43,785
OHvol40 said:
Agreed, and funding is being cut by this admin. The fallacy that for-profit healthcare drives innovation is exactly that, a fallacy. This is for several reasons.
1. Healthcare is altruistic in nature, removing for-profit providers does not reduce the drive to innovate for the good of humanity.
2. Research can and should be publicly funded. If the people get to choose what and how to fund research based on their own needs rather than what would bring the most profits, we are removing a hurdle toward pure-intentioned research.
3. Having a single payor or primary payor system creates a reliable and competitive market for better and more efficient products, but with better incentive. Instead of cheapest being best, effectiveness and efficiency will be king.
4. Incentive for preventative public health, and innovation in this sector. Proactive instead of reactive healthcare.
5. Reduction in administrative waste.
Click to expand...
That’s a very pretty picture. Though more than a bit utopian.

Research at Universities should be funded. I agree.
But innovation certainly comes from the Private sector as well.

The next generation of pharmaceuticals is not springing forth from some altruistic collective.
I seriously doubt the next generation of medical devices are either.

I’m not saying there isn’t waste and inefficiency. Bureaucracy and profit centers at multiple levels.

But no, I’m not buying that removing profit incentive from the entire system will result in no degradation on the innovation front, as the slack is picked up by a combination of the State (lolz) and Altruists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN
#43,789
#43,789
Jxn Vol said:
1. Provider care will become worse if they can’t get their hands on up to date technology. So if you want a cardiologist to use a 1st generation stent or your orthopedist use an antiquated joint then roll with your plan.

2. Can’t be serious. This is a joke right?

3. A single payor creates competition? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

4. Lots of words. No plan.

5. Remove government from healthcare and it would help.

This guy basically needs to move to Cuba. Hopefully he can score one of those 50s era sedans they have
Click to expand...
You literally contribute nothing, welcome to the ignore list Captain douche canoe.
 
#43,791
#43,791
Orange_Crush said:
You seem to be missing the fact that the coach can/should be held responsible BECAUSE he can take away liberties. He can/should be held responsible because he ALLOWS the penalties to continue. If you have an OL that keeps getting false starts, you bench him. You eventually recruit over him and he's off the team.
Click to expand...
lol...Which is EXACTLY why I say they can't simultaneously be true....thanks for finally seeing the point
Orange_Crush said:
You're making my point.

My mother has kidney disease, COPD, diabetes, arterial disease... Her Dr coaches her about diet. My wife and I coach her. We cook for her much of the time. But you just aren't going to coach that southern diet and culture out of her. The only lifestyle change she'll ever make is if we do her grocery shopping--i.e. take her liberties.
Click to expand...
I'm confident your mother (I hope she is doing okay - my mom is 87) adjusted her diet at least a little. Had the education about proper diet started sooner - maybe she would have made even more changes.
But it is a little like a teacher and a student...a teacher can't make a child do the things necessary to learn at a high level.
Orange_Crush said:
And that's not even mentioning the fact that MUCH of the diet and lifestyle problems America has are poverty problems and not 'health system' problems. You can eat unhealthy pretty cheaply. You can't really eat healthy in the US cheaply.
Click to expand...
This is an unfortunate reality. Maybe changing that reality would actually be economically beneficial on the grand scale.
Another failure of "free market" economics?
 
#43,800
#43,800
luthervol said:
As always, the only thing worse than government is its absence. I guess that's why no society in the history of mankind has existed without it.

WHAT????????????? That is 100% categorially false.

The two statements cannot be simultaneously true. They are linked.

trumpism is the only example of the failures of the education system that carries any weight.
Click to expand...
You’re literally too indoctrinated for this conversation.

For over 15 years leading up to my picking a private school to educate my children the public schools in my area were never in the top 5 of sat and act scores.

Health care industry and average lifestyle choice are 2 completely different things

You’re a better example of the failure of public education than than your made up trumpism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, whodeycin85 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top