OHvol40
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2008
- Messages
- 9,250
- Likes
- 5,268
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.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.
True. But profit motive also is a driver for innovation.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.
Depends.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.
I am unaware of this single payor efficiency model.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.
some systems are based staying healthy. Ours is based on sick care.4. Incentive for preventative public health, and innovation in this sector. Proactive instead of reactive healthcare.
Again, I'm not familiar with less bureaucracy when there is more government.5. Reduction in administrative waste.
That’s a very pretty picture. Though more than a bit utopian.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.
You literally contribute nothing, welcome to the ignore list Captain douche canoe.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
lol...Which is EXACTLY why I say they can't simultaneously be true....thanks for finally seeing the pointYou 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.
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.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.
This is an unfortunate reality. Maybe changing that reality would actually be economically beneficial on the grand scale.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.
You’re literally too indoctrinated for this conversation.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.