RedskinsMayne

Fixed!

Larry, I agree about hospice, suicide, and euthanasia. If we lived in a logical world these would be easy decisions...

It is interesting that we spend more than anyone on health care, education, and infrastructure, get worse results, and yet the problem isn't systemic but instead could be solved by reducing costs. It almost sounds like that broadening the base to pay for it we keep hearing about. Maybe we should focus on medical research instead of "insuring everyone".

So, it's cool if some people aren't covered. Cant be responsible for what stupid people say. I think he is referring to the fact that by law emergency rooms have to stabilize trauma victims. But, of course that is not the only way people die. They die far more commonly of diabetes, heart failure, and cancer. It's not my Republican Party. I'm an independent. I was never arguing against universal healthcare coverage. Just whether or not there are systemic differences between Europe and America in regards to healthcare.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

https://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG2014-Indicator B1 (eng).pdf looks like we spend more per student that any other country on education. Should we not expect similar results in healthcare?

Yet many people remain uninsured right? We want to insure everyone. Everyone can't afford healthcare now. So we have the hospitals, the government pays for them, and yet we are paying more and getting less. And our healthcare system still needs work.

A lot lot of our infrastructure is rated deficient... a lot of schools are failing/overcrowded . I don't feel like the school system and roadways/infrastructure are a great example of the system working well. It would be interesting to see how much we spend per student versus how much the average European country spends, I think that is good analog.

you don't think there will be hospitals whose resources will be underutilized? Because that's where I think the increased costs come from. If every hospital is fully utilized sure, there are no increased costs. But, if you have machinery/equipment sitting unused, rooms unfilled, you are spending money on those things but receiving no benefit from them. That's why it costs more.

You need to not only serve the population centers, which you can say is similar to places like U.K., but you also have to serve the part of the population that is spread out. It's not having it both ways, because you actually have to have it both ways to meet the requirements of a functioning healthcare system. the basic model I made is the best case lowest cost system. You need all those hospitals, plus more. Each additional hospital has the associated fixed costs mention earlier. which part of the model do you think is inaccurate ?

Each building requires overhead, maintenance, janitorial staff, utilities, construction, expensive imaging equipment. Those are called fixed costs. We have more fixed costs than other countries simply because we need more facilities to care for people. Its a close approximation. I said the minimum we would need. We need more to serve population centers, but that only adds to our larger-than-Europe fixed costs. These are costs you have to pay before you even see the first patient. my main point is Europe isn't a good analog for US healthcare. I'm actually surprised peope are arguing that.

I actually did not include Alaska for that reason.

I'm not sure what you are saying... there are a lot more people and there are a lot more geographical areas to cover. So, what is that, 50 miles? Square miles in United States: Roughy 3 million square miles Square miles in United Kingdom: Roughly 100,000 square miles. In the United States we would require: 3,000,000/(50*50) At least 1200 hospitals to maintain a level of service required In the United Kingdom: 100,000/(50*50) 40 hospitals so, in order to provide a hospital roughly every 50 square miles in the U.K. you need atleast 40 hospitals, while in the United States you need at least 1200 hospitals.

Lets ignore number of people covered for just a moment. What do you think the maximum distance a person should have to travel in order to visit a government ran hospital is?

If profits are taken out of healthcare companies are taken out of health care. If the potential of profit is taken out what motivation is there for most medical advances, especially medicine.

Yes, woman should be able to do what they see fit with their own bodies. Ending funding for planned parenthood because they offer a service some people don't like is asinine. I believe I've posted that before.

I did in my first post. It's not just the number of people, it's the fact they are also more already out. You need more hospitals, more medical buildings, all those have overhead costs. Because the United States is more spread out you need more buildings to cover the same amount of people so costs increase more per unit. Having small companies do health care would exacerbate the cost problem, not solve it, as everyone of them would need there own buildings/management/etc. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible, but saying it's as easy as Europe isn't telling the whole story.

I was for Obamacare as initially passed. I'm not dismissing facts. My point is pointing to Europe and saying they can do it, we can too, is an oversimplification. As a result of geographical differences, in order to give everyone access to government health care as is done in Europe, there would have to multitudes more medical centers. That means a lot more overhead. More janitors, more security, more buildings, more maintenance, more utility expenses, more administrative costs, more paper work. And that's before you even get around to providing medical care. That's just geological differences alone. Secondly, we have more people. That means we need more doctors. Each of those doctors needs its own support staff, secretaries, nurses, insurance. That's before providing medical care. The cost increases aren't linear, they are exponential. You can't just mandate that medical endurance companies lower payment and increase benefits. Companies operate to make money, if they can't make money they won't operate. Lets assume the government said "You can live on $8 hr, so henceforth you will only be allowed to charge $8 hr for your labor as long as you are doing x" How long would it be before you started doing y?

European countries have far few people and a far smaller geographical area to cover.

Good. Because I couldn't find shoulder at the store.

I think the problem with my bbq is keep getting the butt instead of the shoulder...

How to you make the BBQ shred? I got a smoker, but my meat doesn't shred like that... I cut it into smaller pieces, but it stays firm. I got it to shred once but I don't think I did anything different? I agree, and it's crazy expensive

If you fight the cop, you are charged with assault because you are physically attacking him. People don't generally get charged for arguing with him... I would say asking someone to stop an investigation into a crime that never happened is not a crime while punching a cop is a crime. If a crime did happen, even a crime like perjury, then yes, he should be charged with obstruction. Thank you. I agree that it important to be exposed to thoughts outside our bubble.

I think it's more likely a person running around the train shouting every racist name in the book and stabbing random people is more likely than not mainly crazy. However, since the two aren't mutually exclusive he could be racist as well.

did congress and the fbi actually get involved with that or was it just a republican tabloid story I agree, and that's what i said.