Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[@DCGoldPants]

That's an easy commercial right there. "page 33 of the Trumpcare etc etc. 3 billion I'm savings because your Mother/Father/Child/Neighbor..."

[LadySkinsFan]

Worth considering. 

 

 

[RedskinsMayne]

9 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

Actually no, you didn't.  

 

What you did was assert (without any support whatsoever) that providing health care to more people, requites more costs.  (An assertion which I completely agree with.)  

 

The only attempt to explain the relationship between number of people treated, and number of people hired, was the one line of yours that I quoted.  

 

And again, my point (which I note you chose not to address):  

 

If treating 2x more people costs more than 2x dollars, then every time company X buys another hospital (or expands one), the cost of health care per person goes up.  (And, conversely, if you split Company X into Companies X1 and X2, costs for treating the same people who are already being treated, goes down.)  

 

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?

Edited May 28, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[twa]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Worth considering. 

 

 

 

Good point, we need to reduce prison benefits.

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

37 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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?

You know that almost all hospitals are already government funded, right?

Edited May 28, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Larry]

55 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

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?

 

Yes, let's ignore the first untrue line of reasoning which you spent multiple posts trying to use, to justify your assertion that we cannot possibly look at how other places are doing things better than we are, and move to your second one. 

 

(And oh, by the way, let's ignore the fact that you are the only person in the thread proposing that we need to establish a national standard guaranteeing that the most inaccessible person in the nation can not be permitted to ever be more than X minutes from a hospital.)  

 

Let's make it simple, and pretend that the answer is "whatever it is, right now". 

[RedskinsMayne]

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yes, let's ignore the first untrue line of reasoning which you spent multiple posts trying to use, to justify your assertion that we cannot possibly look at how other places are doing things better than we are, and move to your second one. 

 

I'm not sure what you are saying... there are a lot more people and there are a lot more geographical areas to cover.  

 

10 minutes ago, Larry said:

(And oh, by the way, let's ignore the fact that you are the only person in the thread proposing that we need to establish a national standard guaranteeing that the most inaccessible person in the nation can not be permitted to ever be more than X minutes from a hospital.)  

 

Let's make it simple, and pretend that the answer is "whatever it is, right now". 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[dchogs]

1 minute ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

excellent... there are over 5500 registered hospitals in the US.  sounds like we're already saving money!

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

5 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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.

Where are you going with this dude? We already have hospitals and they're already government funded.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[TradeTheBeal!]

It's astounding to me that Mayne is still pursuing this line of reasoning.

 

Fun fact:  Alaska is roughly 645,000 square miles!

[daveakl]

32 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

It's astounding to me that Mayne is still pursuing this line of reasoning.

 

Fun fact:  Alaska is roughly 645,000 square miles!

Does this take into account land covered by water?

[RedskinsMayne]

58 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

It's astounding to me that Mayne is still pursuing this line of reasoning.

 

Fun fact:  Alaska is roughly 645,000 square miles!

 

I actually did not include Alaska for that reason. 

[dfitzo53]

Side note, if you want to make sure everybody is within 50 miles of a hospital that isn't even the right calculation. 

 

For this argument let's assume it is though, since apparently there are already 4x the amount you think we'll need. 

 

So again, where are you taking this?

[RedskinsMayne]

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Where are you going with this dude? We already have hospitals and they're already government funded.

 

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.

4 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Side note, if you want to make sure everybody is within 50 miles of a hospital that isn't even the right calculation. 

 

For this argument let's assume it is though, since apparently there are already 4x the amount you think we'll need. 

 

So again, where are you taking this?

 

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.

Edited May 28, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[dfitzo53]

6 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

 

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.

You've acknowledged that we need more to serve population centers, but you haven't factored that into your model on the UK side. The population density of the UK is significantly higher than the U.S. (I bring this up because your original contention is that the U.S. being spread out makes the cost unwieldy, but now you're complaining about the cost in population centers. I don't think you can have it both ways.)

 

By the way, are you basing all of this on anything other than your own reasoning? In other words, is there feasibility study or assessment out there that you're drawing from that we could look at?

[RedskinsMayne]

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 ?

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

17 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

which part of the model do you think is inaccurate ?

The part where it costs more per person.

 

Yes, we have greater total costs. We also have more people paying taxes and more money to spend. It's why we can still fund roads, schools, etc despite having more people and more land.

 

37 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

Each building requires overhead, maintenance, janitorial staff, utilities, construction, expensive imaging equipment.

Every school requires overhead, maintenance, janitorial staff, utilities, construction, expensive equipment, etc.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[RedskinsMayne]

12 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The part where it costs more per person.

 

Yes, we have greater total costs. We also have more people paying taxes. It's why we can still fund roads, schools, etc despite having more people and more land.

 

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.

Edited May 28, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[RedskinsMayne]

22 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The part where it costs more per person.

 

Yes, we have greater total costs. We also have more people paying taxes. It's why we can still fund roads, schools, etc despite having more people and more land.

 

 

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.

 

Edited May 28, 2017 by RedskinsMayne

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

23 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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.

And again.These hospitals already exist and are already funded by the government. This whole conversation is absurd. You said the first thing that came into your head and are just refusing to let it go.

[RedskinsMayne]

17 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

And again.These hospitals already exist and are already funded by the government. This whole conversation is absurd. You said the first thing that came into your head and are just refusing to let it go.

 

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. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

13 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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. 

Yes. That's the point.

[RedskinsMayne]

5 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yes. That's the point.

 

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?

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

23 minutes ago, RedskinsMayne said:

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?

We already do spend more per person than any other country on healthcare. Significantly more. That's part of the problem. We can reduce those costs and help millions of Americans but it would limit a handful of extremely rich people's ability to get even richer so it won't happen.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[RedskinsMayne]

11 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

We already do spend more per person than any other country on healthcare. 

 

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

The part where it costs more per person.

 

 

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.