Vanity, greed and instinct are good? That's what got us here. Christianity is very new. The Old Testament is so jam packed full of vanity, greed and instinct you can hardly get another word in edgewise. Jesus could walk on it and now you want it to trickle up. From here on EVERY nobel laureate will be in the new age fashion of Jesus and Marx and whatever new ones you have been reading. It's really catching on. Don't be faint of heart my friend because of this temporary setback. You always come back with a "new" truth that next time is accepted as fact by all who argue it in public. And that's why we can't reason with you until you unnaccept the fact that water can trickle up or even that it should. Until then I will stick with my instinct and greed. I think it makes me look very smart don't you?
Single Payer is they will give us in end
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
I don't know what his specific politics are, this is what Wiki has to say: "a visit to the Soviet Union in 1991 was enough to make him a firm "believe[r] in capitalism, private property, the market."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty
He has lived and studied and worked as an economist in France, the UK, and The USA (MIT). It would seem his experience is quite broad.
Last edited:
I'm not sure, but it does seem to make you look very "trendy," "hip" I guess my generation would say.
Thanks for the book recommendations, I'll take a look.
Virtually every aspect of health care is geared toward higher prices and there's nothing that is going to change that so we're eventually going the Kasuck style of medicine.
From the consumer side, they don't have to pay, the company or the insurance company does, and so there is always an increase in demand when you don't have to pay. It trends towards infinity. On top of that, if consumers don't get the latest and greatest treatment option, meaning the latest biotech drugs or latest mri pic or whatever, they'll sue. And the latest and greatest treatment is always far costlier than middle of the road treatment. Just like a computer with the latest processor costs twice as much as one with a middle of the road processor.
On the supply side, rules and regs and limitations to protect the 'safety' of the consumer have served to enable virtual oligopolies in the health care industry. To bring a new drug to mkt it costs billions. It can only be introduced after stringent requirements. Much the same thing exists for medical equipment. It's no surprise that these industries have some of the highest margins in all of business. They are protected by the gov't from competition. Hence, big profits.
Medical schools use the same logic to keep dr's salaries high. Limit med school enrollment and therefore doctors, keeps their salaries at the highest levels of all professions. It's done for safety, they tell us. It's only a coincidence that it drives their wages through the roof.
In addition, gov't mandates that everything up to and including sex change operations must be covered by insurance. Drives cost of insurance relentlessly upward.
So both supply and demand are all in alignment to drive health care costs through the roof.
Which brings us to health insurance. The left tells us health care would be affordable if we could only do away with health insurance profits. The right tells us that if they could only compete across state lines, costs would come down.
Both positions are bogus in my view. Health insurance profits aren't that high. Doing away with them or making them compete across state lines isn't going to bring down health care costs very much at all. Health insurance profits could come down a little but that's only a knat on the back of an elephant. If they can't compete on product, which they can't because of gov't mandates, and drug and equipment and doctor's costs stay in the stratosphere, gauging insurance company profits is hardly anything at all.
And they're not going to do away with the concept of someone else pays for health care, insurance or gov't. And they're not going to do away with the oligopolies of the drug and equipment and doctor's rackets, for our 'safety, so health care costs are not going to come down.
The gov't is going to pass a law eventually and ration health care.
From the consumer side, they don't have to pay, the company or the insurance company does, and so there is always an increase in demand when you don't have to pay. It trends towards infinity. On top of that, if consumers don't get the latest and greatest treatment option, meaning the latest biotech drugs or latest mri pic or whatever, they'll sue. And the latest and greatest treatment is always far costlier than middle of the road treatment. Just like a computer with the latest processor costs twice as much as one with a middle of the road processor.
On the supply side, rules and regs and limitations to protect the 'safety' of the consumer have served to enable virtual oligopolies in the health care industry. To bring a new drug to mkt it costs billions. It can only be introduced after stringent requirements. Much the same thing exists for medical equipment. It's no surprise that these industries have some of the highest margins in all of business. They are protected by the gov't from competition. Hence, big profits.
Medical schools use the same logic to keep dr's salaries high. Limit med school enrollment and therefore doctors, keeps their salaries at the highest levels of all professions. It's done for safety, they tell us. It's only a coincidence that it drives their wages through the roof.
In addition, gov't mandates that everything up to and including sex change operations must be covered by insurance. Drives cost of insurance relentlessly upward.
So both supply and demand are all in alignment to drive health care costs through the roof.
Which brings us to health insurance. The left tells us health care would be affordable if we could only do away with health insurance profits. The right tells us that if they could only compete across state lines, costs would come down.
Both positions are bogus in my view. Health insurance profits aren't that high. Doing away with them or making them compete across state lines isn't going to bring down health care costs very much at all. Health insurance profits could come down a little but that's only a knat on the back of an elephant. If they can't compete on product, which they can't because of gov't mandates, and drug and equipment and doctor's costs stay in the stratosphere, gauging insurance company profits is hardly anything at all.
And they're not going to do away with the concept of someone else pays for health care, insurance or gov't. And they're not going to do away with the oligopolies of the drug and equipment and doctor's rackets, for our 'safety, so health care costs are not going to come down.
The gov't is going to pass a law eventually and ration health care.