5 ms·

Earlier you write: > Its important to remember that in a state economy where > healthcare is free or semi free it's operated as a cost > center and thus

Earlier you write: > Its important to remember that in a state economy where > healthcare is free or semi free it's operated as a cost > center and thus has budgets that are politically mandated > not determined by market demand at least not directly. and later write: > My personal suggestion for a good balanced system is that > most people pay most of the cost for normal healthcare costs > like going to the doctor for a checkup, most of the cost for > one of things like a broken leg but that society pays for > more serious and longer term situations like cancer, heart > surgeries where you are supposed to stay at the hospital for > a longer time. But here > It's 100% free to go to the doctor yet a lot of people don't go for checkups it's not a common thing to do. you allude to Danish data that show prospective patients do not take advantage of healthcare even if that cost is 100% subsidized. So which is it? Does healthcare that is 100% subsidized distort demand so that people seek unnecessary care, or is demand so inelastic that people and populations who would benefit from it decline to use it? EDIT: add third in situ quotation. Add comma in last sentence/question. Change pronoun to conjunction in last sentence; pluralize noun.

mhneu 10y ago
The ranking member of US Senate intelligence committee said "1000 paid Russian trolls are spreading disinformation on US social media" And recently said >Be careful what you read on the internet because paid trolls are influencing what is discussed. Perhaps parent poster is getting his info from disinformation sources like RT, Breitbart, Fox News, IJR, Limbaugh etc.
ThomPete 10y ago
Not sure exactly what you are confused about. I was responding to a post who claimed that if there isn't free checkup for all then people wouldn't go to get checked. I simply pointed out that even in a country like Denmark which is 100% free people thats not the case. So you would have to show causation between general checkups and cost of healthcare I don't think you will be able to find that.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this, if I'm not mistaken, because "free or semi free" healthcare is "operated as a cost center". That is, by requiring patients to pay for most of their basic healthcare, that cost center will be reduced because patients will be discouraged from seeking "unnecessary" healthcare. On the other hand, in Denmark where basic healthcare is free, the data you allude to (but do not present) show that even then "a lot of people don't go for checkups [because] it's not a common thing to do." Additionally, you write "Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50." So my confusion comes from your contradictory assertions about the effects of fully subsidized basic healthcare. Either free healthcare generates cost overruns because people seek out unnecessary treatment, or free healthcare does not generate cost overruns because people do not seek out even necessary treatment. Your assertions about the effect of free healthcare are paradoxical, hence my confusion. EDIT: fix typo, recast first sentence of penultimate paragraph. Remove redundant prepositional phrase from last sentence.
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    I am saying that because then they start paying for when they go to get treated or for checkups which allow for more money being possible to use on more serious situations. I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something. So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.
    - mistersquid 10y ago
      That makes better sense, but covering costs of extraordinary care isn't an issue in state-provided health insurance (single payer), nor is it an issue with private healthcare insurance. With single payer, taxes cover the cost of care for everyone. With private insurance, the costs for more expensive care is covered by the premiums of healthier individuals, which is sort of like what you suggest but does not financially punish people who get sick. What you propose may not be workable (or humane, for that matter) because it distributes the costs of extraordinary care to people who already have more-than-routine care. Presumably these people already have paid their premiums and now would shoulder most of the cost for maladies such as broken bones. EDIT: add missing word "workable".

mhneu 10y ago

The ranking member of US Senate intelligence committee said "1000 paid Russian trolls are spreading disinformation on US social media" And recently said >Be careful what you read on the internet because paid trolls are influencing what is discussed. Perhaps parent poster is getting his info from disinformation sources like RT, Breitbart, Fox News, IJR, Limbaugh etc.

ThomPete 10y ago

Not sure exactly what you are confused about. I was responding to a post who claimed that if there isn't free checkup for all then people wouldn't go to get checked. I simply pointed out that even in a country like Denmark which is 100% free people thats not the case. So you would have to show causation between general checkups and cost of healthcare I don't think you will be able to find that.

mistersquid 10y ago
My confusion comes because in my first two citations you suggest requiring patients to pay for most of their basic/non-life-threatening healthcare. You say this, if I'm not mistaken, because "free or semi free" healthcare is "operated as a cost center". That is, by requiring patients to pay for most of their basic healthcare, that cost center will be reduced because patients will be discouraged from seeking "unnecessary" healthcare. On the other hand, in Denmark where basic healthcare is free, the data you allude to (but do not present) show that even then "a lot of people don't go for checkups [because] it's not a common thing to do." Additionally, you write "Furthermore the situation is even worse for men over 50." So my confusion comes from your contradictory assertions about the effects of fully subsidized basic healthcare. Either free healthcare generates cost overruns because people seek out unnecessary treatment, or free healthcare does not generate cost overruns because people do not seek out even necessary treatment. Your assertions about the effect of free healthcare are paradoxical, hence my confusion. EDIT: fix typo, recast first sentence of penultimate paragraph. Remove redundant prepositional phrase from last sentence.
- ThomPete 10y ago
  I am saying that because then they start paying for when they go to get treated or for checkups which allow for more money being possible to use on more serious situations. I am not sure where you get that I want less people to go to the doctor. I just want to be able to pay for the situations you can't afford by asking for money in situations where most people can. And yes if you don't have any money then you should get help, but for people who make enough it should cost something. So there is nothing paradoxial going on here. You just assumed I wanted fewer people to go to the doctor which I never said anything about.
  - mistersquid 10y ago
    That makes better sense, but covering costs of extraordinary care isn't an issue in state-provided health insurance (single payer), nor is it an issue with private healthcare insurance. With single payer, taxes cover the cost of care for everyone. With private insurance, the costs for more expensive care is covered by the premiums of healthier individuals, which is sort of like what you suggest but does not financially punish people who get sick. What you propose may not be workable (or humane, for that matter) because it distributes the costs of extraordinary care to people who already have more-than-routine care. Presumably these people already have paid their premiums and now would shoulder most of the cost for maladies such as broken bones. EDIT: add missing word "workable".