5 ms·

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resour

> There's nothing utopian about universal healthcare and that's firmly established by now Universal healthcare necessarily means rationing of healthcare resources. Universal healthcare does not mean that every person who has an ailment gets treated. A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). When you remove the market it's up to government to do this matching process which means rationing.

jahaja 6y ago
Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      > You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.
      - jahaja 6y ago
        You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway? You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? Certain types of housing are plentiful and some are more scarce depending on what homebuyers want at some price and homebuilders can build at some price. > And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? Again even if you were able to determine that (which you aren't, given that most of these people are severely drug addicted or mentally ill, homelessness is more complicated than just people not having a home), how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) determine to be necessary? > You're just making pointless statements without any depth I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. That's why it's upsetting to you.
        jahaja 6y ago
        > how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) In Sweden we had a government agency that both identified the need (not rocket science) and government building corporations that actually built the houses. > I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. It must be handy to be so ignorant and yet so cocksure. That's so arrogant that I'm starting to think you're actually trolling.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility, which it's not (because money also experiences declining marginal utility) when financial resources of each potential customer vary wildly.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility > How else would you define need? The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question. Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need. It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same. When the tokens are money and the context is a real capitalist society, that's decidedly far from the case.
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      This rests on an assumption that utility is comparable between individuals, which isn't present in all theories. "How much would you pay for it" clearly is comparable between individuals, but (IMO) declaring that doing so defines the proper outcome is circular and/or verges on the naturalistic fallacy.

jahaja 6y ago

Sorry, but if you ignore existing facts and reality around the western world just too parrot some libertarian free market bullshit you're clearly far too deep into dogma.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
It's not dogma it's just logic. Finite resource, no market, means rationing. Why is that dogmatic? This has nothing to do with libertarian ideals, it's just a logical almost tautological statement. Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that?
- jahaja 6y ago
  > Not every person under a universal healthcare system gets the treatment they want when they want it. Are you disputing that? It's an irrelevant distraction. What's important is not to deprive people of care to such an extent that 71k people dies every year in a country fully capable of providing universal healthcare. You're using dogma to justify that. What you're calling "get the treatment they want" is just to allow rich people to get priority.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    > You're using dogma to justify that. I'm not using dogma at all, let alone using it to "justify" anything. It simply is how it is. There is no panacea. You're totally captured by a utopian vision which is why you can't comprehend that. Even countries with universal healthcare can't provide healthcare services to everyone who needs it or wants it. Healthcare resources are finite. No amount of arguing on your part will change that.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      You are very careful about which parts of each message you like to answer aren't you? I haven't argued that healthcare resources aren't finite. But what kind of pointless argument is that? "Housing is finite", "Clothing is finite", "Food is finite". Well, yes? But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? What's utopian about not having 71k people per year die due to lack of healthcare coverage? Do you think all of these 71k would end up on some brain surgery queue and die anyway? You're just making pointless statements without any depth. Dilettante.
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        > But what kinds of housing are plentiful and what kinds of housing are not? Certain types of housing are plentiful and some are more scarce depending on what homebuyers want at some price and homebuilders can build at some price. > And what need kind of housing is needed to make sure people doesn't die of exposure, even the poor? Again even if you were able to determine that (which you aren't, given that most of these people are severely drug addicted or mentally ill, homelessness is more complicated than just people not having a home), how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) determine to be necessary? > You're just making pointless statements without any depth I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. That's why it's upsetting to you.
        jahaja 6y ago
        > how are you going to convince or force people to build these houses that you (Supreme Decider of America) In Sweden we had a government agency that both identified the need (not rocket science) and government building corporations that actually built the houses. > I'm actually making very pointed arguments that fundamentally invalidate your whole world view. It must be handy to be so ignorant and yet so cocksure. That's so arrogant that I'm starting to think you're actually trolling.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> A market naturally matches supply (healthcare infrastructure) and demand (sick people). Even ignoring that healthcare lacks the factors that approximate the rational choice model’s information requirements well enough for it decisions in that space in a market to even reflect average net utility well, a market matches supply with money; it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility, which it's not (because money also experiences declining marginal utility) when financial resources of each potential customer vary wildly.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility How else would you define need? The alternative involves some third party that determines need aka rationing.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > > it matches to need only to the extent that willingness to pay is driven only by expected personal utility > How else would you define need? The question seems odd and seems to likely to be driven by a misunderstanding of the quoted material, so I'll try to reexplain what I intended in a way which I hope resolves the question. Expected net utility given complete information of the consequences of a decision is the only plausible definition of need. It doesn't, however correspond in any particular way (even ignoring the information problems that are enormous in healthcare) to the number of tokens one is willing to exchange for a thing in the market compared to other participants unless the quantity of tokens available to each participant is the same. When the tokens are money and the context is a real capitalist society, that's decidedly far from the case.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    This rests on an assumption that utility is comparable between individuals, which isn't present in all theories. "How much would you pay for it" clearly is comparable between individuals, but (IMO) declaring that doing so defines the proper outcome is circular and/or verges on the naturalistic fallacy.