4 ms·
> That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another
by latency-guy2 3y ago
> That seems overly focused on the economics. Which are important, but when someone in one area needs to travel 100 miles to the nearest hospital, while another has a dozen hospitals within a 35sq mile area, there's a problem.
Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment.
> Which is why a single-payer system of some sort in the US is how we get out of this
This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together.
- nobody9999 3y ago>Probably because economics is the determining factor to everything. Notice how you went directly into the same issue, and then kept the same focus for the remainder of your comment. My point was to compare the utility of hospitals to the utility of city buses. Yeah, if you go where all the people are, you'll have more customers. But that leaves the folks who depend on a hospital (or a bus route) without any service. >This is a massive jump of logic with no attempt, let alone meaningful, in connecting ideas together. There's no "jump of logic" here. At all. Removing the profit motive provides more resources to, you know, provide health care. Reallocating resources to more broadly provide services, in this case, to the "rural" (which is, as broadly defined by the US Census, anything that's not an urban area or adjacent suburban area -- as defined by population density, includes most small towns) population. I didn't specifically spell that out, as it seemed intuitively obvious. But I guess not, at least not for you.