1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Nov 12, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3681 of 18258
  1. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    New communications director Scaramucci says Trump wants to make the health care industry more like the airline industry. Not sure that's a winning image for him.
     
    Michael_ Gee, Jul 26, 2017
    #44161
  2. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    Doctors and airplanes are right there on my "fear of" list.
     
    QYFW, Jul 26, 2017
    #44162
  3. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    The Ryanair equivalent hospital will be a hoot.

    "FLASH SALE: Kidneys £14,000. Surgery done in tent out back. Anesthesia a la carte. Sale ends tonight."
     
    Hermes, Jul 26, 2017
    #44163
    Donny in his element, Iron_chet and dixiehack like this.
  4. I Should Coco

    I Should Coco Well-Known Member

    And you thought hospital waiting rooms were crowded now ...
     
    I Should Coco, Jul 26, 2017
    #44164
  5. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    If you can't afford health care, you shouldn't get it.

    If you can't afford to have a broad-ranging athletics program without underpaying and abusing a single trainer so that you don't have to pay an extra $40k for a second, it'd be a travesty to not have the athletics program.
     
    RickStain, Jul 26, 2017
    #44165
  6. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Can't wait to benefit from the famous Trump expertise there.

    [​IMG]
     
    dixiehack, Jul 26, 2017
    #44166
    DanielSimpsonDay likes this.
  7. Pete

    Pete Well-Known Member

    Huh? My overall point is that the insurance model IMO simply isn't a good one for healthcare, and you think you're agreeing with that by saying that "a robust, and functioning health insurance market is a good and necessary thing"? I don't believe it's at all necessary, and in fact isn't advisable, since even (or especially) when it's "functioning" "robustly" as a "health insurance market," it's a market that, by design, is going to lead to bad societal outcomes.

    That's why I believe single-payer is the best option. However if it's politically impossible for whatever reason – because apparently we went too far down the road with an employee-based benefit/insurance model to turn back now and don't want to bite the bullet and fix it now – then the government needs to step in to make sure coverage is available. And that almost certainly means paying for it in some fashion with tax dollars. I notice you acknowledge that even a functioning health insurance market doesn't necessarily provide good healthcare for the poor or those with extensive medical needs. Then how, pray tell, do we do that? I give my answer a few sentences ago. The GOP's answer mostly seems to be "they're on their own, but they'll be overjoyed to have the 'choice' to go without coverage." What is your answer?

    [Apologies in advance if I can't address any "answer" you provide in a timely fashion, I've already taken too much time away from work, I'll try to check in later today or tonight.]
     
    Pete, Jul 26, 2017
    #44167
  8. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    What about well-intentioned politicians?
     
    doctorquant, Jul 26, 2017
    #44168
  9. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    And what's the deal with waiting room peanuts?
     
    Songbird, Jul 26, 2017
    #44169
    QYFW likes this.
  10. QYFW

    QYFW Well-Known Member

    The Turn Your Head and Coffee is $7 a cup.
     
    QYFW, Jul 26, 2017
    #44170
    Iron_chet, BadgerBeer, DanielSimpsonDay and 2 others like this.
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    National defense is a public good. That is why governments need to provide it, for it to exist. It is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. You can't exclude certain individuals from benefitting from a national defense (i.e. non-excludable) and use by one individual doesn't reduce availability to others (non-rivalrous). National defense is a classic public good, which is why governments have always needed to provide it for it to exist. There is no incentive for any one individual to put him or herself at risk trying to protect the country, because you can't keep others from benefiting from your efforts (while you perhaps are putting yourself personally at risk). Even if I tried to get everyone to chip in to fund a military voluntarily, there would be no incentive. Someone will say, "Well, if everyone else is chipping in, I am still going to benefit from the military they pay for -- they can't exclude me." And what happens is that eventually NO ONE pays for it -- and you don't have it.

    Public goods (which are things that meet those two criteria -- non-excludable and non-rivalrous) are the only things government NEED to provide if we are to have them, because there is market failure when it comes to public goods-- people who don't contribute sufficiently to the creation of it still benefit (i.e. -- you have a free rider or easy rider problem), and as a result, the incentive to provide it via a market disappears.

    Obviously, without government interference, we have (had) a market for health care -- and achieved a high level of medical advances and care. In fact, it was way more efficiently allocated before decades of government interference created a mess of the marketplace for it and drove up costs and hurt our level of care in the aggregate.

    Health care is a private good. Which is why it isn't unique (at least in the way national defense is). It is rivalrous and excludable. i.e. -- If I consume a pill or a medical service or a medical test, it means there is less available for someone else (i.e. it is rivalrous) and if I pay for the good or service, it doesn't benefit a bunch of free riders, it just benefits me (i.e. it is excludable). There is no disincentive for people to provide themselves with care -- they don't have to worry about you getting stuck with the bill while a bunch of free riders benefit. That is why governments need to provide for a national defense.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 26, 2017
    #44171
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Any 2018 Dem candidate for Congress (or anything for that matter who doesn't run an ad with that quote over a picture of O'Hare or Hartsfield or LaGuardia on Thanksgiving Eve is missing a sure thing bet.
     
    Michael_ Gee, Jul 26, 2017
    #44172
Page 3681 of 18258
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page