Fri Feb 21 20:09:01 2020
<8f79fcda> <@U3TK24FU1> on this ^ there are hospitals that receive direct tax write-offs for treating uninsured, low income patients. That mechanism already exists. All of that is after the fact, and after treatment occurs.
The very real issue… is that all the people that are proposing “Universal Healthcare” are also proposing Open Border Policies. It’s mathematically impossible to hold both of these beliefs in any sort of congruent state. the logic looks like this:
If you want “universal” healthcare, you have to know exactly how many people are beneficiaries of such a system so that you can do load balancing across all occurrences of “health-related incidence”. Furthermore, the people that are beneficiaries, in a meaningful and measurable capacity, need to contribute to that system. Else, System Goes Bankrupt.
If you want Open Borders (unmonitored immigration), then there is an infinite demand for “Free” healthcare. That would mean that you need an unlimited number of doctors to meet the demand for health care services. I think we agree, there is not an infinite supply of doctors.
<8f79fcda> So, basically, if you want “universal HC” you have to set criterion that determines those who can participate, and those who can’t participate. which is oxymoronic to the notion of “universal” healthcare.
<8f79fcda> all other systems are insolvent.
<75f07d61> Fair enough.
I agree insurers have inserted themselves and its resulted in inflated costs.
<8f79fcda> You either know supply and demand for healthcare, and the market finds a price at that intersection, OR regulation dictates that the same number of doctors have to serve an infinite number of potential patients. if you choose the latter, then each doctor spends less time and energy on each individual patient, leading to a degradation in service across the mean “quality of care”