Not really. I'm not wasting my energy creating a huge post. Just ignore my point if you disagree with it. The holes were quite obvious to me. Data is easy to manipulate to create an argument that someone wants others to feel themselves.
I think I have mentioned before that it is NOT a hypothetical situation. If you dont believe me, simply look up how many cases were turned away by private hospitals in countries where there was a recent dengue fever problem in the past few months. The state/local governments had to intervene to make sure patients were not being turned away by the hospitals or overcharged for very simple diagnostic blood tests. Please look up these things before you claim that my statements dont reflect the reality of private health care.
I cant agree or disagree with you if you dont elaborate your point. You are right about data manipulation. But unless you elaborate, I wouldn't know it. Anyway,the second link actually goes into detail about the first link and what's right and wrong with it.
I was specifically referring to the post in which you posed the hypothetical situations of "Would you want your family or friends running around getting your health insurance cleared while you are dying?" Which is a point that does not reflect the reality of private healthcare and is merely an attempt to manipulate the emotion of a person at which the comment is directed to further your own stance. Go back and read the wikipedia article about the plea to emotion fallacy that I have linked. My comment directly deals with that specific post and the specific points made within it. If private healthcare ended up killing every last person in the world, your previous post to which I am referring, would still be fallacious.
That all sounds dangerously like what people say when their confronted with empirical evidence that their omnipotent being of choice probably doesn't exist.
Indeed they should, that's why it's always a good idea to investigate the claims made for yourself, and it's also why you've been asked to backup your claims that the article is full of holes, maybe you've found some evidence that the claims made are incorrect that others have missed. It seems so far in this thread that there's been plenty of evidence, articles, and other information provided to indicate that "Austerity" as we understand it, that being the economic policy of cutting public (government) spending during a downturn in private sector spending is the wrong thing, but as yet there's not been anything other than what seem like logical fallacies proposed as counter arguments. I'd be happy to read just one article, or for that matter any evidence at all that puts forward the other side of the argument, that backups peoples belief that when the private sector reduces their spending the correct thing to do economically is to reduce public sector spending at the same time.
I love these little platitudes. Why should people trust their instincts? What empirical evidence do we have that people's instinct about a complex situation tends to be correct? Think, people should. Not be comfortable with their assumptions of things, they should be. If you have an opinion, back it up with reason and fact. Else it will indeed be ignored.
Hence why I posted the second link following that article. It does actually tell you what is right and wrong with graeber's article.
Here's another (admittedly biased) article regarding UK and US healthcare. Its from the guy from where Corbyn got someof his economic policies. The FT link in there is worth a read - http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-usa-markets-cant-deliver-healthcare-for-all/ If there are any doctors here on the forum, it would be interesting to get their view on the strike.
All for it. If the government wants to treat health care like a commercial business rather than a human right, then health professionals can play that game too.
It should be clear that when money is pooled more can be had for that money. Bulk purchases, balancing resources and large scale negotiations on salary. If your health care goes private it will go up in price. No one hospital or hospital franchise group will have the same negotiating power as a full nation of hospitals. A private hospital would need to improve efficiency to the point that it can accommodate for an increase in running costs as well as pay dividends which is a cost a public system doesn't have. It doesn't seem feasible without increasing prices.
Yes, but I am not sure how effective it is, in the long run, to basically accept the framework of the 'austerians'P) and use it for one's own purpose. If I am not mistaken, the austerians have basically managed to change the very basic framework that people think with about such problems. Hence if anyone then acts within that framework, it still legitimises it and moves it further. As always, would be interesting to get some inside info from someone in the medical profession here. I agree. If I am not mistaken, its called a monopsony. The NHS is one. You highlight the latter point well. Also, many people dont realise what 'improving efficiency' looks like in the context of the daily workings of a hospital. Ambulances being contracted out, cleaners trying to save every bit of toilet role that they can, managerialism being brought in to control costs, shitty IT systems that increase unnecessary bureaucracy,etc.
You guys know so much!! I would be surprised if you guys weren't already putting your vast experience and knowledge to great use at the highest levels of government!! On a side note: being in government from the start of the crash to the end of this current government, and beyond for next stretch, is a poisoned chalice.
