Welfare in the US

[Wonkish1]

Your're defining consuming from a marketing stand point. i.e. people that decry consumerism

Consuming in economics is just that you utilize the supply that's it. So even in a national healthcare system the population is consumers of healthcare.

...

You certainly can reduce everything to such jargonistic abstractions if you really want to, yes. The question is whether this is actually a good idea if you want to be taken seriously by people who disagree with you.

Fundamentally a patient is not a consumer. Fundamentally they are a patient. They may also be (in some respects) a consumer, but only in the way that they are also citizens or perhaps even children of God. Moreover, patients do not make decisions as consumers unless they are forced to, and when they are forced to make decisions as consumers, they will often make poor decisions. Or, to put things slightly differently, it is a mistake to view healthcare as something that is purely (or even mostly) a question of economics.

You will, of course, disagree with every word of that. In any case, it is not merely a question of objecting to the word, as objecting to what it signifies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but your consultant or your GP will presumably prescribe it for you.

Of course I do understand that there is a major cultural difference here. Few things surprise visitors to America nearly so much as the sheer amount of advertising for drugs and other medicinal products.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I actually know someone who's the patient of a nutritionist.

In the US, nutritionists don't have "patients". Again consumer just refers to a broader subject that includes patients. You're arguing something that is just pointless.

From spending a lot of time studying healthcare I will tell you that actually patients are quite good and are getting increasingly better at assessing healthcare options for themselves and making decisions. Patients are very good at picking hospitals that have better outcomes and very good at finding the better doctors. They also are good at knowing when its a good time to get a second opinion or go with the analysis they've given. So on this level you don't know what you are talking about.

And it doesn't matter if a doctor prescribes a drug or not. You are not a patient of a drug. You are a consumer of a drug. You are not a patient of a procedure. You are a consumer of a procedure. You are not a patient of a diagnostic test. You are a consumer of a diagnostic test. Don't blame the messenger because you can't speak the language.

[Link]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a remarkably specific question for a question that ultimately means very little. I, too, support rainbows, kittens and fluffy bunnies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's meaningless, so it's hard to really disagree.

Exactly.

Americans think healthcare is like ordering take out.  No wonder the leader in the GOP polls is a former pizza peddler.  As I illustrated in my previous posts waiting times for certain non-emergent conditions are appropriate and frankly necessary.  Any "wonk"  who is a "financial expert" knows this.  Which leads me to believe one of two things, either...

a) a certain poster is not a "wonk" or "financial expert"
b) the poster is a "wonk" and "financial expert" and just chooses to engage in partisan hackery

[Wonkish1]

What you are referring to is what kind of system do you use to handle scarcity? Its the first topic of your most basic econ class you'll take. That is a far cry from calling market a rationing mechanism and it wont "do fine just fine" describing that process.

Why won't it do 'just fine' to describe the process? It isn't an ideal word, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter pretty quickly. I suppose you would prefer a prettier euphemism, or perhaps something that celebrates what happens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except that it isn't. If some people (especially large numbers of people) have almost immediate access to absolutely anything they want in a healthcare system (irrespective of need), then we cannot have equality of access. Someone has to lose out, in some way, at some point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a remarkably specific question for a question that ultimately means very little. I, too, support rainbows, kittens and fluffy bunnies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's meaningless, so it's hard to really disagree.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mostly you just denied the possibility of major difference over such things, and I then I got very bored.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are posting with an air of authority on this topic and you don't know what I'm getting at when I bring up those particular areas? Christ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Economic situation, geographical location, certain lack of the necessary documented medical history for various other reasons, complexity of medical conditions/emergencies.

2. 21

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm well aware of the problems caused by infections in hospitals here, thank you. In fact... at no point did I ever claim otherwise. All I did was point out that it is an issue in every other country, and that what data there is (pretending for a moment that the data is reliable and comparable) points pretty firmly in that direction.

Or, putting things a little differently, it's not a good idea to make facts up here. People sometimes check.

And there we are, perhaps. I think we've reached a dead end, at least as far as this thread goes. Hwyl fawr.

No I just demand people actually stop using false terminology after its been pointed out to them. Rationing and purchasing are not the same thing numb-nuts.

Who in the US has limitless access to get anything they want? It is true that the US system suffers from a near limitless demand problem, but that is huge cry from a limitless supply problem for certain people. The US system with some certain changes could easily be able to get new people in without sacrificing quality. Your acting like the supply of healthcare is finite and your acting like the supply of healthcare isn't already higher than we even need for everybody. But you can't add people into the system while its cost unstable. So you have to fix that first and then I'm all for providing subsidies for people to enter into the insurance pool. So yes your dichotomy is a false one from someone that doesn't understand the US system at all. Economies aren't zero sum. Someone doesn't have to lose in order for someone to win.

Its not rainbows, kittens, or anything. That is the definition of what people want in healthcare. Granted things that tend to be higher quality tend to be higher price, but value is determined by dividing quality by price. Something you do at the store every time you go there. You want the best item at the lowest cost or the best value item. Well people in healthcare want the best value they can get in healthcare. That is the goal! Are you telling me its not?

I don't quite frankly give a $hit if you got bored. You're spouting explanations as to why your country has problems in with specific expensive illnesses that didn't make sense because they are something that happens in other countries at probably the same scale.

No I want you to put it in your own words so there is no ambiguity.

I see well I'm glad your doing well.

I didn't make up facts here. You did! You took the studies and then called them unreliable and then didn't want to address anything that could be construed as a uniquely worse problem in the UK. So under that there isn't much I can really say.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the US, nutritionists don't have "patients". Again consumer just refers to a broader subject that includes patients. You're arguing something that is just pointless.

No, it is not pointless. It is absolutely not pointless. It is the opposite of pointless. Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

And in pointing that out I think I may have finally have addressed the question that kicked off the thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you will find that I know a little bit more about being a patient than most people here. Slightly. Not only that, but I know quite a few people who work in the health service (including relatives). Of course anything picked up that way is mostly anecdotal. But, and here's the funny part, I also have an interest (and a very serious and very real one at that) in the history of social policy, of which healthcare is an integral part. So you see, on this level, I do actually know what I'm talking about. This, by the way, would include an acceptance that we can only speak about such things as gross generalisations. There are patients who certainly can make good decisions for themselves, for example. But quite a lot, and I think you ought to accept this because you will look a tad foolish if you don't, who can't. Especially when put under some kind of financial pressure, even if it's likely posthumous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are a consumer of a drug in the very literal sense that it passes through your body and has an impact on it. You can also be a consumer in the sense that you went out and bought it out o your own free will (to the extent that there is such a thing). But when something is prescribed?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you seriously think that, or are you trolling? Can I just say (or, rather, write) that I very hope that the latter is true?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No I just demand people actually stop using false terminology after its been pointed out to them. Rationing and purchasing are not the same thing numb-nuts.

Touched a nerve? Metaphorically, I mean.

False terminology though... that's interesting language to use. Very interesting. Who, exactly, determines which terminology is the Truth and which is False?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I used the word limitless, at least not today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is because it is. At the point in time at which it matters to patients, anyway. Which is in the present. I suspect this has been mentioned elsewhere in this long nightmare of a thread based internet experience.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What have economies got to do with anything? I'm thinking entirely about healthcare policy. And, alas, that is something that will always (always, always) produce losers, as well as winners. As I have been repeating endlessly for a while now. Which is a shame because it really is quite obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it? Did you ask them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My understanding (and I accept that on this issue I am beyond ignorant) is that most patients want to get better, and that most people who work in health services want to make this happen. I would argue that something would have to have gone seriously wrong for anything else to be so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think that the use of 'probably' there is very interesting. 'Probably'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Access to top notch healthcare in the Mississippi Delta or in Central Appalachia. What's it like? If you are right, then it should be fantastic. I had heard otherwise though. I don't think there's much ambiguity there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No... I don't think I made up any facts. What I did was point out that it is very, very, very easy to find a set of comparative statistics on hospital infections (and here's a link!) and that these statistics do not exactly back up your rather extravagant claims. It happens, of course, that I don't really believe any statistics on the topic, but that's by-the-by.

[Wonkish1]

1)No, it is not pointless. It is absolutely not pointless. It is the opposite of pointless. Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

And in pointing that out I think I may have finally have addressed the question that kicked off the thread.


2)I think you will find that I know a little bit more about being a patient than most people here. Slightly. Not only that, but I know quite a few people who work in the health service (including relatives). Of course anything picked up that way is mostly anecdotal. But, and here's the funny part, I also have an interest (and a very serious and very real one at that) in the history of social policy, of which healthcare is an integral part. So you see, on this level, I do actually know what I'm talking about. This, by the way, would include an acceptance that we can only speak about such things as gross generalisations. There are patients who certainly can make good decisions for themselves, for example. But quite a lot, and I think you ought to accept this because you will look a tad foolish if you don't, who can't. Especially when put under some kind of financial pressure, even if it's likely posthumous.

3)You are a consumer of a drug in the very literal sense that it passes through your body and has an impact on it. You can also be a consumer in the sense that you went out and bought it out o your own free will (to the extent that there is such a thing). But when something is prescribed?


4)Do you seriously think that, or are you trolling? Can I just say (or, rather, write) that I very hope that the latter is true?

1) Now your just sounding like acting all whiny and stupid because I pointed out that you aren't using the correct term. Maybe I should just call people on the left pedophiles and insist that my term is just as good as anybody else's. Its not my fault if you want to use incorrect language.


2) When speaking of the United States where people actually have to pay deductibles, co-pays, etc. and can go see a specialist without needing a referral or going on a waiting list for a while I can assure you that people in the US are quite good at playing an intrical part of making treatment decisions. And besides the fact that I study this I have a relative very high up in practically every major facet of the US healthcare system. So I am privy to information and well aware of even the pilot projects going on in the US at any given time. Since most of those are actually based on consumer driven healthcare I know that its working and working very well. What financial pressure are you referring to? Again I don't think you understand how US healthcare works at all.


Yeah you are a patient of the doctor that prescribed it and a consumer of the drug when you take it.

So please tell me how you would define a persons relationship to a diagnostic test or a procedure and you can't use doctor in the sentence as a scapegoat for using the word patient.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1) Now your just sounding like acting all whiny and stupid because I pointed out that you aren't using the correct term. Maybe I should just call people on the left pedophiles and insist that my term is just as good as anybody else's. Its not my fault if you want to use incorrect language.

I'm sorry, but that will not do as a reply. So I will repeat myself, in the hope of provoking an answer that isn't full of childish abuse.

Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

Do you understand what that means? Do you understand (now that you have actually read it) why I object so strongly to this dogmatic use of the language of consumerism?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, huh. So you insist that there is no problem with patients making decisions that either they or their family will end up regretting, as a result of their (entirely understandable and absolutely normal) ignorance? This is not an issue at all in the United States?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, only in a physical sense, and that's something quite different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would define it in the way that it is usually defined by the non-robotic.

[Wonkish1]

1)Touched a nerve? Metaphorically, I mean.

False terminology though... that's interesting language to use. Very interesting. Who, exactly, determines which terminology is the Truth and which is False?


2)I don't think I used the word limitless, at least not today.


3)That is because it is. At the point in time at which it matters to patients, anyway. Which is in the present. I suspect this has been mentioned elsewhere in this long nightmare of a thread based internet experience.


4)What have economies got to do with anything? I'm thinking entirely about healthcare policy. And, alas, that is something that will always (always, always) produce losers, as well as winners. As I have been repeating endlessly for a while now. Which is a shame because it really is quite obvious.


5)Is it? Did you ask them?


6)My understanding (and I accept that on this issue I am beyond ignorant) is that most patients want to get better, and that most people who work in health services want to make this happen. I would argue that something would have to have gone seriously wrong for anything else to be so.


7)I think that the use of 'probably' there is very interesting. 'Probably'.


8)Access to top notch healthcare in the Mississippi Delta or in Central Appalachia. What's it like? If you are right, then it should be fantastic. I had heard otherwise though. I don't think there's much ambiguity there.

1) No I'm just surprised at the utter stupidity of someone that would spend this much arguing over terminology that is actually correct.

The Dictionary for 1.

2)  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^^^ Bolded part = limitless. And why don't you explain to me very careful logical steps how someone could "lose out" by someone else having "access to want they want".

3) NO ITS NOT! THE HEALTHCARE SUPPLY OF THE ANY COUNTRY ISN'T GOING TO REMAIN STATIC FROM HERE ON OUT! That is just a stupid comment.


4) How is it that healthcare has nothing to do with the economy. Does me purchasing a car have a negative effect on someone else's ability to purchase a car? The money goes to the company which is then used in producing more cars for other people to buy. The same is true in healthcare(at least in a market based healthcare system). If I buy an expensive treatment for a lot of money I actually improve the bottom line of the hospital so that they can offer more  treatments to other people. So I don't see how me utilizing healthcare makes a "loser" of someone else, but maybe you can explain this in detail.

5) Well since you basically agreed with my definition in your next sentence and that is how practically everybody defines in the states and for other industries as well I would say I'm dead on.

6) Patients want to get better = Better outcomes = quality. Since you live in the UK and your national government is footing the bill you don't care about cost even though it affects other things in your budget and ability to expand care. But in the US they want better outcomes, at a lower cost, with more choices and convenience. Since affordability is the driver of lack of access(in most cases) then it falls in the cost category.

7) The use of probably was when I expanded it more countries than just US and UK.

That is still very vague. You run around the thread claiming to be pretty knowledgeable about healthcare through "studying social policy" and your time as a patient, but yet you can't even provide a damn F**king specific answer to anything. You brought up these locations to show that you were knowledgeable on healthcare so PROVE IT. That means instead of just calling it "not top notch" I want you to actually detail what you know about these things not just hide behind vague comments like a two bit amateur who can't tell his d**k from a toothpick.

[Phony Moderate]

No its just this ^^^ raging douchebag

[Wonkish1]

1) Now your just sounding like acting all whiny and stupid because I pointed out that you aren't using the correct term. Maybe I should just call people on the left pedophiles and insist that my term is just as good as anybody else's. Its not my fault if you want to use incorrect language.

I'm sorry, but that will not do as a reply. So I will repeat myself, in the hope of provoking an answer that isn't full of childish abuse.

Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

Do you understand what that means? Do you understand (now that you have actually read it) why I object so strongly to this dogmatic use of the language of consumerism?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh, huh. So you insist that there is no problem with patients making decisions that either they or their family will end up regretting, as a result of their (entirely understandable and absolutely normal) ignorance? This is not an issue at all in the United States?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, only in a physical sense, and that's something quite different.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would define it in the way that it is usually defined by the non-robotic.

Really, see I actually thought that what mattered in healthcare policy was saving lives!! But instead apparently all of our problems go away according to this retard when we use his terminology for defining someone that receives treatment.

Look I take this stuff very seriously. And if you just want to run around bumping up your feel good bonafides because you challenged someone about a term instead of their desire to see people healthier and in a better financial position after treatment then knock yourself out. But just keep in mind you the exact same POS that I come across all the time that doesn't actually care about healthcare policy, but how they look when they talk about it.

Consumerism and healthcare consumption is not the same thing. Buy a dictionary.


Again vague comment you need to give to more detail. I'm not letting you hide behind 1/10 answers and bull$hit anymore. Either you come out and say what you mean in detail or you essentially don't have a comment.

So in a "physical sense" I'm right. Thank you!

You didn't even answer the question "non robotic" that was just a dodge by someone that doesn't actually deliver on the bull$hit he's selling.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1) No I'm just surprised at the utter stupidity of someone that would spend this much arguing over terminology that is actually correct.

I am many things, but stupid isn't really one of them. I just find your vehemence over this to be a little bit... odd. I have already told you (repeatedly, I think) that I am using the word in question ('rationing') purely because it describes the process I am thinking about well enough, and because it means that I don't have to resort to some jargonistic dribble. But you see to think the word set in stone. Yet you won't say who set it there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The qualifier came immediately beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even been reading my posts? I've already told you. It's really quite simple, so I'm not going to again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I said that? What I have been trying to write is that what matters when we're talking about access (especially within the context of equality of access) is the present, the now, the immediate. No matter how many liver specialists (for example), you have, they cannot give equal time to every single person with a liver disease (irrespective of severity, income or else) at the same time. If you see what I mean. I'm not even sure why you find this thought so very problematic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh for God's sake. I now think you are being willfully obtuse. I am attempting to have a discussion about healthcare policy. Healthcare as social policy, if you will. The politics of healthcare, if you must. Because I took exception to what you wrote on the issue.

It is possible to talk about healthcare in terms that are not economic. Most people don't find this very difficult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did no such thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a remarkably convoluted thought process there. But most people, well, they don't think like that. At least, no one I've ever met anyway. Perhaps Wisconsin is full of patients who think first and foremost in terms of mechanistic jargon, but I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you'll find that I have provided plenty of very specific answers to all kinds of things in this thread, it's just that you've not been able to understand them, or have made a conscious decision not to. This is regrettable.

Oh, and I never claimed to be studying social policy; that would not be true. But I do have a very serious interest in the history of social policy. I like to be clear on these details and not claim to be anything that I'm not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all, not at all. I have no intention of proving that I am knowledgeable about healthcare. It is a fact that I am, at least as far as certain aspects of it are concerned. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prove what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These things are so well known that I would consider them to be part of a basic level of knowledge, that's all. Let's narrow things down to the Delta. Do you know what happens when you type 'healthcare mississippi' into that autocomplete thing on google?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do hope that that wasn't an attempt at wit, doll.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Really, see I actually thought that what mattered in healthcare policy was saving lives!! But instead apparently all of our problems go away according to this retard when we use his terminology for defining someone that receives treatment.

Oh, come, come. You can do better than that. You could at least read my argument. It is fundamental to everything that I have been trying to say (write) in this thread. So, here we go again:

Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

A little flowery, I admit. But then that's just the way I write. I blame my Grandparents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that what I want to do?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that sort of abuse (and there was some a little earlier in your post with the same tone) is really called for, doll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I own several.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm like Brian Clough, me. Always have a comment. Anyway, I'm not hiding. I'm out in the open and waving a bright red flag. Mind you, I don't think that my little question there is that hard to understand. Your funeral, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And to think that you were the one who urged me to buy a dictionary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I'm not selling anything. In any event, my meaning there was quite clear.

[Wonkish1]

1) No I'm just surprised at the utter stupidity of someone that would spend this much arguing over terminology that is actually correct.

I am many things, but stupid isn't really one of them. I just find your vehemence over this to be a little bit... odd. I have already told you (repeatedly, I think) that I am using the word in question ('rationing') purely because it describes the process I am thinking about well enough, and because it means that I don't have to resort to some jargonistic dribble. But you see to think the word set in stone. Yet you won't say who set it there.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The qualifier came immediately beforehand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you even been reading my posts? I've already told you. It's really quite simple, so I'm not going to again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I said that? What I have been trying to write is that what matters when we're talking about access (especially within the context of equality of access) is the present, the now, the immediate. No matter how many liver specialists (for example), you have, they cannot give equal time to every single person with a liver disease (irrespective of severity, income or else) at the same time. If you see what I mean. I'm not even sure why you find this thought so very problematic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh for God's sake. I now think you are being willfully obtuse. I am attempting to have a discussion about healthcare policy. Healthcare as social policy, if you will. The politics of healthcare, if you must. Because I took exception to what you wrote on the issue.

It is possible to talk about healthcare in terms that are not economic. Most people don't find this very difficult.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did no such thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a remarkably convoluted thought process there. But most people, well, they don't think like that. At least, no one I've ever met anyway. Perhaps Wisconsin is full of patients who think first and foremost in terms of mechanistic jargon, but I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you'll find that I have provided plenty of very specific answers to all kinds of things in this thread, it's just that you've not been able to understand them, or have made a conscious decision not to. This is regrettable.

Oh, and I never claimed to be studying social policy; that would not be true. But I do have a very serious interest in the history of social policy. I like to be clear on these details and not claim to be anything that I'm not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not at all, not at all. I have no intention of proving that I am knowledgeable about healthcare. It is a fact that I am, at least as far as certain aspects of it are concerned. Whether you accept that or not is up to you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Prove what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

These things are so well known that I would consider them to be part of a basic level of knowledge, that's all. Let's narrow things down to the Delta. Do you know what happens when you type 'healthcare mississippi' into that autocomplete thing on google?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do hope that that wasn't an attempt at wit, doll.

Dictionary


?


No you haven't


You fundamentally don't understand anything about the US health system or markets in general. Markets adjust supply to accommodate demand. Your POS system in the UK doesn't.


Actually since healthcare costs money, new procedures/drugs/etc. require innovation, and people demand better outcomes than no you can't talk about healthcare outside of economics. To do so is just being blind to the world.


I don't get your obsessive nature of trying to knock every piece of jargon that doesn't sound good to you. At what point do you stop caring so much about what words people use to reference healthcare and actually start to care about the patients?

Siboleth, everything you post is vague crap. "Not top notch" is a vague answer. Pointing out the people are some of the most unhealthy people in the entire country with record rates of diabetes, heart disease, a very high poverty rate, and practically everybody on Medicaid is a specific answer. STOP SAYING VAGUE CRAP AND START GIVING SPECIFIC ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS! You haven't done it at all in this discussion.

[Wonkish1]

Really, see I actually thought that what mattered in healthcare policy was saving lives!! But instead apparently all of our problems go away according to this retard when we use his terminology for defining someone that receives treatment.

Oh, come, come. You can do better than that. You could at least read my argument. It is fundamental to everything that I have been trying to say (write) in this thread. So, here we go again:

Nothing matters so much in social policy as how we see the individual, because societies are made up of individuals and social policy is shaped in that gap that exists between society and ideology. Is the individual merely, or even principally, a consumer? Or is the individual also a citizen? And I suppose a patient as well. Perhaps one of the children of God, maybe, even, an individual in a more directly philosophical sense.

A little flowery, I admit. But then that's just the way I write. I blame my Grandparents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that what I want to do?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think that sort of abuse (and there was some a little earlier in your post with the same tone) is really called for, doll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I own several.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I'm like Brian Clough, me. Always have a comment. Anyway, I'm not hiding. I'm out in the open and waving a bright red flag. Mind you, I don't think that my little question there is that hard to understand. Your funeral, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And to think that you were the one who urged me to buy a dictionary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But I'm not selling anything. In any event, my meaning there was quite clear.

I get your argument. But your argument is still very weird! Nobody else(even on your side) would really care to here it. And again do you actually think that phrasing terminology in your way is actually more important than getting patients better? Because when you refer to how we "look at the individual" as being the most important in social policy. So that means that you would rather see that then more patients surviving diseases. Well you can think that all you want, but I doubt your going to find many people that agree.


Looks like it is!


Well its true if your not going actually talk specifics in regards to healthcare policy with the goal on improving the lives of individuals and instead spending our time dinking around talking about language and vague platitudes.

Apparently you don't read them.


Actually its very vague. You don't provide any reference as to what "they or the family is going to regret".  I'll fire off a vague one right back at you. What does the system and families in the UK think when things don't go as planned? That is an equivalently vague question.


Buddy its not me that is having the language problems here. You seem insistent throughout this process of inventing your own definitions.


No it wasn't.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Dictionary

Sorry, but I don't quite follow. Do you mean that a dictionary (but which one?) is the ultimate arbiter of all word usage? But... if that were true (and it isn't), then people like you couldn't really use the word 'ration' to describes what happens in systems such as the NHS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haven't what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that what this is all about? Jumping up and down and bawling out 'USA! USA! USA!' - ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I have ever denied that there is an economic aspect to healthcare. But to think that it is not primarily or exclusively a question of economics is certainly not being 'blind to the world'. If anything, the alternative view - the one that you seem to be advocating - is... well... weird.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just after I stopped beating my wife, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so you're blaming the people of the Delta for the fact that the Delta has serious problems relating to healthcare? Do they all have access to the best healthcare out there?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologise for not being a computer programme.

[Wonkish1]

Dictionary

Sorry, but I don't quite follow. Do you mean that a dictionary (but which one?) is the ultimate arbiter of all word usage? But... if that were true (and it isn't), then people like you couldn't really use the word 'ration' to describes what happens in systems such as the NHS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Haven't what?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that what this is all about? Jumping up and down and bawling out 'USA! USA! USA!' - ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I have ever denied that there is an economic aspect to healthcare. But to think that it is not primarily or exclusively a question of economics is certainly not being 'blind to the world'. If anything, the alternative view - the one that you seem to be advocating - is... well... weird.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just after I stopped beating my wife, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so you're blaming the people of the Delta for the fact that the Delta has serious problems relating to healthcare? Do they all have access to the best healthcare out there?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologise for not being a computer programme.

Oh my God, we have beaten to death the terminology crap. I'm done with it! If you don't understand that words have specific meanings by now there is nothing i can do for you!


You haven't explained in clear step by step detail how someone loses out from a different person being treated


No you just don't understand it nor anything about healthcare. You want to make it about dumb things like someone shouting USA, but really its about peoples lives and you don't want to actually admit that you don't have a clue!


Where have I said that all healthcare is economics? I have said that you can't escape economics when you talk about healthcare. Do you disagree with this?


Hey its your words not mine! You said that the way people look at the individuals in social policy is more important than the outcomes themselves. Well if you don't like the way that makes yourself sound then take it up with yourself not me!


No I'm not blaming people of the Delta at all! What is with you? I just gave a specific answer as to what some of the problems are in the Mississippi Delta which you refuse to do on anything. What does that say about you and your "knowledge" of healthcare when you can't even give a straight specific answer to a question?


I thought you said you were knowledgable about healthcare? I mean even if you did Google on occasion it would be better than just moving from vague response to vague response.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I get your argument. But your argument is still very weird!

Well, it might be to you. I would argue, though, that it is a fairly common (and therefore not at all weird) approach to welfare and to social policy of all kinds. It seems obvious - and not at all weird - that the beliefs of those responsible for shaping policy have a direct influence on the policy that they shape.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't they? How do you know this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, I see. You don't understand my argument, but you think that you do... well this is awkward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Crude and unprovoked abuse is never called for. I can hardly complain if people are rude (because I am very rude myself), but I do draw the line at that kind of thing. It certainly makes it very hard for me to care greatly about the discussion as anything other an excuse to argue on the internet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Going to regret' is an open-ended phrase that covers most possibilities. Your question, however, is gibberish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? Do you even understand what I meant by 'consume in a physical sense'? No, you don't have to answer that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright. As the relationship between a patient and a medical professional. I think that is how I would see it, and how most other people would as well. I happen to think that anyone who thinks otherwise is a little... disturbing, frankly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh my God, we have beaten to death the terminology crap. I'm done with it! If you don't understand that words have specific meanings by now there is nothing i can do for you!

Amusing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't explain things in 'clear step by step detail' because I am not a robot. I have actually been making the same argument over and over again in this thread, putting it in different ways and sometimes even putting it in clear language. It is not my fault if none of this has penetrated your stainless steel cranium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I care a great deal about 'peoples lives'. Especially when those people are in hospital. If you don't believe me, ask anyone here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it is fairly clear that that is what you think, because you have demonstrated absolutely no capacity (none whatsoever) to think about the issue in any other way. Now, you might not think that yourself. But a little self-awareness is a good thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear. Now this is just a little bit sad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would ask a question at this point (something like: 'why do you think I brought up the Delta?') but as I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this charade, I'll let it pass.

That really is that this time, I'm afraid. I have no interest in debating this issue further with you.

[Хahar 🤔]

That's too bad. I was enjoying reading this thread.

[Wonkish1]

I get your argument. But your argument is still very weird!

Well, it might be to you. I would argue, though, that it is a fairly common (and therefore not at all weird) approach to welfare and to social policy of all kinds. It seems obvious - and not at all weird - that the beliefs of those responsible for shaping policy have a direct influence on the policy that they shape.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wouldn't they? How do you know this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, I see. You don't understand my argument, but you think that you do... well this is awkward.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. Crude and unprovoked abuse is never called for. I can hardly complain if people are rude (because I am very rude myself), but I do draw the line at that kind of thing. It certainly makes it very hard for me to care greatly about the discussion as anything other an excuse to argue on the internet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

'Going to regret' is an open-ended phrase that covers most possibilities. Your question, however, is gibberish.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really? Do you even understand what I meant by 'consume in a physical sense'? No, you don't have to answer that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Alright. As the relationship between a patient and a medical professional. I think that is how I would see it, and how most other people would as well. I happen to think that anyone who thinks otherwise is a little... disturbing, frankly.

Don't care anymore!

Don't care!

No I do get it! Your just a very, very weird guy that doesn't make any sense and blabbers crap incessantly.

Look clearly you have had more desire to talk about terminology, platitudes, vague answers, etc. than real healthcare policy. Since that is where your time is than clearly you care more about how you look talking about healthcare policy than real patients and making them better. If you don't like that then you only have yourself to blame. And you actually thought you had the moral high ground in this argument...yeah, right!


"Most possibilities" you mean any possibilities. Literally you can end up regretting being late 5 minutes. Its way to open ended to answer.


I know exactly what you mean and since I'm actually referring to it in about as close to as a physical sense as you can get then finally we are actually starting come together on definitions here.

That wasn't the question. The question is how would you define a persons relationship between them and a drug, procedure, or test? So basically you can replace the word consume with anything you want but you have to refer it towards drug, procedure and test **not a medical professional**. I mean you can't even answer a simple question.

[Wonkish1]

Oh my God, we have beaten to death the terminology crap. I'm done with it! If you don't understand that words have specific meanings by now there is nothing i can do for you!

Amusing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't explain things in 'clear step by step detail' because I am not a robot. I have actually been making the same argument over and over again in this thread, putting it in different ways and sometimes even putting it in clear language. It is not my fault if none of this has penetrated your stainless steel cranium.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, I care a great deal about 'peoples lives'. Especially when those people are in hospital. If you don't believe me, ask anyone here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it is fairly clear that that is what you think, because you have demonstrated absolutely no capacity (none whatsoever) to think about the issue in any other way. Now, you might not think that yourself. But a little self-awareness is a good thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear. Now this is just a little bit sad.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would ask a question at this point (something like: 'why do you think I brought up the Delta?') but as I have no intention of wasting anymore time on this charade, I'll let it pass.

That really is that this time, I'm afraid. I have no interest in debating this issue further with you.

You give platitudes and generalities then call that an argument. Its not!

Well apparently according to you proper language directed towards patients is more important.

You have demonstrated no capacity to think about the issue at all. So I don't think your in a position to tell me anything about the way I think.

Apparently sad for you. Not everyday people figure out that they have been acting pretty low morally by choosing to complain about words and issue platitudes instead of deal with real problems.

But you answer 0 questions and I answer all of yours. So maybe you should start learning how to answer a persons question next time instead of thinking about asking more questions you will misconstrue the answers too.

Well I wouldn't really call it a debate. You didn't really say anything this entire time and basically wasted both of our times. Now Marston on the other hand he and I were having a very meaningful discussion. But I guess to expect for you to even rise to even a 1/100th of the level Marston was at was asking too much.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That's too bad. I was enjoying reading this thread.

I already declared that I'd had enough and then immediately replied, so maybe there's still life in this... I don't know... what would the right word be? Not that it matters... yet.