patrick.net

bob2356 says

Yep, 70% of the population in India doesn't have access to a doctor or hospital. Makes it real cheap if you can't have it. Is this your example of medical care without rationing? Nice.

You are talking about medical tourism, not medical services. It's cheap relative to the US, not to citizens of India.

So are we now conflating India's medical care into this as well?

bob2356 says

Someone actually did a pretty extensive study of that and couldn't find where the mythical Canadian got their health care in the US. But of course actually doing research and presenting the numbers certainly isn't nearly as solid proof as someone said so on youtube. http://www.pnhp.org/news/2012/june/5-myths-about-canada%E2%80%99s-health-care-system Let's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

Mean while back at the ranch, YES waiting is a form of rationing.

bob2356 says

If you consider Chile a third world hellhole then you need to start travelling further than the state fair.

I don't but do think it is ironic that the Wogster would consider a country that has benefited greatly from Milton Friedman and supply side economics.

bob2356 says

et's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

Shh! You're ruining a libertarian legend.

indigenous says

So are we now conflating India's medical care into this as well?

Who be we white man (see lone ranger jokes). You brought up India as an example of a working free market health care system based on price discovery. and said India had "great services for a lot less money with great accommodations and skilled Doctors.". I (actually it was forbes or the wsj I don't remember which) only pointed out that 70% of the people have no health care at all. The question still stands (and probably will forever, keep on ducking and shuffling). Is this your example of medical care without rationing or did you just throw it out randomly with no relationship to the discussion at all?

indigenous says

Mean while back at the ranch, YES waiting is a form of rationing.

Not in any non libretarian dictionary. Being a slave of ideology is certainly limiting.

thunderlips11 says

bob2356 says

et's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

Shh! You're ruining a libertarian legend.

Don't you just hate killjoys that refuse to believe it's true because it should be true. and people feel it's true. The a priori meme thing. Didn't aristotle and aquinus write something about canadians seeing doctors in america?

the cheap medical costs in shithole countries are largely artifacts of the cheap cost of living.

Doctors here charge what they charge because they can, and they need to compete with their fellow monopolists for assets, toys, and trophies.

Monopolies and "moats" are beautiful things, if you've got one.

bob2356 says

Let's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

That has nothing to do with being Libertarian or not. It shows that you can get really good and fast quality care here, but you have to pay for it, and probably only a few can afford to do so. There is nothing free about the health-care system here, so the goal is to produce the best care with best price discovery and least middle-men/fraud. A system where you go to jail for importing drugs just because they are cheaper elsewhere can hardly be called free.

mell says

A system where you go to jail for importing drugs just because they are cheaper elsewhere can hardly be called free.

Mell, would you not agree that the reason it's illegal to import those drugs is a largely free market in political donations? Money = Free Speech?

mell says

bob2356 says

Let's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

That has nothing to do with being Libertarian or not. It shows that you can get really good and fast quality care here, but you have to pay for it, and probably only a few can afford to do so.

So there are other ideologies that define .1% to be very common? Which are those?

You are saying 99.9% of canadians desire to get their health care in the US but can't afford it? Based on what? More than twice as many canadians rate their health care system satisfactory than americans do.

I always base my beliefs on one person's opinion especially when I don't know if he has a secret agenda.

thunderlips11 says

mell says

A system where you go to jail for importing drugs just because they are cheaper elsewhere can hardly be called free.

Mell, would you not agree that the reason it's illegal to import those drugs is a largely free market in political donations? Money = Free Speech?

That is likely a contributing factor, however a society does not vote and act solely on paid propaganda, or at least it shouldn't, otherwise it gets the government it deserves ;) The fact that people are voting or leaning Libertarian despite them having by far the least amount of donations shows that crony laws can be reversed. Moreover some seem to be already illegal wrt the constitution, but they don't get called out and protested against enough. The whole healthcare industry, not just the insurances, operates more like a criminal racket, similar to the housing industry. The question is always whether it is worth reducing freedom and to what extend for perceived equality, but campaign contributions and donations are definitely a topic worth discussing, no matter what political stance.

bob2356 says

mell says

bob2356 says

Let's see, 20 people out of 18,000 went the US specifically for health care. I don't consider .1% to be all that very common, but I'm not a libertarian. You guys have some very different definitions from the rest of the world.

That has nothing to do with being Libertarian or not. It shows that you can get really good and fast quality care here, but you have to pay for it, and probably only a few can afford to do so.

So there are other ideologies that define .1% to be very common? Which are those?

You are saying 99.9% of canadians desire to get their health care in the US but can't afford it? Based on what? More than twice as many canadians rate their health care system satisfactory than americans do.

Not 99.9%, but way more than those who can afford. I didn't say it is an inadequate health care system, and if you take the average coverage for all it may excel. However the US has always been the country where people flew in for really complicated health matters if they could afford it. Maybe this will change in favor of another country, but I am sure top quality medicine has a strong correlation to the degree of freedom in that country.

mell says

. However the US has always been the country where people flew in for really complicated health matters if they could afford it. Maybe this will change in favor of another country, but I am sure top quality medicine has a strong correlation to the degree of freedom in that country.

The US has been the country where people flew in because where else are they going to go? The other advanced health care systems are public systems so you have to be a citizen or permenent resident to use them. That may start to change a little some advanced countries considering medical tourism, although there are a lot of legal issues to work out in each country. Ironically the largest group of medical tourists by far is americans.

So you are saying you believe that only .1% of canadians needing health care can afford health care outside of canada? I don' t know about that. What are you basing this on?