Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 191 posts

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#181

Post by rhizome »

duaneb wrote: post #170
rhizome wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

still a profane political philosophy Absolutely not, and and "socialist" is not the same thing as "socialism" at any rate. The only people who hate the idea are the hardcore capitalists, most notably those who profit from the current regime (industrialists and drama-fed parasites like the media and politicians), but the fact remains that nationalized health care is a feature of pretty much every single country with a…

> The only people who hate the idea are the hardcore capitalists Well, them and voters.

Pretty sure voters would like a higher standard of living.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#182

Post by dnautics »

moocowduckquack wrote: post #176
dnautics wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

forget ethnicity for a moment (there is a separate biological argument that is not sociological in nature), although we know what 'socio-economic' is a codeword for. The point is that posters above are saying things like "There is no discrimination in the public service." I can say for sure there is no way that is possible. If there were no discrimination, then there would be no reason why people are systematically a…

forget ethnicity for a moment (there is a separate biological argument that is not sociological in nature), although we know what 'socio-economic' is a codeword for. The point is that posters above are saying things like "There is no discrimination in the public service." You started with a comment about killing off 90% to achieve ethnic homogeneity and when pressed on the point said that the French health system can…

No doubt, the US medical system is a failure. It wasn't, 50 years ago. Nobody here is suggesting that medicine be completely unregulated. You bet I'm an ideologue on this, but so are you. Here is part of my point: The question of who pays is a moral one. Should a person who has huntington's, and will lead a highly productive life through the late 30s and chooses to die quickly (in lieu of dying slowly painfully), be forced to subsidize the life of a person who smokes through their youth and chooses to milk the system for expensive, extended life support through their 50s-100s? Who gets to make that call? Corner cases are important.

I am also not convinced that the French medical system is sustainable. We are getting a snapshot in time, and since no economy today is based on a system that doesn't borrow money on interest, (versus spending only what it takes in through taxes), kicking payments to the future could mask unsustainability, ultimately resulting in a spectacular collapse of the system. In other words, today's French citizens could be living in borrowed luxury that will absolutely slaughter tomorrow's. Again, this is not to say that the US system is sustainable (it obviously isn't).

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#183

Post by jes »

krichman wrote: post #132
jes wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person chooses it freely, how can you say it's not the right thing for them to choose? Epistemologically, how could you know this?

They are not choosing freely, society pushes them to have a cell phone, and by definition there is no free choice of carriers because the government allocates the spectrum.

I think you're suggesting that unless a choice has no consequences, it's not a free choice.

So because in this day and age it's convenient to have a cell phone, the choice to do without one is not a free choice. And because one doesn't have an unlimited number of carriers to choose from, that choice is also not a free choice.

I'm using free choice in a different way, perhaps. To me, unless someone puts a gun to your head (so to speak), every choice you make is a free choice. That doesn't mean the choices are without consequences, or that they are necessarily good for you.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#184

Post by moocowduckquack »

dnautics wrote: post #182
moocowduckquack wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

forget ethnicity for a moment (there is a separate biological argument that is not sociological in nature), although we know what 'socio-economic' is a codeword for. The point is that posters above are saying things like "There is no discrimination in the public service." You started with a comment about killing off 90% to achieve ethnic homogeneity and when pressed on the point said that the French health system can…

No doubt, the US medical system is a failure. It wasn't, 50 years ago. Nobody here is suggesting that medicine be completely unregulated. You bet I'm an ideologue on this, but so are you. Here is part of my point: The question of who pays is a moral one. Should a person who has huntington's, and will lead a highly productive life through the late 30s and chooses to die quickly (in lieu of dying slowly painfully), be…

Should a person who has huntington's, and will lead a highly productive life through the late 30s and chooses to die quickly (in lieu of dying slowly painfully), be forced to subsidize the life of a person who smokes through their youth and chooses to milk the system for expensive, extended life support through their 50s-100s?

Either of those people could get hit by a bus at age 20 and need life saving surgery and massive help learning to walk again. This isn't particularly about morals of ownership, this is about pragmatic ways of spreading risk.

I don't personally care what the political setup is and I think there are numerous ways to achieve spreading medical risk, but I have yet to see a country that is getting good results from just private industry plus charity.

If you think you know how it could work and that there would be an improvement in medical outcomes and general equitability from your plan over the other systems now in effect, then that is excellent news and you should detail it in an academic paper and tell the world.

However, given that you are stating that you are an ideologue on this, then you are starting with the answer you want to end up with and just trying to work out how to argue it.

If you want to say that is all I am doing as well, then fair enough, all I can say is that I am fairly certain that is not where I am coming from on this, while noting that you openly admit it.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#185

Post by swalkergibson »

dude3 wrote: post #20

I think there are 2 big factors that always seem to be missing from these investigations. The high costs offsets individuals who don't pay for their healthcare. Keep in mind that the hospital must treat anybody who walks in the door and they frequently do not get reimbursed by the government. Also keep in mind that the solution must be perfect when it physically cannot be. Because if there is a .0001 percent chance o…

> Obstetricians often pay $85,000 to as much as $200,000 for malpractice insurance.

[Citation needed]

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#186

Post by ThomPete »

jes wrote: post #183
krichman wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not choosing freely, society pushes them to have a cell phone, and by definition there is no free choice of carriers because the government allocates the spectrum.

I think you're suggesting that unless a choice has no consequences, it's not a free choice. So because in this day and age it's convenient to have a cell phone, the choice to do without one is not a free choice. And because one doesn't have an unlimited number of carriers to choose from, that choice is also not a free choice. I'm using free choice in a different way, perhaps. To me, unless someone puts a gun to your…

The point is that a cellphone is the best tool we have and that you are severely disadvantaged not only practically but also socially if you don't have one.

So you are free to not choose one but the consequences are huge to most people in fact to big.

It's not a rational choice as the free market philosophy claims, its a choice thats primed by whats considered desirable at any given time.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#188

Post by aamar »

krichman wrote: post #129
aamar wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in much agreement with your initial point (that free markets allow for price-fixing), but you're getting a lot of comments here because you overstate your case! There's nothing peculiar about medical supplies that make them easy monopolized. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices (neither of which are the topic of the original post) enjoy patent protection, but there are often many out-of-patent substitutes availabl…

But we want the state to regulate medical practitioners! Even if we support natural selection acting on humans, we don't want an ambulance to take us to a homeopathic healer or Christian scientist, we want them to take us to a licensed professional.

I agree! Apologies if I was confusing on that point. Though I do suspect the states should license more MDs and provide more ability for PAs & NPs to practice without direct supervision.

I do very much believe more consumer choice for non-urgent care would be helpful, i.e. lab choice, hospital choice, a menu of drug options (ratings, side effects, out of pocket cost). This is controversial for a number of reasons, but after considerable, I believe this would have significant positive impact on the overall efficiency of healthcare.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#189

Post by dredmorbius »

tptacek wrote: post #146
dredmorbius wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass-produced clothing is also a commodity. You're just convinced it's not.

No, it's not. Commodities are products with multiple sellers and minimal differentiation. You can only put Ralph Lauren clothes into that bucket by willfully ignoring the concept of differentiation. Meanwhile: there is literally no differentiation between different suppliers of IV saline; it's a standardized product.

When a brand label is reduced to "this is what we put on products our buyer/sourcer has obtained at the lowest cost", you no longer have a design element at work. Increasingly, brands don't designate manufacturer, but middleman (yes, there are exceptions, but they're increasingly, well, exceptional).

Some very high-end custom-designer fashions might be excluded, but if you're buying off-the-rack (or mail-order/online) clothing manufactured in mass, you're buying a commodity, in the sense of a largely undifferentiated item. The label is the _only_ item of distinction (and not even that when you're getting grey-market goods).

Incidentally, look up "commodity" in your dictionary, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Re: How to Charge $546 for Six Liters of Saltwater

#190

Post by dredmorbius »

dylangs1030 wrote: post #154
dredmorbius wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass-produced clothing is also a commodity. You're just convinced it's not.

No, that's wrong. Mass-produced clothing is the direct opposite of a commodity. A commodity would be silk, or cotton - the raw fabric used as base materials. What you then do with those materials to increase their value directly changes them from commodities into products. Put another way - gold is a commodity, as is silver. Jewelry, however, is not. It can't be a commodity if the material has been changed into a div…

Mass-produced clothing is the direct opposite of a commodity.

Check your dictionary.

Post reply on HN