"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:08:55 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Add to the above the fact that for the last 65 years we've been
steadily
throwing more money at doctors in the form of tax benefits and employer
subsidies that remove any incentive whatever to treat a sniffle with
chicken
soup rather than a visit to the doctor's office, and you've got a
recipe
for
financial disaster.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Dave, very little of your
health care dollar finds it's way into the hands of doctors, about 6%.

Cheers
Marty


Dave is blaming the doctors of course!

Not at all. If the politicians want to throw money at the doctors I don't
fault the doctors for saying "thank you very much" and sticking the cash
in
their pockets.

Without going into a lengthy history lesson, the point is that we have for
a
long period of time treated medical services differently from other
services
by removing all incentives for the person making the purchasing decision
to
weigh cost against benefit. When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable. For one thing, you don't have much choice
if you're sick and poor. Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if
someone doesn't have regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care
only.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
services
by removing all incentives for the person making the purchasing decision
to
weigh cost against benefit. When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable. For one thing, you don't have much choice
if you're sick and poor. Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if
someone doesn't have regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care
only.



Exactly my point, as I said a few posts ago " Further to the point,
since everybody is going to get health care, it behooves the Provinces
to deliver it to the indigent in a pro-active, preventative manner."


Cheers
Marty

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 12:59:48 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

When the cost to the decision maker of
acquiring
any goods or services goes to near zero, the quantity demanded is going
to
go up, and the price increase. It's a classic example of unintended
consequences of the politician's mantra "I'm gonna give you something
and
somebody else is gonna pay for it."


I don't think this is applicable.

I know, Jon. You seem to be among those who insist that whatever their
favorite hobby horse is, the laws of supply and demand don't apply to a
horse of that color.


Apparently, you don't, since you chopped out the rest of the response...
here it is again:

For one thing, you don't have much choice if you're sick and poor.
Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if someone doesn't have
regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care only.

Nothing to do with supply and demand here.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:19:40 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

For one thing, you don't have much choice if you're sick and poor.
Secondly, we (as a society) pay much more if someone doesn't have
regular heathcare and has to "opt" for emergency care only.

Nothing to do with supply and demand here.

I'm sure that if you thought about that for a minute even you would
recognize the absurdity of that statement.


Just like you recognize the absurdity of what you typed...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com