Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
64 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Can someone pro-private healthcare please explain this to me? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

We don't buy private police protection because it's more expensive overall, it's less safe for society, it's necessary for *everyone* even those that can't afford it, and for all of the preceding reasons it shouldn't be dolled out for the private sector *for profit* because people will literally live or die or go bankrupt buying necessary services. Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:
We don't buy private police protection because it's more expensive overall, it's less safe for society, it's necessary for *everyone* even those that can't afford it, and for all of the preceding reasons it shouldn't be dolled out for the private sector *for profit* because people will literally live or die or go bankrupt buying necessary services. Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.

Your police example was poorly chosen because having separate private police agencies providing protection to different people in the society WILL lead, sooner or later, to gun battles between different police agencies. This is a terrible outcome.

A better example might be a civil court system. Or maybe private prisons where the victim or the criminal gets to decide which prison the criminal must spend his sentence in.

Just saying.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
We don't buy private police protection because it's more expensive overall, it's less safe for society, it's necessary for *everyone* even those that can't afford it, and for all of the preceding reasons it shouldn't be dolled out for the private sector *for profit* because people will literally live or die or go bankrupt buying necessary services. Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.

Your police example was poorly chosen because having separate private police agencies providing protection to different people in the society WILL lead, sooner or later, to gun battles between different police agencies. This is a terrible outcome.

A better example might be a civil court system. Or maybe private prisons where the victim or the criminal gets to decide which prison the criminal must spend his sentence in.

Just saying.




Why would they get into gun battles with each other? I didn't say jurisdiction shouldn't exist.

But yes, there are any number of examples I could use. Fire protection, road building and maintenance, military protection, private prisons, public education...etc.

Point being, private doesn't always mean better.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
Beacause there is always some bigger scarier 'black man' out there to not respect your none agression pact.


"Why would they get into gun battles with each other? I didn't say jurisdiction shouldn't exist."

They wouldn't - they would 'unionise' into gangs holding specific areas and not shoot each othe rout of professinal curtsey. All the better to shake down the 'customer'.

Oh wait they already do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vapix
msg tools
mbmbmb
Private security is common enough. Police as in "law enforcement" needs to be government sponsored - in that sense "private police" is a contradiction in terms.

If you think about how private security is deployed, and who benefits from it, there's data there that can be applied to healthcare. Of course it won't get through the denial that seems to dominate RSP at the moment /lol.

The numbers say that having different "pools" of people rather than one big one sharing all the costs is good for the majority (for the deniers: try to apply this to "pre-existing conditions").

In effect the math says the decision to share costs in a single pool is a political one: the majority chooses to help a disadvantaged minority.

If the deniers would stop claiming this is the rational economic choice or every individuals' sacred duty, and accept they're taking the "socialist view" in this case the discussions would be shorter (possibly even polite).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Vapix wrote:
If you think about how private security is deployed, and who benefits from it, there's data there that can be applied to healthcare. Of course it won't get through the denial that seems to dominate RSP at the moment /lol.

The numbers say that having different "pools" of people rather than one big one sharing all the costs is good for the majority (for the deniers: try to apply this to "pre-existing conditions").

In effect the math says the decision to share costs in a single pool is a political one: the majority chooses to help a disadvantaged minority.

If the deniers would stop claiming this is the rational economic choice or every individuals' sacred duty, and accept they're taking the "socialist view" in this case the discussions would be shorter (possibly even polite).

You're being so vague here, I can't tell what you're talking about.

The private security I'm thinking of serves only to protect the property & interests of the wealthy from the poor; is that the data you want applied to health care?

Of course throwing the disadvantaged minority (if you're referring to people with pre-existing conditions) into a separate cost pool than the healthy majority is good (in a strictly financial sense) for the majority, but... so what?

The purely rational economic choice is to eliminate the weak and sick, but, fortunately, "rational economic choices" don't have much relevance when it comes to deciding what kind of society we want to live in.

Also, I can't tell who you're calling "the deniers." What are they denying, and is what they're denying correct or incorrect? Are they the ones being impolite? etc.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Derry Salewski
United States
Augusta
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
I'm only happy when it rains...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Surely people paying politicians to oppose socialist type programs afford and pay for private security, drive like laws don't apply to them, favor people having guns, favor laws that oppress minorities and poor with the police and plenty of other angles that make them not quite agree with you on either point...

I.e, rich people will happily use the police or the healthcare system to step on poor people.

(Also, don't tell anyone that police they pay for spend half their time being substance abuse and mental health care anyway )
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vapix
msg tools
mbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:

Vapix wrote:
[...]

You're being so vague here, I can't tell what you're talking about.

The private security I'm thinking of serves only to protect the property & interests of the wealthy from the poor; is that the data you want applied to health care?

Of course throwing the disadvantaged minority (if you're referring to people with pre-existing conditions) into a separate cost pool than the healthy majority is good (in a strictly financial sense) for the majority, but... so what?

The purely rational economic choice is to eliminate the weak and sick, but, fortunately, "rational economic choices" don't have much relevance when it comes to deciding what kind of society we want to live in.

Also, I can't tell who you're calling "the deniers." What are they denying, and is what they're denying correct or incorrect? Are they the ones being impolite? etc.

After the questionable example, the OP moved to this:
Shampoo4you wrote:

[...]
Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.

This is an interesting question, and there is a simple answer, as per my earlier post.

A society can choose a different path of course: society as a whole can take responsibility for healthcare costs, and choose to apply different principles than "maximize economic efficiency" to healthcare. But this is a political decision - in a perfectly (but of course unrealistic) democratic world this would be a good candidate for a referendum, because it's a political decision, not a practical one. This is true independently of the unnecessary inefficiency of the US system - it's not just because of the "insurance vs single-payer" bias.

I refer to deniers, because the thing that strikes me over and over about RSP's US-centric halthcare discussions is that most posters assume that neither of those basic facts is relevant - and usually the context suggests it's denial rather than a deliberate choice.

If I dared to suggest applying socialist principles to anything other than healthcare exactly the same people would be explaining what a terrible person I am using exactly the opposite arguments /lol.

As to why I bother - like everyone else I post here to amuse myself, but this isn't trolling. I don't see how it's possible to have an interesting discussion about healthcare principles (as opposed to the specific US legislation that's "in play" at the moment) unless there's a degree of agreement over the basics. What I observe is denial of the economics of healthcare, and wildly unrealistic claims that US voters have a duty to believe in some form of single-payer healthcare.


BTW: the point about the combination of law enforcement plus private security is that it's quite close to a limited single-player system plus optional complementary insurance. This is quite common in RL healthcare, and works ok - which is the real problem with the example.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb


The advantage to private health care is that it is more responsive to negative feedback than the government because of economic drivers.

When enough people at a company complain about insurance company X than often the HR department starts looking at other plans to offer its employees. Some really large companies actually offer their employees X, Y and Z choices every year to pick their insurance providers from.

This means that while still as clumsy as dancing with an elephant, SOME progress to reform crappy services and providers CAN and DOES happen from the bottom up rather than all changes being mandated from a more top down approach.

The ability to choose providers of not only actual hands on health care, but how those people get paid, does drive a good deal of positive benefits to our health care system.

It also drives a lot of crappy problems in our system as well. But overall much of what makes our system work is that feedback loop that capitalism facilitates in ways a totally government run system will literally not contain.
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
The reverse is true private health care chases the profit but has NO interest in long term care or sustainable health and expects some one else to pay for those eternalities .

It is too long too expensive and doesn't show up on this quarters bottom line as a bonus for the share holders.

Hence you get a steady supply of plastic surgeons, cancer respite centers not so many.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
The reverse is true private health care chases the profit but has NO interest in long term care or sustainable health and expects some one else to pay for those eternalities .

It is too long too expensive and doesn't show up on this quarters bottom line as a bonus for the share holders.


I disagree, private insurance LOVES funding sustainable routine health rather than problems from ignoring health. That is why yearly exams and many other routine things like flu shots are super cheap (to the patient) to the point of often having NO co-pay at all.

It is paying for long term care for chronic big ticket things that heath insurance tries to wiggle out of to prop up their bottom line. Thus the attempts to not cover people with preexisting conditions.


Quote:

Hence you get a steady supply of plastic surgeons, cancer respite centers not so many.


This reply makes no sense to me. Plastic surgery is rarely covered by insurance, and cancer usually is.

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Plastic surgery, not normally covered by insurance as noted, is also affordable. Hmmmmm.


Really? You are talking about $3.7k average for breast implants for the surgery alone. That does not include the cost of anesthesia, facilities, and materials. All in you are probably talking $5-10k.

I am sure that is affordable for some of people but it isn't affordable to a great number of people. It is also something that one can save up for over a very long time unlike emergency surgery.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve
Thailand
flag msg tools
Shampoo4you wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
We don't buy private police protection because it's more expensive overall, it's less safe for society, it's necessary for *everyone* even those that can't afford it, and for all of the preceding reasons it shouldn't be dolled out for the private sector *for profit* because people will literally live or die or go bankrupt buying necessary services. Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.

Your police example was poorly chosen because having separate private police agencies providing protection to different people in the society WILL lead, sooner or later, to gun battles between different police agencies. This is a terrible outcome.

A better example might be a civil court system. Or maybe private prisons where the victim or the criminal gets to decide which prison the criminal must spend his sentence in.

Just saying.




Why would they get into gun battles with each other? I didn't say jurisdiction shouldn't exist.

But yes, there are any number of examples I could use. Fire protection, road building and maintenance, military protection, private prisons, public education...etc.

Point being, private doesn't always mean better.

I think the gun battles will ocure because --

I hire a bunch of goons to protect my interests and you hire your own goons. Your and my interests collide. Why wouldn't the respective goons fight each other?

Isn't history full of this kind of thing when the Gov. police are powerless? Like Somalia now.

I thought you assumed that there was no Gov. police and everyone had to hire their own.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Plastic surgery, not normally covered by insurance as noted, is also affordable. Hmmmmm.


Yes it is, just like LASIK, but it's not really because it is private, but because it is optional. I don't see heart surgery becoming cheap in a private market.

There is plenty of harmful regulations in US health care though: A lot of the laws in the books to ensure quality, and pretty much anything that makes it hard to change states/countries as a provider is raising costs. It's not as if the heavily rationed doctors didn't give us Our current opiate situation.

That is the market based reform that lowers prices, guaranteed, but instead it is the thing Republicans won't talk about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:


The advantage to private health care is that it is more responsive to negative feedback than the government because of economic drivers.

When enough people at a company complain about insurance company X than often the HR department starts looking at other plans to offer its employees. Some really large companies actually offer their employees X, Y and Z choices every year to pick their insurance providers from.

This means that while still as clumsy as dancing with an elephant, SOME progress to reform crappy services and providers CAN and DOES happen from the bottom up rather than all changes being mandated from a more top down approach.

The ability to choose providers of not only actual hands on health care, but how those people get paid, does drive a good deal of positive benefits to our health care system.

It also drives a lot of crappy problems in our system as well. But overall much of what makes our system work is that feedback loop that capitalism facilitates in ways a totally government run system will literally not contain.


Even in we take your scenario at face value it is fatally flawed

The only employees with that kind of power are those working for mega corporations that have that kind of power to influence another mega corporation. A rather smaller subset from the entire population If you work for a smaller size corp or otherwise economically disadvantaged. I have worked for more than one company were the complaints about the insurance was met with the stock answer. "We're sorry, we know the insurance sucks, but it is all we can afford/get" If you have no avenue to get insurance via your employer then you are really screwed


And given the consolidation in the insurance industry, your faith in market forces seems rather naive to put it mildly

And if we have such a superior system, then why in study after study do we see countries with Universal Health Care getting equal or superior results while paying far less for the result. Canada come to mind

Some actual examples of what makes it better would help rather than a mystic belief in the "invisible hand of the market". A good place to start is why administrative costs are far higher in the US than in Canada, as in triple (667$ per capita vs 158$ per capital) in 2011 study

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literatu...

6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:


The advantage to private health care is that it is more responsive to negative feedback than the government because of economic drivers.

When enough people at a company complain about insurance company X than often the HR department starts looking at other plans to offer its employees. Some really large companies actually offer their employees X, Y and Z choices every year to pick their insurance providers from.

This means that while still as clumsy as dancing with an elephant, SOME progress to reform crappy services and providers CAN and DOES happen from the bottom up rather than all changes being mandated from a more top down approach.

The ability to choose providers of not only actual hands on health care, but how those people get paid, does drive a good deal of positive benefits to our health care system.

It also drives a lot of crappy problems in our system as well. But overall much of what makes our system work is that feedback loop that capitalism facilitates in ways a totally government run system will literally not contain.


Oh, economic drivers that force three providers in the same zip code to charge three, disparate price points for the same EXACT service of quality and scope? Is it those economic drivers that make them compete?

Ah, yes.

But then your example falls apart, because health care delivery (apart from restrained Medicaid/Care payments) is a closed, invisible system.


And you are fixated with Company sponsored health care, which you forget only applies to very few (percentage wise) in this country. Many small businesses don't have the clout you claim.

God forbid you get laid off from your current job and get jettisoned into the wilderness. Well, then you are completely fucked. Then again, you are just dealing in theory, and not the reality of what many face.

Must be easy to do that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
Meerkat wrote:


The advantage to private health care is that it is more responsive to negative feedback than the government because of economic drivers.

When enough people at a company complain about insurance company X than often the HR department starts looking at other plans to offer its employees. Some really large companies actually offer their employees X, Y and Z choices every year to pick their insurance providers from.

This means that while still as clumsy as dancing with an elephant, SOME progress to reform crappy services and providers CAN and DOES happen from the bottom up rather than all changes being mandated from a more top down approach.

The ability to choose providers of not only actual hands on health care, but how those people get paid, does drive a good deal of positive benefits to our health care system.

It also drives a lot of crappy problems in our system as well. But overall much of what makes our system work is that feedback loop that capitalism facilitates in ways a totally government run system will literally not contain.


Even in we take your scenario at face value it is fatally flawed

The only employees with that kind of power are those working for mega corporations that have that kind of power to influence another mega corporation. A rather smaller subset from the entire population If you work for a smaller size corp or otherwise economically disadvantaged. I have worked for more than one company were the complaints about the insurance was met with the stock answer. "We're sorry, we know the insurance sucks, but it is all we can afford/get" If you have no avenue to get insurance via your employer then you are really screwed


And given the consolidation in the insurance industry, your faith in market forces seems rather naive to put it mildly

And if we have such a superior system, then why in study after study do we see countries with Universal Health Care getting equal or superior results while paying far less for the result. Canada come to mind

Some actual examples of what makes it better would help rather than a mystic belief in the "invisible hand of the market". A good place to start is why administrative costs are far higher in the US than in Canada, as in triple (667$ per capita vs 158$ per capital) in 2011 study

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literatu...



The inability of some to step outside of their personal scenario, which they extrapolate to everrrrrryone, is fascinating.

I know that self-delusion is a key factor for many believers, but can't it be compartmentalized so it doesn't affect the real aspects of life?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Carter
United States
Marion
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andyl wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Plastic surgery, not normally covered by insurance as noted, is also affordable. Hmmmmm.


Really? You are talking about $3.7k average for breast implants for the surgery alone. That does not include the cost of anesthesia, facilities, and materials. All in you are probably talking $5-10k.

I am sure that is affordable for some of people but it isn't affordable to a great number of people. It is also something that one can save up for over a very long time unlike emergency surgery.


That's about the same cost as remodeling a house. It doesn't sound so outrageous.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Steve1501 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
Steve1501 wrote:
Shampoo4you wrote:
We don't buy private police protection because it's more expensive overall, it's less safe for society, it's necessary for *everyone* even those that can't afford it, and for all of the preceding reasons it shouldn't be dolled out for the private sector *for profit* because people will literally live or die or go bankrupt buying necessary services. Now apply those exact same arguments to healthcare, and explain to me why we should bother with private services, who are verifiably more expensive and shaft the poor at every opportunity.

Your police example was poorly chosen because having separate private police agencies providing protection to different people in the society WILL lead, sooner or later, to gun battles between different police agencies. This is a terrible outcome.

A better example might be a civil court system. Or maybe private prisons where the victim or the criminal gets to decide which prison the criminal must spend his sentence in.

Just saying.




Why would they get into gun battles with each other? I didn't say jurisdiction shouldn't exist.

But yes, there are any number of examples I could use. Fire protection, road building and maintenance, military protection, private prisons, public education...etc.

Point being, private doesn't always mean better.

I think the gun battles will ocure because --

I hire a bunch of goons to protect my interests and you hire your own goons. Your and my interests collide. Why wouldn't the respective goons fight each other?

Isn't history full of this kind of thing when the Gov. police are powerless? Like Somalia now.

I thought you assumed that there was no Gov. police and everyone had to hire their own.



I didn't say you could "hire goons". I said privatized police forces. And anyway, don't get hung up on the specific example, it's one of a dozen I could have used.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
1) Canadians who will die waiting in line come to the US for surgery.
2) Private security and private investigation account for over 80% of the protection services in the US. Including in poor areas.
3) The government does a terrible job at a higher price for almost everything.
4) Look at the VA
5) Look at Social Security
6) Look at government run schools
7) Look at Medicare
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
1) Canadians who will die waiting in line come to the US for surgery.
2) Private security and private investigation account for over 80% of the protection services in the US. Including in poor areas.
3) The government does a terrible job at a higher price for almost everything.
4) Look at the VA
5) Look at Social Security
6) Look at government run schools
7) Look at Medicare


So basically you don't understand how the world works. Got it.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
1) Canadians who will die waiting in line come to the US for surgery.
2) Private security and private investigation account for over 80% of the protection services in the US. Including in poor areas.
3) The government does a terrible job at a higher price for almost everything.
4) Look at the VA
5) Look at Social Security
6) Look at government run schools
7) Look at Medicare


1) You have any numbers for this as regarding a comparison against those folks dying here pre ACA because they just could not afford the insurance/could not get preventative care

3-7) Ever other industrialized country get more or better health services than the US because they are on Universal Care, and we are private. And we are talking about paying via single payer, not the take over of the entire health care industry. Again, like just about every other industrialize country on the plane

But try coming up with some facts/links/studies that prove your point, something not coming from mere some delusional theory of the way civilization is supposed to work
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trey Chambers
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I wish one of these "enlightened" Libertarians could point to ONE EXAMPLE in the world where less government made this great Freedom Utopia where rich people give so much to charity that the poor are taken care of, and privatizing everything made everything better and more efficient.

No, actually, places that have governments with little power and that provide few services are cesspools of despotism and poverty and oppression. You'd think they'd learn, but naaaaaah.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mlcarter815 wrote:
andyl wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Plastic surgery, not normally covered by insurance as noted, is also affordable. Hmmmmm.


Really? You are talking about $3.7k average for breast implants for the surgery alone. That does not include the cost of anesthesia, facilities, and materials. All in you are probably talking $5-10k.

I am sure that is affordable for some of people but it isn't affordable to a great number of people. It is also something that one can save up for over a very long time unlike emergency surgery.


That's about the same cost as remodeling a house. It doesn't sound so outrageous.


Sure but the fact you are saying that puts you in the comfortable middle-class. I am just saying that it isn't really affordable for quite a lot of people.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andy Leighton
England
Peterborough
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
andyl wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Plastic surgery, not normally covered by insurance as noted, is also affordable. Hmmmmm.


Really? You are talking about $3.7k average for breast implants for the surgery alone. That does not include the cost of anesthesia, facilities, and materials. All in you are probably talking $5-10k.

I am sure that is affordable for some of people but it isn't affordable to a great number of people. It is also something that one can save up for over a very long time unlike emergency surgery.


I would have guessed higher than that. That's what? Double the cost of an ambulance ride? For major SURGERY?


Sure it counts as major surgery but it is usually outpatient surgery. Most patients can go home after a few hours.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.