Thread: U.S. Scrambling to Ease Shortage of Vital Medicine

Let me rephrase:
CBM, What do you imagine happens when a bill goes unpaid to an organisation be it public or private?

Someone pays it.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Someone pays it.

Who? And how is this mechanism enacted?

Depends for both (depending on the business). In either case, it could be either other consumers or tax-payers.

Now that I've answered a few of your questions, care to tell me where this is going? LOL.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Depends for both (depending on the business). In either case, it could be either other consumers or tax-payers.

So how do you suppose other consumers and tax-payers pay for it, magically?
According to you there is no mechanism for other consumers or tax-payers to pay for it. Or do you suppose that in regards to unpaid medical bills they could be paid through things like uninsured funds and tax-write-offs? (other consumers and tax-payers)

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Depends for both (depending on the business). In either case, it could be either other consumers or tax-payers.

Now that I've answered a few of your questions, care to tell me where this is going? LOL.

Why should consumers pay for a service which subsidises dead beats that don't pay?

Do we recieve a bill which shows what I pay fo and an extra charge for service I did not recieve but am getting charged.


So we have two ambulance services in an area:
One that takes people who coherent or vouched by a person who can legally enter into a contract?
One that serves everyone but has high amount of people who don't pay?

The first organisation charges considerablity less than the second. Eventually over time the second goes out of business or changes its business model to the first companies policies.

Now anyone who is uncoherent doesn't recieve an ambulance. Then an enterprising guy says I will bring you to a hospital if I get $1000 cash. Suddenly you have created a world where during a crisis you will just see a line at the ATM from patients...

You paint a world were everyone looks out for them selves one which would break down society itself.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

Why should consumers pay for a service which subsidises dead beats that don't pay?

Well, that's actually quite a complex and interesting question, isn't it? Because you can approach it from either a moral or an economic standpoint.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

So we have two ambulance services in an area:
One that takes people who coherent or vouched by a person who can legally enter into a contract?
One that serves everyone but has high amount of people who don't pay?

The first organisation charges considerablity less than the second. Eventually over time the second goes out of business or changes its business model to the first companies policies.

Your conclusions are quite incorrect here. Looking at your first organization, there's no reason that they would have to charge considerably less than the second. If the market is willing to bear the charges of the second organization, then it would actually make sense for the first organization to charge just as much. Also, we go back to the issue that your hypothetical first organization wouldn't then serve anyone who "couldn't legally enter into a contract," which is everyone according to you guys because it's "under duress." (Which is false, but let's ignore that for now.) Finally, the second organization doesn't go out of business -- as you can see with utility companies, for example, so long as there are enough paying customers to spread the cost out, they remain solvent. Now, note that I never said that I support that practice or that it is morally fair, I'm just speaking from a practical standpoint.

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

You paint a world were everyone looks out for them selves one which would break down society itself.

Oh? That's an interesting statement. It also happens to be quite false.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Well, that's actually quite a complex and interesting question, isn't it? Because you can approach it from either a moral or an economic standpoint.



Your conclusions are quite incorrect here. Looking at your first organization, there's no reason that they would have to charge considerably less than the second. If the market is willing to bear the charges of the second organization, then it would actually make sense for the first organization to charge just as much. Also, we go back to the issue that your hypothetical first organization wouldn't then serve anyone who "couldn't legally enter into a contract," which is everyone according to you guys because it's "under duress." (Which is false, but let's ignore that for now.) Finally, the second organization doesn't go out of business -- as you can see with utility companies, for example, so long as there are enough paying customers to spread the cost out, they remain solvent. Now, note that I never said that I support that practice or that it is morally fair, I'm just speaking from a practical standpoint.



Oh? That's an interesting statement. It also happens to be quite false.

So the first business charges less than the second business, yet the second business stays in business. Which microeconmic arguement are you using?

Your saying the....

Fuck it could n't be bothered...

Great post.