Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:it's a just a first tiny step (Score 1) 591

absolutely should you shop around for nonemergency care.

you don't shop around for an oncologist when you have cancer (not that you don't have the time, you lack the knowledge to make an educate choice)

Consistency, thy name isn't circletimessquare.

I'm amazed that someone who claims to live in Manhattan doesn't believe that people frequently shop doctors and hospitals (NYP, Mt. Sinai, or NYU Langone, ever heard of them?) for all but emergency care.

Also, I'm amazed that someone who claims to know a lot about healthcare thinks that nonemergency care is "orthogonal to the main fucking point of what healthcare actually is," when nonemergency care makes up about 98% of all health care spending.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

Comment Re:it's a just a first tiny step (Score 1) 591

you don't shop for care when you're having a heart attack or you have a broken arm or any emergency

you don't shop around for an oncologist when you have cancer (not that you don't have the time, you lack the knowledge to make an educate choice)

all you have done is enunciate related topics like doctor supply that does not disprove the fucking actual topic: healthcare is a natural monopoly. you need a hospital to cover a given area, and you don't shop around for various hospitals when you need emergency or knowledgeable care

please understand the fucking basic facts of a topic then open your ignorant mouth

or shut up, because you don't matter. all of our social and economic peers and even most countries less developed than us understand that healthcare has to be single payer. and they all spend far less than us and have higher quality care. so it doesn't matter what you think or what you say, history has passed you by, and we will drag the retarded propagandized wing of americans into the realm of common sense, and they will live longer and spend less on healthcare in spite of their abject ignorance

Just a hint: you might spend some of the time you devote to working yourself up into a lather to actually understand the health care system a little better. Then, you might understand that the wisdom of single payer (personally, I prefer the Swiss system, but the NHS works very well) has nothing to do with whether it's a natural monopoly or not, and that a lot of single player markets have very significant provider competition for a lot of services.

Also, as a note, people definitely DO shop around for a wide array of non-emergency health care services, including primary care. People choose to go to one oncologist or another, they choose which OB to use (and hence what hospital to use) when they're having a baby, etc. That's true in the US, it's true in the UK, it's true in Germany, etc. etc.

Comment Re:it's a just a first tiny step (Score 1) 591

Firefighting can at times qualify as a natural monopoly, depends on things like population density. It has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that firefighting should be provided as a free government service.

Health care as a whole, however, is definitely NOT a natural monopoly. It's possible that, in certain markets, certain services might be, depends on the marginal economics of the business (driven by factors such as density for ambulance services or services requiring extremely costly imagine equipment).

It's extremely unlikely, on the other hand, that the market for primary care physicians is a natural monopoly (since the entry costs for a new provider are very low, removing one of the most important prerequisite for a natural monopoly).

Might want to read this piece (although I'm afraid it's full of analysis and rather short on ranting):
http://www.mckinsey.com/insigh...

I'm a huge fan of the ACA, and I'm glad SCOTUS upheld it. If you're going to support it, though, you should actually have some understanding of how the system it's attempting to reform works, particularly since, even in countries with single payer (like the UK's NHS), there are many competing providers.

Comment Re:Right to protest (Score 1) 333

I know the price of the same route can differ even if distance and time are the same, simply due to supply/demand.

This has nothing to do with surge pricing.

If you live somewhere with very little traffic, so the best route between A and B is (a) always the same route, and (b) takes the same time, then Uber's estimates can be very consistent.

In my case, however, the same trip between two points (my home and the airport) has (without any impact of surge pricing) been anywhere between $28 and $46 over the past three weeks, depending on route taken and traffic.

Also, Uber doesn't offer price forecasts in the app, you have to go to their website to do that. You can also get a price forecast for taxis in most markets (try taxifarefinder.com).

Look, I like Uber, and it's great, and I use it much more than taxis, but if you're using it because you think you're getting an upfront fixed price, you could be in for a rude shock at some point.

Comment Re:it's a just a first tiny step (Score 1) 591

Firefighting is ALSO not a natural monopoly. If it were, then there would have been a single firefighting company in every city, without any government intervention. The continued existence of multiple competing firefighting companies shows that it wasn't a natural monopoly. "Natural monopoly" and "service the government should provide" aren't synonyms.

That said, no point trying to have a conversation with an irrational ranter like you. Quite apart from your use of the term "retard."

Comment Re:Right to protest (Score 1) 333

Uber can estimate before the ride, but the price you actually pay is based on how long it actually takes, and how far you actually travel. I've taken Uber several dozen times on the same trip (home to and from airport), and the fare has been between slightly and substantially different every time, depending on route taken and traffic.

Comment Re:Uber is shit (Score 1) 333

Apples and oranges. People rob taxi drivers because you can just get into the taxi, and they carry cash. Uber drivers are picking up people who have registered with Uber and provided a valid credit card. Now, sure, you could register, give a throwaway email address, create, fund, and provide a throwaway credit card, and then try to rob an Uber driver who might not have a single dollar on them. That implies a criminal who at the same time (a) engages in some reasonably sophisticated planning, and (b) decides to go after a very low-yield target.

Slashdot Top Deals

"No matter where you go, there you are..." -- Buckaroo Banzai

Working...