Competition in the Emergency Room Marketplace?

[NewLiberty]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct

[1713285931]

1713285931

[1713285931]

1713285931

[1713285931]

1713285931

[1713285931]

1713285931

[Hawker]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct

Not really.  The private market existed while the Internet was being created by state backed bodies.  The absence of an alternative information network is empirical evidence that without the state funding of universities and defence there would be no Internet.  

[NewLiberty]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct

Not really.  The private market existed while the Internet was being created by state backed bodies.  The absence of an alternative information network is empirical evidence that without the state funding of universities and defence there would be no Internet.  

Where is this private market of which you speak?  Alternate history?
If you are talking about the concurrent marketplace, you might as well flip this silly assertion on its head and assert that there would be no internet without the private market and open source free software unprotected by IP.
And there were alternative information networks.... Orange Book anyone?

[hawkeye]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

[/quote]

Do you even know what the internet is?   because I can only assume with such a silly statement that you have no idea.

It is a set of communication protocols for computers to be able to communicate with each other.    This can be done over very small distances, one room really.  Then it can build over time.  

Those communication protocols would have been developed regardless.   The slow development of the internet before it was commercialised and took off is another example of how inefficient the state is.

[Hawker]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

Do you even know what the internet is?   because I can only assume with such a silly statement that you have no idea.

It is a set of communication protocols for computers to be able to communicate with each other.    This can be done over very small distances, one room really.  Then it can build over time.  

Those communication protocols would have been developed regardless.   The slow development of the internet before it was commercialised and took off is another example of how inefficient the state is.
[/quote]

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

[NewLiberty]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.

Do you even know what the internet is?   because I can only assume with such a silly statement that you have no idea.

It is a set of communication protocols for computers to be able to communicate with each other.    This can be done over very small distances, one room really.  Then it can build over time.  

Those communication protocols would have been developed regardless.  The slow development of the internet before it was commercialised and took off is another example of how inefficient the state is.

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production, medicine, education, is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

[Hawker]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure very well.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

[NewLiberty]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

Still begging the question.  That it is, is not proof that it must be so.

There may be a better way.

[Hawker]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

Still begging the question.  That it is, is not proof that it must be so.

There may be a better way.

You have not offered one.  If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it.

[NewLiberty]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

Still begging the question.  That it is, is not proof that it must be so.

There may be a better way.

You have not offered one.  If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it.

I did, you ignored it.
I'd drive them to the urgent care facility.  It is closer, and less expensive, and doesn't rely on the taxpayer.
The ambulance drives past a few of them on the way to the closest hospital to my home.

[Hawker]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

Still begging the question.  That it is, is not proof that it must be so.

There may be a better way.

You have not offered one.  If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it.

I did, you ignored it.
I'd drive them to the urgent care facility.  It is closer, and less expensive, and doesn't rely on the taxpayer.
The ambulance drives past a few of them on the way to the closest hospital to my home.

Whats an urgent care facility if not an emergency room?  Some kind of American thing I assume?

[NewLiberty]

...snip...

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Simply because States have taken control of much industrial production is not proof that it must be so.  It begs the question.

No.  The state does pure research and infrastructure.  There is no private market for subatomic research like CERN or for carbon studies like the UMIST research that produced graphene.  Private enterprise takes the outcomes and does innovative things with them.  We have no idea what amazing products may come from the CERN work or from graphene. Our modern successful societies are based on a synergy between the two.

Still begging the question.  That it is, is not proof that it must be so.

There may be a better way.

You have not offered one.  If you have an idea how to care for drunk ladies who break their ankles in high heels that is better than a taxpayer funded emergency room, please feel free to offer it.

I did, you ignored it.
I'd drive them to the urgent care facility.  It is closer, and less expensive, and doesn't rely on the taxpayer.
The ambulance drives past a few of them on the way to the closest hospital to my home.

Whats an urgent care facility if not an emergency room?  Some kind of American thing I assume?

Imagine that?  We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion.
One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains.
https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/
Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded.
A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Imagine that?  We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion.
One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains.
https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/
Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded.
A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster.

Interesting - we have that too in the form of religious hospitals with emergency facilities - but how are they paid for?

[NewLiberty]

...snip...

Imagine that?  We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion.
One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains.
https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/
Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded.
A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster.

Interesting - we have that too in the form of religious hospitals with emergency facilities - but how are they paid for?

Pay for service, or insurance.  Almost always much much less than the state hospital rates.
We have the religious ones too, they usually cost more, but often still less than the state facility, and fewer and further between.

[NewLiberty]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  

supporting that is going to be a difficult experiment to conduct

If most of the world still had state-owned and operated telecom, and the US hadn't broken up the monopoly of AT&T, one wonders whether there would have been an internet like we have today...
Why didn't it emerge elsewhere?

The answer is that it did.  France had their own separate internet, Minitel, state sponsored (because France Telecom was still a PTT), which may be why it never made it outside the borders.
By the time France got around to  splitting the PTT, it was 1991 and they were well behind.
I think they finally turned it off a few years ago.  It was pretty good despite its limitations at the time.  IT might have been much more successful internationally, were it not ... national.

And there was the X.25, x.75, and x.400 networks for email, mostly privately supported and paid by business but inter-networked.  It was a very reliable protocol that didn't rely so much on line quality.  Rumor has it you could run it over an unbroken barbed wire fence.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Imagine that?  We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion.
One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains.
https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/
Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded.
A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster.

Interesting - we have that too in the form of religious hospitals with emergency facilities - but how are they paid for?

Pay for service, or insurance.  Almost always much much less than the state hospital rates.
We have the religious ones too, they usually cost more, but often still less than the state facility, and fewer and further between.

So if the person is broke what happens?

EDIT: is this a stupid question now you have Obamacare?  I assume that means everyone is covered.

[User705]

Without the state funding universities and defence and without IP laws there would be no Internet.  You may argue something else would have emerged and people like Jarod Lanier are very clear what the private alternatives would have been.  But the Internet we have today is an outgrowth of the defence infrastructure of NATO and the research budgets that went with it.

You must realize that government funding comes from money taken from the citizens.  They have no money of their own.  It's just a question of who is more effective at deploying it.

If a person pays millions in taxes and requires a treatment that costs £10000, like say a hip replacement, they can get no more value from that tax money than someone who has paid less tax.  The US system charges the rich a lot more for the hip replacement - its important to understand that the rich get nothing for the extra money.  Here is a detailed study: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/health/for-medical-tourists-simple-math.html  Notice the higher US bills gets nothing extra in terms of medical care.

I think you misunderstand.  Yes the person that paid in more can get no more then the same value as his/her treatment but that would have cost them a lot less compared to what they paid in.  So in your example it cost them millions for a hip replacement instead of 10000.  They got a lot less for what they paid.

I never said private enterprise was not right for delivery of medical services.  I said its not right for funding them.  All of Europe has private hospitals and they are superb.  I was born in one and I saw my father pass away in the same one.  However, I don't want to pay some billing company extra money when its cheaper for me to pay via the tax system.  No value is added by adding yet another layer of bureaucrats to do billing.

Yes it's cheaper for you but because the money came from the person in the example above.  They are the ones paying the extra cost.  If there is no value added by another layer of bureaucrats how can there be value added by the 1st layer?  Either government services add value or they destroy it.  If they add value then the more layers the better.  Right?

Ground breaking research is sold to the rich first because they have more money.  But it is often based on pure research funded by governments.  Take away government research and the private system will be deprived of innovations.  The development of nonstick pans from the space program is the classic example.  Here is a small article that says it better than I can: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/738da524-08f2-11e3-8b32-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2jgA8Dhex

Are you trying to say that the researchers that work for government now would somehow stop researching if they had to do it in the private sector?  Why?  If they are smart and want to do it they will do it in any setting.  Research is driven by the desire of the human race for advancement or are you saying the government gives them pills that make them smarter or more interested in discovery?

The rest of your points are based on a false split between private and state systems.  There is no such thing as a "free" market - the law of contract, secure property rights, the police and defence systems and ooodles of other state things are essential for a working market.  They cost money so they can't be "free." Private enterprise is the best way of doing a lot of things but it works as part of a framework within a state.  Services like emergency rooms can be delivered privately but the funding has to come from taxpayers.

That's true that currently there is no true free market and likely never will be but the laws of contract, secure property rights, the police and defence systems and ooodles of other state things are actually impediments that are starting to badly suffer from the law of diminishing returns.  A service can't be private but funded by taxpayers because it eliminates the most crucial functions of adjusting to customer demands since payments are unrelated to performance.

[hawkeye]

That's impossible to prove as its based on an alternative history in which the real Internet created by state funded bodies doesn't exist.  Its also off topic - the question is whether there is a place for competition and market forces in emergency rooms.  My view is that there isn't - people who are ill/injured and drunk/incapacitated are not in a position to make rational choices about what emergency room to go to.

Yes, it is off topic and I don't want to drag the thread off-topic so I'll be brief.

Do you really think that nobody would have ever asked the question, "hey, do you think we could get these 2 computers to communicate with each other?  Maybe we should try it over a really long distance too."  The concept of no-one trying that seems pretty ridiculous. 

[NewLiberty]

...snip...

Imagine that?  We are not yet entirely socialist despite common opinion.
One of the last vestiges of private health care for emergency services remains.
https://www.findurgentcare.com/what-is-urgent-care/
Probably it will get outlawed in the next ObamaCare update since the original was designed to fail so that it could be endlessly expanded.
A quick search shows about 8 of these closer than my closest state funded hospital ER served by ambulances, so cheaper and faster.

Interesting - we have that too in the form of religious hospitals with emergency facilities - but how are they paid for?

Pay for service, or insurance.  Almost always much much less than the state hospital rates.
We have the religious ones too, they usually cost more, but often still less than the state facility, and fewer and further between.

So if the person is broke what happens?

EDIT: is this a stupid question now you have Obamacare?  I assume that means everyone is covered.

We have the what now? Maybe the 248 people that managed to get through the borked web sign-up process might be covered.  Some of them claim to be paying 5x as much, for less.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_northeast_valley/fountain_hills/fountain-hills-man-dropped-from-health-insurance-because-of-new-regulations

http://www.businessinsider.com/brutal-obamacare-had-just-248-signups-in-first-days-2013-10

Congress grilled the webmaster-in-chief a couple days ago.  She said she is sorry so its ok now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-24737591

[AndrewWilliams]

If you are an illegal alien, you don't have to pay anything for your emergency room visit.

Thank ObamaCare. The taxpayers pick up the bill for everytttttthhhhing.