Yakuda
Verified User
Did the pt really expect that?
The moral rot of the left
- Thread starter Yakuda
- Start date
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I did a procedure which required two seperate stages to complete.
W/out getting too technical I did a root canal placed a temp. restoration and of course explained he had to come back for the crown which he didn't do. Happens a lot w/ pts. They're out of pain a don't come back.
So of course about a yr. later the tooth breaks and he tried to argue that I did a procedure that I knew wouldn't work.
Tried. I kicked him out w/ his records and advised him to sue me.
Yakuda
Verified User
Oh I see. I had a root canal many many yrs ago. Barely scraped up the money to do the procedure. Didn't get the crown because it was too expensive and as I said I barely got the money for the root canal. I never expected anything not be free though.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Sometimes a root canal can't fix stupid.
I wonder what medical advances helped us go from an average lifespan of 70 in 1964 to 80 in 2024.
I wonder why those medical advances such as drugs and devices aren't free in a capitalistic society.
I wonder why inflation means something that cost a dollar from 1964 would cost $31.87 today
I wonder why zymurgy has to ask stupid questions.
On second thought, I don't have to wonder about any of those things.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Isn't there a town in Alaska by that name?
Yakuda
Verified User
Is room for profit based businesses in medicine and health care?
Yakuda
Verified User
Lol I wonder how many live there?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
help your own man-god cash his checks......he will need a new source of funds for your Iranian fuck buddies......
ExpressLane
Verified User
32,255 it is the Capital of Alaska.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
hers is what she literally said, word for fucking word.......I'm sure you won't take the word of that rightwing rag, the Huffington post.......
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/warren-sanders-brian-thompson-health-care_n_6758bc0fe4b063b52a9a524b
let me watch you pretend it isn't the same thing......
Last edited:
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
Don't insult Juneau, AK. Nice SouthEast town.
Last edited:
human innovation is always improving things. it is one way that wealth trickles down - the poorest today are getting better care than the richest got a few decades ago
it used to be axiomatic that because of human innovation - goods and services largely became more affordable over time. only because of socialistic rot and government inefficiency do we see this no longer to be true
I wonder if you drool and breath out of your mouth
I wonder if you realize that 400 in 1964 is equal to0 $4000 today, not 20,000
I wonder why you reply when you are too dumb to grasp
derp derp
ExpressLane
Verified User
I assume you ran away because you realized you have no fucking idea what is going on
this reply was the most comical of all your retarded ones. yeah - a dollar in 1964 is worth 31.87 today? cuckoo
Jesus fucking Christ. you need to stop voting for the love of country. you have no business offering an opinion on anything
Since you are going to insist we dispute your nonsense. Here goes.
Human innovation may be improving things but innovation isn't free. It costs money. Musk isn't giving Starlink for free. It costs more than broadband in most towns. Musk's wealth isn't trickling down to anyone. In fact the taxpayers are making Musk wealthy so our money is trickling up.
Then we get to medical innovation. New drugs are not cheap. They often cost thousands per month. There are a number of drugs and treatments available today that didn't exist in 1964. What was cancer treatment in 1964?
LOL. The reason drugs cost so much is because of capitalism and the way companies have manipulated the system by tweaking drugs when their patent is about to expire so they can continue to have exclusive rights to sell the drug at inflated prices. Goods and services may become more affordable over time but they are often replaced by new goods and services that cost more while offering more.
Only when I imitate you
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Actually, a good portion of the costs is government regulation of the approval process for new drugs. The FDA can require a decade or more of rigorous testing and bureaucratic paperwork to permit the sale of a new drug. The standard is usually extraordinarily high. All of that adds massive costs to getting a new drug to market.
I'm not saying that testing and such isn't necessary, but the FDA standards often require absurd 99.99% levels of quality and testing before something can be sold.
It doesn't help that many nations with government run healthcare simply won't bring in new drugs to keep costs down. That means that during the patent period the company is forced to recoup their costs on development from those nations that will allow new drugs to come on the market, like the US. So, the cost is extreme in those countries to make up for the fact that other nations won't even import a particular new drug to avoid the cost of it.
Governments that run their nation's healthcare system also tend to not be innovators. That too is to keep costs down.
The more that government drives the medical care and drug market, the less likely you are to see innovation and the costs associated with what innovations do occur will be much higher.
star link was the first - and still - only solution for a vast number of remote people. old solutions like Hughes satellite had latency problems
he didn't force anyone to buy his service you ignorant twat. you insistence that things be free is retarded. what the fuck is wrong with your brain?
I have had reliable internet for years - something not true prior to his solution.
you are making my point for me retardo. poor people today have better access than wealthy people in 1964. wealth trickles down....
capitalism allowed for loge practices - medicine was much cheaper before government regulation
what retard thinks regulations = capitalism?
What did it cost before Starlink? It cost nothing because there was nothing available. So the cost didn't go down. It went up as innovation provided a solution where before there was none. It went from no service costing nothing to a service that costs money. Innovation didn't drive down the price which is what you claimed it is supposed to do.
You went from paying nothing when you didn't have service to paying more for having service. Innovation drove your cost up because you wanted the service. It's the same thing with health care. The innovation of new drugs means there are new ways to treat diseases. Those innovations cost more because there is now a treatment where there wasn't one before.
Poor people have better access today because of Medicaid. They aren't wealthier. They are just provided health care because they are so poor.
In 1964, a heart attack or cancer were pretty much a guaranteed death sentence. It was cheaper because it was not as good. Stents and pacemakers are innovations that cost money. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment are innovations that cost money.
Hughes net is about the same cost - for a subpar service
so he enriched me.
we had satellite internet before Starlink - and still do. I mentioned it in the first comment retardo - it is called Hughes net
enough with your retarded ramblings though
you were idiot about inflation impact.
$400 in 1964 is more equal to about $4000 today, yet they spend $20,000 per person on all the social bullshit
how about I come take that other 16k out of your retarded family estate and we can call it all good you government bootlicker