Printable View
By your own logic, we should then bring free healthcare to the whole of the country. If the ones without health insurance are the dumb students, and the people with health insurance are the ones who excel, then we should bring health insurance to everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
The fault I see with your argument is the "free" part. Someone's got to pay for it. You don't bring up the slow students to a "C" by redistributing grade points and thereby lowering the "A" students down to a "C." That is not excelling.
But it seems to me that this redistribution is exactly what Obama and his supporters are after. Instead of with grade points, with our wealth. Instead of raising everyone to prosperity, we all end up poorer.
P.S.- Another thought: by requiring everyone to join a national health care system, you are thereby obligating everyone (well, not everyone - only those with ability) to work to fund the program for the benefit of everyone.
In other words, if you are able, you are obligated to labor for the benefit of others - that is the definition of slavery.
OK, if the diabetic stayed at the orphanage and there were no state insurance. Everything else is the same.
Would this slow student deserve help then?
or would (s)he die of diabetic complications in the 30's?
If.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyment
If the moon collided with the earth tomorrow, would I spill my beer?
Read what I posted about social problems. I also posted about churches and charities.
Are you suggesting that there are no solutions short of abandoning American fundamental principles regarding individual liberties? In other words, either we continue down the road to socialism or we're doomed? I find that scenario unacceptable.
Heck no, Hoss! I don't like this state takeover at all!
I never said the state was the solution. In fact, I think if people kept more of their own money, charities would be better able to provide services.
So, we'd be working to fund something we benefit from? :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
I admit there are going to be freeloaders, but short of killing them, theres not much we can do about that. They'll always have the ER according to you and the current laws.
Leighton, you're a student correct? Do you also work while going to school? Does your employer deduct social security tax from your paycheck? Are you receiving social security benefits currently? Not unless you are at least 62 years old. In which case someone else is benefiting from your labor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
Lets say we add in an additional tax for public welcare (welfare + health care). More of the funds you earned go towards benefiting others. Yes you get some of the benefit too.
Let me ask you this, if a slave is forced to cook a meal for his master and his master tosses some of the scraps of the meal back to the slave, the slave gets to eat some of the meal he cooked. Is he any less a slave for this "benefit" from his master?
Saw this and thought of this thread.
I have worked out of college before going to law school. Yes, my social security taxes don't benefit me yet. But if I live to be old enough to collect social security I damn well earned it. Its a form of forced savings for retirement. I don't begrudge it.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
I would not have a problem with that. I would be paying my fair share of the costs. I pay a tax on gas and I use the roads. In fact, I probably pay a hell of a lot less than I benefit. I pay a tax on my electricity and water, but I probably benefit a lot more than I pay in taxes.
Would I pay more than my fair share for a national healthcare system? Probably, I'm young and healthy & my family doesn't have a history of any life threatening diseases. But, like I said before, I am more than willing to pay 2-5% more in taxes to fund said system. I'd even be willing to do so at my earnings rates before law school. $10/hour.
The government does not own me. I am a voter and a citizen, I think the roles are reversed. The government ultimately answers to the populace. The government does not own you either. I don't understand the slave analogy.
I can understand that you don't want your taxes increased, thats your viewpoint, I will not try to change it. I don't feel that is my job.
If your willing to kill the baby in my hypothetical, or Py's diabetic. That is fine. Its one way of viewing the world. If you don't want your taxes raised, again, your viewpoint. If you don't like the proposed fix to healthcare, again, your viewpoint. But if you don't want people freeloading off the ER room, just say so, I'll respect your view.
If your adamant about not being taxed, I can understand that too. But if you want to benefit from government, we have to pay taxes. I personally like benefiting from what society has to offer. Roads, electricity, water, internet, plentiful food, infrastructure, military, police, firefighters, etc. I have never had to use the firefighters, but I'm glad I have them.
Thanks Jimmy. This is exactly the idea. And this is why everyone can enjoy healthcare over here. And this is also why so many Americans are fighting the idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
They also believed in slavery. They were fallible humand and not everything they did was perfect. Btw they were also well off without poor men's problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
People are already paying that amount of money. Only now it's to private insurers who are in it for the bottom line, instead of for your benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
Are you dreaming? Mom and pop stores care. Med insurers care about their bottom line, and deny as much as possible. They are scum that have their own circle in hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
That is contrary to what the other americans here say.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
:roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
Milk farmers need cows to make milk. They want cows that give as much milk as possible with the minimum amount of moo. If they get more moo than milk, it's off to the hamburger factory.
And yet it seems to work for all countries that actually do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
The government only pays. they don't say who gets what.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
Did you read the comments by the Americans here that half of the foreclosures are caused by medically induced bankruptcy? Your system sucks so bad, words cannot describe it unless you are really rich or as healthy as a rhinocerosQuote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
So people who care for what can benefit the entire population are unpatriotic?Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
Is it unpatriotic to be against the war on terror hysteria?
Is it unpatriotic to be in favor of gay marriage?
Seems to me that partiotism is used a lot to quell dissent.
Yes... you're free... because France jumped in and helped in the war for independence.Quote:
Originally Posted by slt5103
You know, I hear a lot of complaining about how bad it will be, but people seem to ignore the fact that the concept works in every European nation, Canada, and wherever it is implemented.
The simple fact remains that
1) I pay less than an american
2) I have full coverage incl dental
3) Care is available to everyone
4) Care is good, available, when I need it, where I need it.
So explain to me again exactly how the US system is better?
They are trying to fix something that is not broken. They should limit to address the need of those that don't have any insurance and leave the rest the way it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
1. Are you sure you know how much you pay and how much an american pays? I doubt it very much
2. You probably have full coverage for "whatever they give you"
3. Same in the US, hospital can't refuse, by law, to provide medical attention to everyone.
4. I wonder what your definition of "good" is. I know the system implemented in Spain very well, and can be summarized with one sentence "it sucks"
A lot of people come to the US from other countries seeking treatment for their health conditions, perhaps it is because the treatment is far more advanced
I migrated to the US many years ago, raised a family, never had the need to seek welfare, but always worked verry hard to cover my family needs in every respect
In the US, the goverment is not capable of running anything successfully, not even the US Post Office, and I for sure wouldn't like the corrupted politicians to make decision on my health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I just thought I'd address this issue of the costs of a doctors office. I have a lot of pets, and I've spent a lot of time in emergency veterinary clinics and regular veterinary clinics and the clinics of specialty veterinarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by LX_Emergency
I have never seen a GP's office that was as well stocked as the average Vet clinic. A vet clinic usually has as large of a staff, a veterinarian has the same education expense, and vet tech has the same eduction as a as a hospital tech at the doctors not as much as a nurse but most GP's don't hire Rn's. The modern vet clinic also does in house surgery, and many are open 24 hours.
Why does my GP visit get billed for 4 times the cost of my veterinary visits? Because that is the rate the government allows them to charge. The govt is already the largest insurance provider and has rate setting power in the industry.
If my vet tried to charge what my doctor does I would find another vet and I have done so, as apparently did a lot of other people as the vet in question lowered his rates in order to keep his business.
This is the point and was alluded to with my reference to optional services I mentioned in my previous post. Everywhere in medicine that the government has not touched, everywhere where the haven't set the rate, prices remain low or are getting lower. Look at eye care, look at pet care look at anything not covered by the government plans and you will see reasonable costs and competition for customers.
Obviously you can't shop around for Emergency care but you should be able to once you are stable. People do shop for their cardiologist or other specialists now, they just shop based upon expertise without having to consider cost because the rate is controlled.
no offense, but with animals, you always have the option to have them put down. With dogs this is done regularly if they become so sick that there is no end to their suffering (fractured pelvis for example), or if they turn bad when they get old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildtim
otoh if you are in real medical trouble, your family does not have the option (legally and morally) to have you put down. It's either treatment at whatever the cost, or a slow and agonizing death.
Bruno, where you are making your mistake is trying to convince them with the facts. Ideology trumps facts every time. :shrug: God forbid that we might have something akin to socialism. :eek: How can we devote most of our GNP to the military industrial complex if we were to divert a small percentage of those funds to the benefit of our entire population ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Do you mean the existing ones or the planned ones? I suppose it doesn't matter. A plan that doesn't limit care in some way will go bankrupt or will be preyed upon by the unscrupulous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Copays limit care either by having people not seek care for what they feel is a minor problem, or as a way to direct people away from more expensive ways of providing care. Waiting times work as a way of limiting care. Medication formularies are ways to limit more expensive meds. Requiring authorization for durable medical goods is a way to limit care. Some services are only reimbursable in the outpatient setting limits inpatient care. Not paying snake handlers for treatment limits care.
There is a cultural difference between the US and Europe. We have a lot of people who came here to escape bad government in one form or other. People who were told how to worship, escaped genocide, unjust imprisonment, etc. We also have a lot of people who came as a result of bad living conditions. With this, there is a long standing distrust of the government can do to someone. Our own government has done some things that has lead us to distrust it (ask the Chinese after WWII, or native Americans, Mormons in Utah...). Our view of government is heavily flavored by those experiences.
Add in the fact that there are plenty of groups that would like to control the behavior of others (both sides of the abortion debate, gay marriage, etc.) and we have ample reason to believe that this will be used to further the agendas of many special interests in the name of either"access to care" or "Cost efficiency".
We have good reason to be concerned about government becoming too involved with our personal lives. Vigilence is continuously required in the defence of personal liberties and rights.
Because of these concerns, we have to have these issuess raised or we will end up with a solution that is unworkable within the framework of American culture. Which is, as I have stated, different in many fundamental ways from that of European nations and Canada.
The founding fathers held that a God given, inalienable right such as personal liberty was a "self-evident" truth. I guess they didn't think a truth that is self-evident needed any further guarantee.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
I suppose the atheists are worried that guarantees from God won't be honored...
By the way, it's written in the Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution.
For those of you who support national health care, I hope you are following the Federal "Cash-4-Clunkers" program. One week in and already having problems.
And you want these people to manage your health care?:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao
:eek:
I know. The Declaration is not the law. The founding fathers wrote the Constitution and for whatever reason, did not see fit to grant us the inalienable rights espoused in the Declaration.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Interpret that as you will, but the past is the past.
The 'problem' comes from the program being so popular that it has already run out of funding. If they had done as the previous administration did with the funding for the Iraq war and kept the cost off of the budget they would have no funding issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
The founding fathers did not grant us any inalienable rights. That seems to be the point you are missing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
Inalienable rights are granted by our creator. This is the truth that the founders held to be self-evident.
Rights granted by man can be taken away by man.
Rights granted by God supersede man's laws and cannot be taken away by man.
I believe that there is no room for interpretation on this. Past, present or future, it is self-evident.
"I'm sorry Mr. Smith, but due to the popularity of our national health care program we have run out of funding. Pending the procurement of additional funds, please remove your catheter and your IV. We must ask you to leave the hospital.....sorry, have a nice day."Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyHAD
"I'm sorry Mr Smith but you health insurance does not cover that type of cancer treatment you'll have to cut your treatment short and pay the 250 grand out of pocket. Your credit history indicates you own a home and have 50 grand in the bank. Sell your house and close you bank account to pay for your treatment. After that you can go on-line and beg for donations from people. have a nice day."Quote:
Originally Posted by honedright
Actually what happens (IIRC) is that the cash gets spent. The residence does not get sold. but the liquid assets get spent before they go on Medical Assistance. I know of someone going through this right now. He has to go to a long term health care facility because he is uninsured, on a ventilator and can't be weaned off. He is being required to sign over his life insurance policy, but he keeps the farm.
But for the grace of God, any of us, with the wrong illness and an expensive treatment could suffer the same fate with the present private insurance system. Almost two thirds of people going into bankruptcy today in the US do it because of medical bills.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigspendur
Medical Debt As a Cause of Bankruptcy Examined by House Subcommittee | Kansas City infoZine News | USA
In many cases unless you are low income when you go to the hospital you will be told what the bill is and that they want a hefty % up front and they have run your credit and finances and tell you to zero out your savings and in many cases tell you to apply for a medical credit card and when you can't pay the CC bill they up the finance charges to 25% or more and go to garnishee your wages. Then you can't pay your bills and mortgage so you have to sell your house and since they placed a lien on your house they get whatever money you make when you sell it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyment
I have not really noticed this thread before but after filing through the pages it amazes me the point of views and lies people believe about healthcare in general. As a rising Doctor I can tell you that I am sick of people belly aching about Doctors getting paid. People on this site don't give their razors away, Classic Shaving, SRD, or any of the other forum sponsors don't give their products away, so why should a doctor.
One of my teachers is a family practice doc, he gets $15 from Medicare or Medicaid for seeing a patient in his office. He spent at least 7 years and probably close to $200,00 AFTER college to get his degree and training. He deserves to make more money than CEO's, bankers, razor makers, plumbers, electricians, or virtually any other career except for areas of medicine like Surgery that require more training. I am sick of people like construction company owners, commercial painters, electricians, or other fields complaining about having to provide insurance to their workers because of cost. I am also sick because no one blames the billions of dollars profited by insurance companies each year who make greater profits each year and pay less.
For example in 1989 a colon resection paid the surgeon about $4000. Now it pays $1500 if the person has good insurance.
Also the stats about infant mortality quoted and unavailable healthcare are idiots. The best care in the world is in the US. That is why a US trained doc can practice medicine anywhere in the world, but other docs must re-train to practice in the US. AS for the cost, you can go to any number of NYC hospitals or other areas of the US and watch the immigrants and irresponsible parent who rear their children to get pregnant at 16 years old and receive free government assistance. I told to a nurses aid in NYC who claimed that it would be cheaper to not work and apply for WIC (women-infants-children) than to work. The recent lawsuit also in FL where the hospital sent the illegal immigrant home and then the relative expected the American Taxpayers to provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of free healthcare to an ILLEGAL immigrant.
The answer is not nationalized healthcare either. If you think its better, than look at the actress Natasha Richardson who recently died. Canadian medicine is so cheap that she didn't receive a CT scan that would have diagnosed her and saved her life. Also the average tax rate for countries with national healthcare is at 10-30% higher than the US. So if the government taxes the US people (and it will) to that degree, we will go broke and hopefully all these small business owners who are making their $200,000-1,000,000,00 per year will think its cheaper to just pay for the insurance.
Finally the last issue is the lies about the cost of healthcare. The average 4 day stay in a hospital is billed at about $200-250K. It does not cost this, the hospitals bill this because for every responsible person who sacrifices if necessary for good insurance pays for every person who either does not work, is an immigrant who can't be traced to make pay, or to pay for 10 other people who "can't work" because of a bs excuse like anxiety.
My proposal is to do away with insurance period. Most people never maximize their insurance and the only person loosing is the doctors after working so hard they are now abandoning private practice because people think they should work for free basically. If the cost were calculated as what it really costs, and any illegal immigrants only allowed minimal care and deported once treated, and people paid a fee for service rather than lining the insurance companies pockets than everyone would be better off. Parents who rear irresponsible children should be responsible for them. Immigrants should not qualify for any government programs until they are made citizens or have proven that they pay taxes Only people who are disabled who can't physically work should not get any welfare. I propose workfare. If government starts making people support themselves and save some money as opposed to buying things they know they can't afford and cutting the fat and hand-outs then life will get better. Smaller government is the answer. Besides many medical students are abandoning the practice that can as well as some established physicians to do other things. They are usually very successful when they do so as well because they were usually already the most talented students when they were in college.
I would like to know why the majority of Americans seem to be so against chipping in a few dollars to help out a fellow countryman who for some reason cannot afford private insurance eg, disabled, out of work, a veteran, pensioners. Is it a cultural thing or just a paranoia of some sort.
None of the other goverments with national health services take away your right to have private insurance, most will even give you a rebate for having it, 30% in Australia, all they ask is that you chip in 1.5% of your wage. Is this to much to ask to help out a fellow human being who is ill?
Just think about it, there are no guarentties in life and one day you could find yourself through no fault of your own disabled or unemployed and no longer able to afford private cover and if you became very ill or god forbid your children or wife, would you not want yourself or them to get cared for without having to loose every thing you have worked hard to obtain, a roof over your families heads, car, ect. to get better?
I'm not sure anybody 'deserves' to make anything. The doctors are making less money than other professionals with similar amount of training, that's just a fact. If somebody decided to be a doctor for the money, I'd argue they are not all that smart at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
University professors in the technical fields make way less than their peers who choose a career in the industry, it has nothing to do with how good somebody is at it.... Or just look at many of the successful start-ups, or even microsoft for this matter. Bill Gates became so successful largely due to a terrible mistake of IBM.
well as you know with advancements in technology a lot of things do get cheaper. Just think how much did an x-ray cost in 1902 compared to today.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
Hmm, have you looked at https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
I think you mean possibiliy, as far as i understand the problem is availability due to costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
I am not familiar with the case, but I don't think you are either. From what I know the question was not being 'cheap', but that she felt 'fine' and refused further immediate treatment. I don't think that type of things is standard procedure in US either. Once I was in an accident and was asked by the paramedics whether I would like to be taken to the hospital. It sounded that if I had said, no, don't worry, they'd have said 'alright, get better soon'... I was confused and basically told them - 'I don't know, isn't it your job to know whether I should be taken or not'.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
This is certainly a possibility right now and once you're done you can just go that way. As far as I know doctors who only take direct payments and not medical insurance do very very well financially. I just don't understand if this is a great option how come it hasn't become the dominating slice of the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
I just talked to a very young doctor the other day, almost just out of residency. He's leaving his current job and is starting a new one... with Kaiser.
I won't get into the healthcare debate, but I will never agree that government officials are better at making decisions for individuals than the average man or woman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
But there is this tricky little part in the constitutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Leighton
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Yeah, I don't think the issue is what doctors get paid. It is what insurance companies and pharmaceuticals get. I'd rather have a govt. bureaucrat between me and my doctor than a Wall St. bureaucrat as it is now. Go to this website here and read insurance executive Wendall Potter's testimony before congress to see how they are trying to manipulate the public.
I haven't lived all that long in USA, but I find it's a rather strange attitude towards the government. On one hand there is an almost worship of the political system and the people who set it up, and on the other an utter distrust and often disgust at the actual government that is produced by this very system.Quote:
Originally Posted by AussiePostie
Except when it comes to defense, which I find a bit strange, because it's actually 'offense'. My only explanation so far is that it's just an analogue of the 'us vs. them' thing that you can see with every european towards all of its neighbors.
I think that some people revere the people who set up the system because some of them did so with a mindset of distrust and disgust for government.Quote:
Originally Posted by gugi
It isn't the few dollars (at least for me), it's trusting the government to spend the money wisely and not to leave politics outside the exam room door. I don't want lobbyists, special interest groups, and fanatics deciding what kind of services can be offered. I don't trust government to control costs in a way that is influenced by medical needs and not by political exigencies.
And Trey, I would say there has been remarkably little Dr bashing in this thread. The drug companies and insurance companies have taken their lumps, but I think people here understand that health care professionals are a committed caring bunch.
the problems of cost shifting you allude to are actually one of the arguments used FOR the expanded health care plan. The more people covered, the fewer costs to shift. Some people think that having health care available to all will decrease the incentive for people to seek disability.
All your points are well taken. Everyone has their own opinion and your is as good as mine. As for the CIA document, do bear in mind that every country ahead of us has fewer laws that govern reporting such incidences. They are also ESTIMATES not hard core statistics. As for the case for Natasha Richardson, her symptoms according to the press and other medical review have demonstrated a clear cut presentation for epidural hematoma (ie. patient hits head->unconscious-> feels fine-> goes to sleep-> and does not wake up). Unless you have a degree or some qualification that gives you ground to refute my next statement, then you are not informed on standard practice regarding acute head injuries. Every smart paramedic and ER doc in the US will advise any patient who gets knocked unconscious to go to the hospital to get a CT scan even though they are feeling "fine", if they don't and the incidence is reported, they will not practice medicine for long.
As for my career choice, its not true every doctor has a choice about taking fee for service. A general surgeon, neurosurgeon, emergency do, or other physician who is not able to practice their trade without a hospital has no choice but to accept insurance basically. Therefore, unlike the other careers I mentioned, they have someone tell them what their work is worth. Try that with your mechanic or plumber and see how far you get. And to say that the cost of the operation has gone down since 1989, perhaps you have never heard of inflation, or increased costs, or the fact that technology for that type of surgery has only made it more expensive? Not to mention the fact that the $1500 now is worth substantially less than 1989 because of the decline in the value of the dollar. As for your example of the doc almost out of residency, he probably never cared about medicine to begin with, but I wish him all the success in the world with Kaiser as he will work hard there or be out of a job very soon.
Think of this. When your appendix ruptures, or your bowels perforate, or you get colon cancer, you won't find a surgeon who will go to your house to repair your injuries. The sad part is, some day a surgeon or physician of another specialty might save your life or the life of someone you love and the people today have such little respect for their physicians that they think an insurance company should be able to tell the doctor what your life is worth. My example, curable colon cancer through a single surgery that the insurance company says is worth $1500, therefore if the doctor declined then you would have to convince the insurance people that you are worth more than $1500 despite their thoughts. My grandfather is 87 years old, and when the doctor game to his house as a child, he was paid something whether it be corn, flour, dollars, or chickens. What if all the private physicians (surgeons or otherwise) said we will just take a month off? Small town USA doesn't have access to the large university hospitals where the docs have lots of resident physicians to pick up the extra load. This will never happen, but remember that never is a long time.
As for me, I don't care about the money believe it or not. I intend to do plenty of free work and even more underpaid work. In fact, whoever walks in my doors will get treated regardless if they are the president or homeless, but when the $300K in school debt comes due and docs declare bankruptcy and can't keep their practice open, who will the needy turn to then? I also like what Mike Huckabee stated on Fox the other night, "I could care less about a CEO, but I want my physician to be well paid" (this may not be perfectly correct). AS for the person who says contribute 1.5% to help out someone, I would give more than that to someone deserving. An irresponsible female with 3 children form 3 different men is not deserving of your tax dollars so she can stay home. The children should be taken care of with the mother working otherwise she does not deserve them. The US does not even provide its soldiers who risked everything to defend us the best healthcare, they would rather pay defense contractors billions than help their fallen. This is absurd people. I am not talking about invented problems like PTSD (which the soldiers who stormed NOrmandy couldn't get because the diagnosis was not created until the Vietnam era), but soldiers who loose limbs or their eyes or hearing should have better healthcare than anyone in the country.
Like all things though, this too will pass. The solution will come and hopefully everyone can benefit.
Trey, I work at a clinic where everyone who walks through the door gets treated regardless of payor class. We have Catholic sponsorship and our commitment to service regardless of payment is reflected in our mission statement. I often have the privilege to meet with Drs that are interviewing for employment. I always point to the mission statement and tell them to read it and pay attention to the part about service and say "If you are not committed to serving your patients maybe you don't belong here."
Hopefully, I have caused some candidates to self select.
I apologize in advance if my questions below sound snide or trite or otherwise offensive. I just want to see healthcare fixed, that is my viewpoint. I think its on its way to being broken, just like social security and I would like to see it working in the near future.
That said, I am interested in understanding your viewpoints. I am not sure if I have a clear understanding of what exactly some of you are saying. Thus, I ask the questions below for clarification. I've said more than my peace and I don't want to step on anyone's toes or **** anyone off. I know I can get pretty mean when debating. Its not personal.
I just have a couple of questions to the opponents of national healthcare.
1) Do you even think the system is broken? If not, why not? Aren't health care costs soaring out of the reach of the average American?
2) Just to be clear, do you also believe in no Social Security, roads are purely the province of the states, CPS (child protectives services) is unnecessary, unemployment insurance is wrong/bad/don't want it for anyone, and all the social welfare programs are a waste of your money and you'd rather it be in your pocket to give to charities instead? Or am I reading too much into your arguments and healthcare is different?
3) The government will always mismanage your money and you can do a better job at providing yourself with the services and regulations the government does provide?
4) If the poor and the illegal immigrants use the ER room, don't the people who do pay for health insurance ultimately pay for their visits? Its pretty much guaranteed that those groups won't ever pay their ER bills; and even if the hospital collects, the collection agency takes a huge chunk of the bill. Therefore, the hospital has to eat the costs and then pass it on to those who pay. Is this a problem? If so, how do we fix it? I'm all for either banning them from guaranteed use of the ER OR just making everyone pay for it through taxes. At least the working poor pay taxes, and we have to pay for the illegals anyway; can't exactly find them...
Again, I may have phrased the questions poorly, please excuse the language. I am just trying to get a better overall picture of the opposing viewpoint and why they feel the way they do.
I guess I have to disagree with your opinion on the reporting I just don't buy it that it's rigged statistics. As far as being estimate, yes, it's sill 2009, but I would submit that these things don't change dramatically from year to year. There may be slight changes in the order, but that's about it - do look at the numbers, the differences are often not miniscule.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
Of course these numbers don't mean much, it's way more important to see what is the most significant contribution to them, I suspect that improving them may be relatively cheap, but politically and ideologically unacceptable to many.
then I don't understand how your proposition would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
actually i am familiar with inflation, not sure what 'increased costs' consists of (overhead to deal with insurance?), and i have absolutely no idea if this particular operation is more expensive to perform, but i once read how these prices came about. and in general as the time goes surgeries that used to be super advanced and costly become more and more routine - lower risks, the doctor's skill doesn't need to be 'exceptional' etc. transplants, brain surgeries... but you know all these things better than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
i think this is a misconception on your part. this is what the market thinks, which isn't necessarily what 'people' think.Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
perhaps there's an analogy - in the last months many people perhaps thought that they should be able to arrange it with their banks how to not get evicted, but that's not an option because pieces of their mortgage is now owned by 20 different entities that cannot even be traced.
Well that's the problem when it comes to policy - if it has to be so finely tuned it becomes so complicated that it's completely unusable. Where do you draw the line when the society gets more rights over the children than the parent?Quote:
Originally Posted by treydampier
These things just aren't as easy and clean cut as the caricatures that various self-serving 'experts' in the media love to present to us.
I think you are 100% correct on all counts. I don't understand why so many Americans seem to think that health is an individual issue and not a collective issue. That's what causes pandemics in the first place. That's what keeps people from being able to contribute their best to society. I encourage everyone to read a story by the great American author Edgar Allan Poe The Masque of the Red Death.