Thread: A Health Care Scenario

Originally Posted by commiecat

The answers to my questions are always "the government is bad!" and never explain why our existing system is superior to the rest of the world. It seems to me that the only reason people are against health care reform is because Obama wants it, and he's a democrat and we can't possibly agree on anything.

The government is not bad, it's just expensive. The bigger government gets, the more it costs. Our government was intended to remain small so that the fruits of our labors, our property, remains ours, not taken from us and given away to others. This is liberty, the right to keep what you have earned. Liberty is why our system is superior to the rest of the world.

The reason people are against what Obama wants is because Obama wants to expand government, thereby infringing upon our liberty. That should bother everybody regardless of party affiliation.

BTW commiecat, where would you prefer to receive treatment for an illness, here in the USA or elsewhere?

Ten surprising facts about American health care:

10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care - Brief Analysis #649

Ok I'll make an attempt to bring that back on topic.

Originally Posted by treydampier

In his first year he bills $150K in unpaid medicaid and medicare fees and private insurance. He then does over $300K in indigent (immigrant, uninsured or otherwise) work for which he receives nothing.
Now, he works hard and has billed over $1,000,000 in revenue in his first year. By the time he pays his taxes for his business, his personnel, his malpractice, his rent, office costs, and everything else he makes a grand $150K form which he has to pay a mortgage, taxes, and school loans.

So, you are saying these are the correct numbers and you think at the end of the day your friend made too little money.
From what I can see the biggest problem is the unpaid services. I don't have much to say why he didn't get his $150000 from the government. From what others have posted the government is a lot more prompt than the private insurers. I guess his option would be to not accept medicare and medicaid in the future. I do not think doctors are obliged to accept any insurance plan.
On the other $300000 I am a bit confused from your wording, but it seems to me that that's treating uninsured patients. It would seem to me that there are two ways to address that (1) don't treat them (that may be illegal), or provide the bare minimum and least expensive treatment, or (2) support the attempts to reduce or even eliminate the number of uninsured (but even if that happens if their insurer won't pay for the services it doesn't really solve the problem).

I most certainly agree with honedright that financial success is not guaranteed for anybody and I don't understand how you come up with the random numbers of who needs to make what.

Originally Posted by treydampier

I think the hospitals should be able to deny care to illegal aliens unless they agree to pay something (even if its a quarter). Why not demand responsibility.

My question to you is why do you limit your demands to illegal aliens only? If you want to solve the problem of your friend you should demand everybody who gets served pay, no matter where they were born or what their legal status is. Separating people based on whether they are legal or illegal residents has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. Being robbed by an american citizen may make you feel better than being robbed by a foreigner, but it won't make you richer.

Finally I think that your proposition that doctors be allowed to perform whatever they think is necessary and bill whatever they want is completely insane.

The reality is that the available resources are limited and the problem is optimization. The mechanism of competition by opposing interests is one way to work towards an optimal solution but that doesn't guarantee finding a very good solution either. Obviously it's all even more complicated by the fact that everybody has their own measure of what is 'better' based on their own priorities. You seem to think that the huge medical expenses in US are worth the advances in cutting edge medicine, even though these advances benefit a miniscule fraction of people. Others feel that countries like Cuba are better who do not have this advances, but do much better job at providing more standard care to more people.

Avoid hazards of medical treatment abroad - CNN.com

"Western Europe and some of the other countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, for example, all provide services that are reasonably comparable to U.S. standards," said Dr. Gary Brunette, a medical epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Travelers' Health Team

Reasonably comparable to U.S. standards. Reasonably comparable?? - that's good to know. But aren't those other industrialized countries supposed to be better??? Reasonably comparable - ha!

Originally Posted by gugi

Finally I think that your proposition that doctors be allowed to perform whatever they think is necessary and bill whatever they want is completely insane.

The reality is that the available resources are limited and the problem is optimization. The mechanism of competition by opposing interests is one way to work towards an optimal solution but that doesn't guarantee finding a very good solution either. Obviously it's all even more complicated by the fact that everybody has their own measure of what is 'better' based on their own priorities.

Don't forget that doctors also care about optimizing their patient's treatment. No doctor wants to waste his, or his patient's, time and money on unnecessary, and sometimes uncomfortable, procedures. But, who better to decide what is medically necessary than the one who completed medical school training where a standard of care is taught? And who better to decide what to bill for services than the one providing those services? Does not the doctor own his or her knowledge? along with owning the skills he or she is selling?

The insanity is in denying doctors the fruits of their labor, their liberty.

Originally Posted by honedright

Avoid hazards of medical treatment abroad - CNN.com

"Western Europe and some of the other countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, for example, all provide services that are reasonably comparable to U.S. standards," said Dr. Gary Brunette, a medical epidemiologist with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Travelers' Health Team

Reasonably comparable to U.S. standards. Reasonably comparable?? - that's good to know. But aren't those other industrialized countries supposed to be better??? Reasonably comparable - ha!

I think that our medical care here in Europe is not better or worse than you have there. The difference is that here (and in Cuba also) more people get covered because of the goverment (law) based medical care.

Originally Posted by honedright

The government is not bad, it's just expensive. The bigger government gets, the more it costs. Our government was intended to remain small so that the fruits of our labors, our property, remains ours, not taken from us and given away to others. This is liberty, the right to keep what you have earned. Liberty is why our system is superior to the rest of the world.

The reason people are against what Obama wants is because Obama wants to expand government, thereby infringing upon our liberty. That should bother everybody regardless of party affiliation.

BTW commiecat, where would you prefer to receive treatment for an illness, here in the USA or elsewhere?

Ugh. Back to the fear, uncertainty and doubt argument. Illness treatments are the same throughout, and I'd rather pay much less for my insurance for the few times I actually use it.

Our liberties were destroyed under the previous administration, who called our Constitution a "goddamned piece of paper." I don't see how affordable health care is taking away any liberty.

Originally Posted by riooso

I am sorry but the CBO came out with at $1.2 trillion figure just yesterday for the new 2000 page POS. That is only one issue. After the 2012 election there will not be any private plans allowed.....nada! I don't what another government controlled and mandated program that just gets more money every time they run over budget from the taxpayers.

Does it matter when the document came out? I posted a PDF straight from the CBO's website and quoted it with citations. Show me where it says that there will be no more private insurance companies after 2012.

Originally Posted by riooso

Get a clue Katrina was a mess because the government ran it, not who was president. Oh....look at H1N1 we all ought to have the chance to get the vaccine by when???????? about the time 10K people have died and it is in full swing......another program the government overseeing.

Well I have no idea what Katrina has to do with this, but again you're absolutely lying about the H1N1 numbers. 6000 people have died worldwide, and only about 1400 in North America. The vaccine is available now.

Originally Posted by riooso

All this for approximately 7 million uninsured people? Just buy them all Cadillac insurance at $6000 a year, that would only amount to $42 billion a year we would be money ahead. There is a good side to all this though. I can sue the government if they screw up.... nice!

Actually it's for about 45.7M citizens.

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine