nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
LOL, if you can't even answer a straight question with a straight answer why should ANYBODY think your opinion is relevant?
LOL, if you can't even answer a straight question with a straight answer why should ANYBODY think your opinion is relevant?
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
Perhaps, just perhaps if health care and testing wasn't so expensive she would have caught this cancer earlier, before it metastasized so badly?
I dont really care if "people" think my opinion is relevant. None of what we do on this board is "relevant". No policy is based on our opinion and what we talk about ends here.
Now we got that out of the way. I think you need to answer my question on where we can find people dying in the streets. That was your appeal to emotion based argument I originally responded to.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
LOL, I don't think you have a clue. All I have to do is look in my mirror and I can see someone dying of metastatic kidney cancer who can't afford the $6000/month pills he needs. I have seen other people in a similar boat but trust me, when YOU are the one dying from a cancer that has had little research done on it that's all the "people dying in the streets" that YOU will need to see.
Not that it's "relevant" or that I even care if it's "relevant but I think you can "officially" go fuck yourself.
It's obvious to me that not only is the current system fubared but that we need to keep pushing on the research and development of drugs, treatments, etc. and as we all know that takes money.
eits
Lifer
the problem is HEALTH care. the reason why we're in this predicament is because we spend billions on sick care. health isn't promoted or enforced for shit.
you, as a typical american, lack the foresight to realize that walking paths, jungle gyms, and farmers' markets will go a LONG way in changing the path in america's health destiny.
most of the shit you get at the grocery store has NO healthy component to it whatsoever, even produce. most of it has been genetically altered and is devoid of any nutritional value. having organically grown food out in the market and plenty of it will drive down the cost of HEALTHY food, which will promote healthier eating lifestyles. more jungle gyms will promote more kids to get off their fat asses and play outside. studies prove that kids who go out and play rather than stay inside and watch tv and play games have a much healthier mind and body growing up. more walkways promote more people to get out and go for a walk and do something healthy everyday, which will ALSO promote health.
promoting health is the way to go. all we do now, however, is promote sick care... for example, when you turn your tv on and see all those bullshit commercials telling the public that they need medication x, y, and z for problems 1, 2, and/or 3 with side-effects a, b, and c.
the healthier people are, the less "healthcare" (which is actually sick care) will cost.
get it?
eits
Lifer
there's a reason why america is tops in the PERCENTAGE of cancer survival... because more americans get cancer than any other country in the world because we're disgustingly unhealthy and don't know how to eat.
other countries are healthier than we are. they don't have nearly as many cases of cancer.
So basically, you're supporting something the burden of which would be borne by other people - got it.
I agree with your assertion that our lifestyle in the US isn't healthy, and is part of our rising healthcare costs. Just today on the way to work I heard about the results of a new study which showed that caloric restrictions in monkeys resulted in 300% decrease in the likelihood of age-related illnesses, and less mind and body atrophy with aging.
But how are we going to get people to discontinue making poor choices? Stupid is hard to fix!
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
So says the asshat supporting a system which doesn't pay working people enough money to afford insurance/healthcare.
It's quite possible - I do fine on income, but I don't pretend to be rich. Assuming you pay more than me, start a free clinic or something. You claim to have means.
eits
Lifer
by promoting what jacknuts in my nested quote thinks are earmarks (more walkways, more jungle gyms, money towards farmers' markets). promoting health and increasing the availability as ease at which people can get out and exercise or eat healthier for cheaper is a good starting point.
see, the thing is that america is unlike the rest of the world in so many ways... we want everything to be instantaneous. things take time. the best things in life take time to develop.
If you think by doing any of those things, Americans in any significant number are going to become more healthy, you are completely out of your F'ing mind.
Americans are fat because that's the lifestyle they've chosen - myself included. When I want to lose weight, then I'll stop living an unhealthy lifestyle. I don't need jungle gyms and exercise trails built for me - I have an exercise trail that goes down every street in my whole town: It's called a sidewalk.
Delusional...you are totally and completely delusional if you actually believe any of what you just wrote.
Chuck
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
I agree with what you said, but I'm not entirely sure about the last point. Unions have their pros and cons in any field. My sister is a NICU nurse, and from what I've gathered from her nurses really do earn their keep. The problem is that hospital administrators often make budgetary cuts without too much regard to how it affects the staff's ability to do their job. Nurses are paid well, so the only things I can see a nursing union working for are better working conditions....such as better shift coverage. Some unions really do care about making sure their members have what they need to do their job properly. (but there are many examples of those that don't)
Take for example what has happened at a local mercy hospital in my area. They cut the nurses back to 35hr weeks by shortening their shifts in order to save money. The nurses that worked there were up in arms about it because shorter shifts not only hurt their pocketbooks, but it dramatically shortened the time they got to spend taking care of patients. They couldn't effectively do their jobs as they were understaffed to begin with.
So, what did the administrators do? Hire more part-time nurses. Fail. Having the same nurse look over a patient for a longer period allows them to simply do their job better as patient interaction is a HUGE part of what they do. So now, a patient may only see a nurse once every few hours, and because of the shift changes it will be a different one each time. New nurses coming on duty naturally will not be familiar with a new patient, despite whatever chart notes are taken. This situation (I hope) is what a nurses' union would fight...
MovingTarget
Diamond Member
- Jun 22, 2003
- 9,002
- 115
- 106
Look, this argument can be turned around the other way to rail against anything the government currently does. The only difference is that BS is from teh private sector, and some here have bought that hook, line, & sinker too.
Insurance companies do a lot in the current marketplace. However, the point is that the very nature of healthcare itself makes it an unfair marketplace. You cannot simply deny yourself life saving care nor shop around when you need emergency care or have a preexisting condition. This is why you cannot simply compare them to the Auto/Home/etc insurance markets. Can't afford to fix your car? You go without it. Can't afford car insurance? You don't drive until you do. Can't afford health insurance? You DIE.
Insurance companies do help mitigate risk for catastrophic costs, but if a proper healthcare system were set in place, it would make these companies obsolete. All that cost and overhead, gone - money we could use elsewhere to ensure better preventative care.
eits
Lifer
you choose the lifestyle because you're drawn to the value of eating shitty food because you get more for your buck. shitty food is easier to produce and yield tons of it... that's why it's cheap and that's why people get it. however, if there were more organic foods out on the market and more organic produce flooding the market, that drives their costs down, making people more willing to buy it and eat it. that will improve health.
if you think that lifestyle modification CAN'T happen because of a greater influence to modify by an increase of exposure to healthy things (jungle gyms, walkways, gym memberships for cheap, etc.), then you're very much mistaken.
dropping the exposure to images of people smoking and smoking ads cause a decrease in smoking rates. exposure to images or people who are healthy and exercising or unhealthy people who exercise causes an increase in rates of people exercising (i.e. the increase of gym memberships sold by gyms due to shows like 'the biggest loser'). people even start pools at the workplace for the biggest loser.
changing a culture of fatasses isn't easy and it takes time, but it can happen. it takes time and promotion, whether it be through tax breaks for being healthier, increased pay by the government to professions who get patients/clients to make healthier lifestyle changes (lower cholesterol, quitting smoking, higher blood oxygen levels, etc.).
i understand that you're not a doctor, nurse, or anyone who improves peoples' health on a daily basis. but i, and a bunch of my doctor friends (both medical and chiropractic) are 100% sure that increasing the exposure to health and healthy living and promoting it in a big way will go a LONG way in decreasing healthcare costs, decreasing disease rates of cancer and diabetes, and increase life expectancy.
if my facts are still correct, in no other country in the world is there a strong correlation between black people and heart disease or obesity. it's because most blacks in this country are in the lower class of citizens that can't afford healthier diets.
It is 11:29 pm and Our Emergency room is full. I have seen 12 patients so far and overall none of them are here inappropriately. I haven't a clue what if any insurance my patients have, all are treated equally.
I make about the same as other professionals, living on the same street as several lawyers, businessmen and bankers. I do find that they work neither nights or holidays. I also find that although they may be successfull in their field, I would not classify them as top of the class. Sure my perception of intellect is focused on Science so I may be discounting them unfairly. However, I certainly would not trust any of them with my life.
Although, I believe that our system has many faults, I don't believe a sociallist system will lead to anything but substandard care, laziness, and rationing. Every field requires incentives to maintain standards. To maintain its competative drive to draw qualified applicants, any field must offer competative reimbursement. Many will claim that the AMA limits the number of graduates, but I will state from personal experience that opening the doors to more less qualified applicants will only serve to lessen the quality of care that our system provides. Thousands of foriegn trained physicians attempt to qualify to practice medicine in this country every year and most cannot pass the exam.
Many also quote the 30 dollar tylenol but fail to realize that this is not the price that insurance companies pay. On average, any bill submitted by a hospital is paid at 10 cents on the dollar. The rack rates are inflated to compensate for this. The most true measure of hospital revenues is that in our country the vast majority of hospitals are losing money, relying mainly on charitable donations to operate.
Also many like to point to the unhealthy lifestyle of americans, although I agree that we need to and are addressing these issues, the impact on total health expenditures is small.
Ultimately, the system is flawed because of a lack of capitalist pressures. Health Insurance companies operate with relative monopolies, selling their product to large employers not employees and making non-group policies prohibitive. They operate without consequence to unfair practices and without true competition. They are free to set their rates and policies, exerting oppressive pressure on all but the largest customers and the largest providers.
I am unsure how a federally controlled insurance program would affect this system, but I will say that those who are making policy no less about the consequences of their decisions than a fish knows about clouds.
I make about the same as other professionals, living on the same street as several lawyers, businessmen and bankers. I do find that they work neither nights or holidays. I also find that although they may be successfull in their field, I would not classify them as top of the class. Sure my perception of intellect is focused on Science so I may be discounting them unfairly. However, I certainly would not trust any of them with my life.
Although, I believe that our system has many faults, I don't believe a sociallist system will lead to anything but substandard care, laziness, and rationing. Every field requires incentives to maintain standards. To maintain its competative drive to draw qualified applicants, any field must offer competative reimbursement. Many will claim that the AMA limits the number of graduates, but I will state from personal experience that opening the doors to more less qualified applicants will only serve to lessen the quality of care that our system provides. Thousands of foriegn trained physicians attempt to qualify to practice medicine in this country every year and most cannot pass the exam.
Many also quote the 30 dollar tylenol but fail to realize that this is not the price that insurance companies pay. On average, any bill submitted by a hospital is paid at 10 cents on the dollar. The rack rates are inflated to compensate for this. The most true measure of hospital revenues is that in our country the vast majority of hospitals are losing money, relying mainly on charitable donations to operate.
Also many like to point to the unhealthy lifestyle of americans, although I agree that we need to and are addressing these issues, the impact on total health expenditures is small.
Ultimately, the system is flawed because of a lack of capitalist pressures. Health Insurance companies operate with relative monopolies, selling their product to large employers not employees and making non-group policies prohibitive. They operate without consequence to unfair practices and without true competition. They are free to set their rates and policies, exerting oppressive pressure on all but the largest customers and the largest providers.
I am unsure how a federally controlled insurance program would affect this system, but I will say that those who are making policy no less about the consequences of their decisions than a fish knows about clouds.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,858
- 6,394
- 126
So very very wrong. Capitalism is the problem regarding the HealthCare Industry. It already Rations care, it already has placed a Bureaucrat between Patient/Doctor, it already has the worst Efficiency in the Industrialized World.
Hospitals are struggling because the Insurance Industry is offloading Costs onto them. "Socialized" Healthcare is proved, it is Cheaper, more Efficient, gives as good or better results overall, and gives Full Coverage of the Population.
More Capitalism? Give your head a shake.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter