Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,267
- 126
please run a find on this page for "Have any proof that the increase is from AIDS, and illegals?"
Originally posted by: sandorski
Nope, Water isn't metered either, but I live in a hick town.
Are you even on sewer, or do you have a septic tank?
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
I'm a conservative in favor of national healthcare.
Well, sorta.
Actually, this is a very tough problem. I am normally opposed to most entitlement/welfare programs. I don't think we should be giving welfare money to people because they don't want to work. Almost nobody is incapable of doing something to earn a living and I think people need to be willing to take responsibility for themselves and do what they have to do to support themselves and their families. I have personally known many people who collected welfare and sat at home watching tv because they didn't want to work at a McDonalds.
But on the other hand, I don't think anyone in this wealthy and prosperous country should die because they need medical treatment that they cannot afford. So I don't know what the solution is. Certainly not something like Canada's system.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
So do we. The point is that saving human lives is only possible because of the profit motive. Even if you are only talking about reducing the profit by capping prices, it will have the effect of reducing R&D. The only reason pharmaceuticals have the R&D resources is because of the huge profits of their previous drugs and the investment money coming in on the hope of a big payoff. If you take that away, you have greatly reduced the chance of having new drugs developed that could save millions of lives.
I agree with you in your statements against price caps on pharmaceuticals, but you are wrong in saying nobody shops for better prices. Most employers care a great deal about the cost of healthcare. Afterall, they are paying for a large portion of it. It would simply be bad business to not shop around and try to get better deals. My employer (80,000 employees worldwide) just changed their healthcare offerings this year because they shopped around and invited numerous insurance companies to provide bids on providing insurance for employees. By doing this, they were able to get some better deals. Prices still went up, but the increase was minimized by shopping around.
Not the employers, the employees, or users. They go to any drug store their heart desires, and merely give the co-pay amount for the drug, regardless of how much the actual cost is. They don't shop for the lowest priced doctors, or procedures either. They merely make their co-payment and they're on their way. What do they care if the doctor orders umpteen unnecessary tests? The insurance pays for it, right?
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
I think the biggest problem is the junk lawsuits.
But I don't know what the best way is to fix that.
I hate the idea of limiting the damages because I think in some cases of extreme negligence where severe damage was done, very large awards are appropriate.
If some doctor was a moron and did something really stupid that caused my child to die or to be paralyzed for life, I don't want the government telling me that my loss is only worth x number of dollars. I also believe in the idea that judges and juries should be given the ability to look at each case individually and decide what is appropriate. It's the same reason I am opposed to mandatory sentences in criminal cases.
On the other hand, something has to be done about people like John Edwards who get multi-million dollar judgements against doctors for a baby having a disease that is most likely genetic. But how in the hell do you stop this without taking away the rights of those people who truly are victims of negligence? I guess the problem is that most average citizens on jurys are more influenced by emotion and compassion than by the facts. No easy solution for that one.
But I don't know what the best way is to fix that.
I hate the idea of limiting the damages because I think in some cases of extreme negligence where severe damage was done, very large awards are appropriate.
If some doctor was a moron and did something really stupid that caused my child to die or to be paralyzed for life, I don't want the government telling me that my loss is only worth x number of dollars. I also believe in the idea that judges and juries should be given the ability to look at each case individually and decide what is appropriate. It's the same reason I am opposed to mandatory sentences in criminal cases.
On the other hand, something has to be done about people like John Edwards who get multi-million dollar judgements against doctors for a baby having a disease that is most likely genetic. But how in the hell do you stop this without taking away the rights of those people who truly are victims of negligence? I guess the problem is that most average citizens on jurys are more influenced by emotion and compassion than by the facts. No easy solution for that one.
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Well, in some cases. I have an insurance plan that is fee-for-service. I can go wherever I want and see whoever I want. But even so, the insurance company has agreements with most of the doctors to charge certain rates. So my insurance company only pays a discounted rate depending on what the service is. And our company has quite a few measures in place to try to encourage employees to be smart about where they get their services. Things like having higher co-insurance payments for non-generic drugs, etc.
But yeah, I see what you mean.
Originally posted by: Ornery
Since 1982, we have depended exclusively on postage and fees rather than taxpayer revenue for our operations.
Any more uber-intelligent comments?
If you thin the USPSS is efficient, you should think again; to raise the price of stamps because demand has decreased as a result of competition and substitutable means of communications defies economic logic. "Hey, Margie, the price of stamps went up...let's buy more and mail more letters."
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,667
- 6,244
- 126
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: Ornery
Since 1982, we have depended exclusively on postage and fees rather than taxpayer revenue for our operations.
Any more uber-intelligent comments?
If you thin the USPSS is efficient, you should think again; to raise the price of stamps because demand has decreased as a result of competition and substitutable means of communications defies economic logic. "Hey, Margie, the price of stamps went up...let's buy more and mail more letters."
Yes/No. It depends on the outcome, if they break even, it's a good idea, if they lose business it was a bad idea.
Christ, who said ANYTHING about efficiency? The point is, they aren't wasting billions of our tax dollars, like Amtrack.
Universal health care? No. I refuse to believe the current health care system is such an utter disaster that gov't intervention can't make it worse.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,513
- 580
- 126
I don't like the idea of a government run health care system.
But I do think there should be improvements made.
I have a question?
With Medicare and elderly healthcare expenses so high, why can' t retired doctors who no longer want to do a full time schedule see the elderly for minor to moderate problems and only go the hospital when necessary.
Dr.s could make fair money, while saving gov't/elderly a ton of money.
But I do think there should be improvements made.
I have a question?
With Medicare and elderly healthcare expenses so high, why can' t retired doctors who no longer want to do a full time schedule see the elderly for minor to moderate problems and only go the hospital when necessary.
Dr.s could make fair money, while saving gov't/elderly a ton of money.
I firmly believe that every citizen should be able to receive proper health care. But like many, I don't like the idea of a government run health care system. There has to be a way to do it with little government involvement. If a universal system is ever created, there will be a huge immigration increase. In that case maybe the borders should be completely closed to immigrants until the system is working reasonably well?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter