:beer: good post HS. I agree 100%. Doctors arent the Bad Guys, its the corporations and People in this all important industry JUST for Profit. That okay when your selling widgets........ something else when its lives.
:beer: good post HS. I agree 100%. Doctors arent the Bad Guys, its the corporations and People in this all important industry JUST for Profit. That okay when your selling widgets........ something else when its lives.
:roll: Are you that slow? The cost of health care includes the R&D that the drug companies and others do. You saying it isn't included is one of the dumbest things I've ever read in P&N. Like I said... try again.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Shockingly, I must agree with Heartsurgeon. The doctors and hospitals aren't at fault, it is the middle-men, the insurance execs and the trial lawyers.
What is wrong with Socialized Universal Healthcare? Simple, what is the problem with everything socialist?
Answer: what if you actually don't want to take part? Seriously. What if you believe in alternative medicine? What if you are always healthy and never go to the doctor? What if your personal religious beliefs forbid you from partaking in modern medicine? What if you are morally opposed to spending millions and billions of dollars trying to "save" the lives of extremely elderly people who are already at death's door?
I'm not saying I agree with all of those above, but what if? Why should someone who felt like that be forced to pay (out the ass, I might add) for something they don't want and would never use, just because the majority could give a sh!t about their individuals rights? That is the way socialism always is, and that is why socialism is inherently wrong and evil.
Unfair at it might be, at least with capitalism you have the right to choose and (the very essense of freedom) the right to not take part.
I could go and on with this topic, and we haven't even touched the real issues, like personal privacy and whether or not the government could actually provide good health care or not.
The real issue is that universal healthcare would be the end of freedom in America.
What is wrong with Socialized Universal Healthcare? Simple, what is the problem with everything socialist?
Answer: what if you actually don't want to take part? Seriously. What if you believe in alternative medicine? What if you are always healthy and never go to the doctor? What if your personal religious beliefs forbid you from partaking in modern medicine? What if you are morally opposed to spending millions and billions of dollars trying to "save" the lives of extremely elderly people who are already at death's door?
I'm not saying I agree with all of those above, but what if? Why should someone who felt like that be forced to pay (out the ass, I might add) for something they don't want and would never use, just because the majority could give a sh!t about their individuals rights? That is the way socialism always is, and that is why socialism is inherently wrong and evil.
Unfair at it might be, at least with capitalism you have the right to choose and (the very essense of freedom) the right to not take part.
I could go and on with this topic, and we haven't even touched the real issues, like personal privacy and whether or not the government could actually provide good health care or not.
The real issue is that universal healthcare would be the end of freedom in America.
OK it is really easy to understand. Doctors in the US who can own private practices get paid more, but they also have more resonsibility. If they screw up an dleave a pair of scissors in you , then you can sue them which in turn makes their malpractice insurance increase. So they charge more.
If we had universal health care would we still hold the doctors accountable? ANd how long do you think thsoe doctors would last making little money.
Aside from that i've seen free health care in action. I live in alaska and the natives get 100% free healthcare. People bring thier kids in to the emergency room if they sneeze. Im not exaggerating.
Forcing people who work and who have acheived in their life for some lazy person who drinks a six pack every day isnt going to go over well. Aside from that people are charitable by nature and donate to "free clinics" all the time. But if you force people to pay they become less charitable because they develop the "its already free" attitude no matter how crappy the healthcare is.
Look at the countries with free health care and see how good it is. Its not good at all and as a matter of fact many canadians come to the US for non-lifethreating operations because they would wait 4 months for it in canada.
We didnt become the richest country in the world by giving everyone a free ride.
If we had universal health care would we still hold the doctors accountable? ANd how long do you think thsoe doctors would last making little money.
Aside from that i've seen free health care in action. I live in alaska and the natives get 100% free healthcare. People bring thier kids in to the emergency room if they sneeze. Im not exaggerating.
Forcing people who work and who have acheived in their life for some lazy person who drinks a six pack every day isnt going to go over well. Aside from that people are charitable by nature and donate to "free clinics" all the time. But if you force people to pay they become less charitable because they develop the "its already free" attitude no matter how crappy the healthcare is.
Look at the countries with free health care and see how good it is. Its not good at all and as a matter of fact many canadians come to the US for non-lifethreating operations because they would wait 4 months for it in canada.
We didnt become the richest country in the world by giving everyone a free ride.
A neighborhood type clinic/hospital that offers zero-charge care for things like annual medical checkups, minor broken limps etc... would be good I think. But I think, for things like "first class medical treatment" like cancer treatment would probably put too much pressure on the system.
OK now you are going too far. Ultimately doctors and hospitals have a lot of culpability with regards to profit motive warping our healthcare system. The AMA has taken various positions over the ages that have little to do with healthcare and a lot to do with how much MDs can make (and control) in healthcare.
Part of our history is that the advent of third party payer (insurance then Medicare/Medicaid) meant MDs needed a staff just to handle the paperwork. As the peanut gallery of third party payers expanded (there's a lot of money in healthcare) so did the paperwork . . . and the staffs.
Prescription patterns have been grossly distorted by forces that have nothing to do with best evidence. Only doctors can write prescriptions so doctors must bear the responsibility.
My hospital has been begging for a PET scanner for the last decade . . . we're getting one, too. Curiously, there's a PET scanner less than 8 miles away at Duke. Due to the relatively small population being served this duplication in services is technically against the rules . . .
Currently there's a blood feud between the Neurodevelopmental Disorders Research Center at UNC and a similar center at Duke.
The airwaves are filled with advertisements from Duke Healthcare, UNC Healthcare, University of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, and every other podunk operation trying to get a piece of the healthcare pie.
In sum, we are all part of the problem. It is unlikely we will develop practical solutions to our healthcare dilemma until everyone is willing to cede self interest in favor of the common good.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
5-9% is a cheap price to pay for some protection when they cut some corners and leave someone dead or maimed and a family w/o support. You guys who don't like lawyers should never hire one then to defend your rights and/or prosecute someone who wronged you. In fact arguing for tort reform is not only unconsitutional but leads to the same type of handicap the "socialized medicine" countries have where you can't sue. Unamerican and socialist.
A recent report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics estimates that limiting unreasonable jury awards could cut healthcare costs by 5-9%
A recent report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics estimates that limiting unreasonable jury awards could cut healthcare costs by 5-9%
So your argument is that R&D costs are implicit in the cost of prescription drugs. Yes, prescription drugs are included in the estimation of national healtcare costs, but they only account for 10.8% of national healthcare expendatures in the US (Link from gov). Take a look for yourself to see what comprises this estimation of healthcare costs - R&D is not listed and is not a part of this number.
Now lets hear your reasoning for why R&D costs are included.
Health insurers typically don't practice medicine but they deserve to be sued when they do. Nursing homes typically provide care that's being directed by a doctor. The bad nursing homes deserve to be sued or put out of business. Hospitals DO practice medicine but this study is poo.
We have cardiac triage centers in many EDs across the country. Billions of dollars are spent monitoring patients that arrive with nonspecific and sometimes specific complaints that hint at a cardiac problem. These units SAVE lives but they also COST money. Paperwork that allegedly exists solely for litigation avoidance is called proper documentation. If it's not written down it didn't happen. Proper documentation SAVES lives but it COSTS money.
Another pile from this crappy journal. What the hell is an unreasonable jury award? There's no reason to believe the savings from limiting jury awards would be directed towards providing health insurance to the uninsured. There's certainly the possibility of a trickle effect but that's about it.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, and am all for loser pays to make them rethink thier case before bringing one to bear on innocents for a quick buck, but what part of this don't you understand which tort-reform will kill:
US Constitution:
Amendment VII - Trial by jury in civil cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Bali-What the hell is an unreasonable jury award?
---
Ditto. Unless your on that jury your uninformed and speculating at best.
Government control of any industry is inherently distasteful. However, we have the aweful situation where market forces (free enterprise) are not allowed to work, resulting in highly inflated healthcare cost. The worst of both worlds, so to speak.
Michael
Elite member
- Nov 19, 1999
- 5,435
- 234
- 106
I'm in favour of univeral healthcare.
My problem in doing it in the USA is that the healthcare system here is essentially the best in the world, just too expensive.
I'm very worried that fixing the expense part will break the quality part.
The first thing that is needed is education of the general population to break us away from treating this as an insurance issue to treating it as a consumer issue. We're already paying for universal healthcare, we just don't realize it. Of course, the best set of companies to do so would be the insurance companies which have the most to lose if the system changes.
Thre needs to be a credible plan that is bought into by the population before this would ever work in the USA.
Michael
My problem in doing it in the USA is that the healthcare system here is essentially the best in the world, just too expensive.
I'm very worried that fixing the expense part will break the quality part.
The first thing that is needed is education of the general population to break us away from treating this as an insurance issue to treating it as a consumer issue. We're already paying for universal healthcare, we just don't realize it. Of course, the best set of companies to do so would be the insurance companies which have the most to lose if the system changes.
Thre needs to be a credible plan that is bought into by the population before this would ever work in the USA.
Michael
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Prove we have the best health care in the world. Seems an impossiblity if you amortize it over the entire population since some people are not even covered. Sure Bill Gates or a saudi prince who flys over, both of who prolly dos'nt have insurance nor need it, gets the best care in the world at mayo clinic. But not even insured care is this country is that decent IMO with the referal system and insurance companies lording over doctors teling them what they can and can't perform.
We need to nix the insurance companies, all of them, an have a single payer governemnt insurance company..along the lines of fannymae/freddymac for home loans. This would at least 20%.
We need to nix the insurance companies, all of them, an have a single payer governemnt insurance company..along the lines of fannymae/freddymac for home loans. This would at least 20%.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Are you serious? Alright make all suits caped at $19 and it erases the seventh amendment. The idea and spirt of this amendment is Democracy not some beurucrate making decisions on peoples life with a one size fits all approach. The seventh hands the power directly to the people.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
umm... the 7th amendment only applies to when you get a jury trial. there are plenty of things that you can't get a jury trial for under the 7th amendment. plus you have a patently ridiculous cap anyway, no one is asking for that. please apply law to something that has a chance of happening, not some farciful delusion
not to mention there is very little evidence that juries and judges come to different results with statistical significance
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Pardon me? Why don't YOU address the issue of why ALL should pay, especially those who might not wish to, just because some want it but refuse to earn it.
As for the idea that modern medicine isn't snake oil, you better open your eyes. It is an inexact science and any reputable doctor will even tell you as such. You're gonna die someday, Zebo... best doctors in the world or not. Get used to it. In the meantime, learn not to steal from others just because you have an overactive sense of entitlement. You want health care, earn it. Forcing others to pay for what you want yet will not earn is theft.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
Theft? What a childish argument. Taxation is no more "theft," than imprisonment is "kidnapping," killing enemy soldiers in war is "murder," or other laws compelling compliance on pain of fine or imprisonment are "extortion." The governemnt is granted taxation power by Article I Section 8 and subquent laws our elected leaders marshalled in for us, don't like it leave. But it was quite voluntary.
And Redistribution is no more "theft" than you attending public schools, publicly funded electricity, water, gas, and other utilities, publicly funded information, Driving on public roads, , using air traffic control, going to a public library, using public money, Fannymea/freedymac, firefighers, police etc etc etc I could go on forever. They are simply part of the social contract we make with the governemnt though our elected leaders. The only way to avoid public goods and services is to move out of the country entirely, or at least become a hermit, such as Robinson Crusoe but even then you're still taking advantage of national defense. Which begs the question why are you living in this crimminal society since you think it's "theft"?
The tax money that goes to social insurance and soon to be health care ("Get used to it." if you think it won't come to pass if enough people wish this protection) buys each one of us a private good which is the comfort of being protected in times of adversity. And it buys us a public good as well. If workers were allowed to unnecessarily starve or die in otherwise temporary setbacks, then our economy would be frequently disrupted. We are perfectly capable and legal in implementing these programs as any other that benefits the public.
Zebo
Elite Member
- Jul 29, 2001
- 39,398
- 19
- 81
I'm not a lawyer and can barly write but courts have always ruled limits unconsitutional because they restrict the right of access to the courts for redress of injuries under the seventh, deny equal protection, and violate due process guarantees. One case I remember, if your interested in legal opinion, is the Boyd v. Bulala case.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are not funded by tax dollars. Public roads have the fairest form of tax payment ever -- they are paid for only by the people who drive on them, either through gas taxes or tolls.
Taxation becomes theft when one political group (calling itself "the majority") uses its political clout to implement taxes designed solely to redistribute wealth to itself, and not for the common benefit of all. Such is "universal healthcare".
The entirety of your argument is what is childish, not mine. Politics ala Veruca Salt ("I want it and I want it now!") with a heavy does of bullsh!t about the nanny state being a "social contract" (got a link to that contract cause it sure as hell isn't the Constitution).
You, like many others in our society today, have been successfully brainwashed into believing that a private product sold for profit is a "right". When do we all get a brand-new car every year? I think everyone deserves a brand new car... why, it should be a right!
What you are demanding is no different. We'll all get to pay all our incomes to nanny gubment so that losers can get their Prozac and old farts can get it up with their Viagra. If that ain't snake oil, I don't know what is.
And woohoo, medicine can now become like public education, with all the same quality and high standards... oh, the joy! :roll:
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