• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Universal Healthcare! Come on U.S. Get with it.

StillPhil

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't it about time for this?

I'm posting two articles for it, and two against it.

Take note that the articles against Universal Healthcare, despite their Compassion of Mind--mentality, they still seem to miss the mark that there are people--right now--who are suffering and need attention as soon as humanly possible. Both 'against' articles are clouded in money-worries above all else.

We don't need compassionate-conservatives or bleeding-heart-liberals. We need representatives of the people (elected officials?) who are going to wake-up to the fact that 60 to 75% of United States citizens have been asking for this for a while now.

For Universal Healthcare:
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers04/petergm/petergm.htm

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Against Universal Healthcare:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27085
 
Last edited:

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
StillPhil said:
Take note that the articles against Universal Healthcare, despite their Compassion of Mind--mentality, they still seem to miss the mark that there are people--right now--who are suffering and need attention as soon as humanly possible.
So we should just sacrifice everything to help people right now, and to hell with the future?

Socialized medicine would destroy the incentive to produce innovative new treatments for diseases, to say nothing of the skyrocketing health costs.

StillPhil said:
Both 'against' articles are clouded in money-worries above all else.
And this is a valid criticism...how? Do you consider money worries to be unimportant?


StillPhil said:
We don't need compassionate-conservatives or bleeding-heart-liberals. We need representatives of the people (elected officials?) who are going to wake-up to the fact that 60 to 75% of United States citizens have been asking for this for a while now.
Actually, we need representatives who are going to have the courage to say no to 60-75% of the people.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I refute part of that Kandhar. Universal Health care would only reduce medical incentives if the pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers became nationalised.

I believe that private industry can supply the products, and government can supply the end service, without a reduction in new medicines being developed.

I know that I may not be sounding libertarian, but there are some things like health and education, that I believe are extremely important. And that all citizens should have equal excess to.

For me it's a no brainer, healthy smart people, help an economy propser! (But that is probably for another forum! Ha ha!)
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Australianlibertarian said:
I refute part of that Kandhar. Universal Health care would only reduce medical incentives if the pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers became nationalised.

I believe that private industry can supply the products, and government can supply the end service, without a reduction in new medicines being developed.
Let's look at it from a micro perspective. Suppose there are two companies that each have 50% of the market on a certain type of drug. Under a private system of medicare, the companies would be fiercely competitive and always looking for a way to one-up each other. Under socialized medicare, the number of customers would be reduced from several million (willing to pay different prices) to one, thus distorting market prices beyond belief and adding several layers of bureaucracy. Since the government would most likely have to set the prices it was willing to pay, why should the companies invest any more money in R&D? New drugs are risky, and they already know they can make money with the current drugs.

I think it's worth noting that very few important drugs are developed in countries with socialized medicine...

Australianlibertarian said:
I know that I may not be sounding libertarian, but there are some things like health and education, that I believe are extremely important. And that all citizens should have equal excess to.
Everyone should have equal access? What level of health care would you consider to be acceptable? Whenever I hear someone say that we should all have equal health care, I ask them this: Are you proposing that the poor and middle class receive the level of care that the rich currently do (thus bankrupting the nation), or are you proposing that the rich receive substandard treatment for their illnesses even if they're willing to pay for better?

Australianlibertarian said:
For me it's a no brainer, healthy smart people, help an economy propser! (But that is probably for another forum! Ha ha!)
Preventing a massive plague epidemic helps the economy prosper. Making the entire country pay for John Everyman's operation does not.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Kandahar said:
Socialized medicine would destroy the incentive to produce innovative new treatments for diseases, to say nothing of the skyrocketing health costs.
Do you have any empirical evidence to prove that statement? The key to understanding private health care vs public health care is profits vs curing people. Private R&D companies are more interested in developing drugs to keep sick people alive and paying. Paying huge amounts of money to find a cure that will not be profitable – from a sales point of view - is something the government should take part in.
 

bandaidwoman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
582
Reaction score
25
Location
Covington,Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I've never understood why America's outstanding talents in so many other market forces is so dismally incapable of fixing our medical system as it exists now.


I believe it comes down to our expectation. For the last 30 years, health-care costs have been rising 6 percent to 8 percent a year—more than double the inflation rate in the rest of the economy—because demand keeps outstripping supply.

As people's real income rises, they expect more medical care; our society is aging, so people need more care; and with new technologies treating formerly intractable conditions, people want more care.

In practice, almost everyone, insured or not, has access to health care, especially in emergencies. (By law, an ER in the US cannot turn away a sick patient.) Insurance affects how much people actually use health services:

The access of the uninsured involves inconveniences and costs that encourage them to underconsume medical services, sometimes with grim results.


By contrast, people with insurance often have such broad access that many overconsume those services. People are running to the doc after two days of dealing with a viral upper respiratory infection. (I see this a lot) These consumption patterns drive the price increases that ultimately shrink insurance coverage.


As a society we determine how much health care we want . Unfortunately, our desires have no relation to what we would spend. This is what makes us different from socialized medicine. The current system has no balances. Universal health care would not improve that problem, it would only shift the locus of control.


Our health care insurance system is broken. Perhaps we could look at ways to improve that system, and in some way link behaviors with costs (e.g., smokers and the obese would pay higher insurance) and expenditures with graduated co-pays? I can tell you right now, it is the medical treatment and expense of two of my employees, one a smoker and one obese, who has driven up our premiums for the whole office. Only when each individual starts to understand costs will market forces apply. Without the power of market forces, I suspect that we will be continuing this debate forever.

Regardless, other countries do get more bang for their buck when it comes to medicine . When comparing life expectancy in the United States to other countries, it becomes clear that the vast sums we spend on health care buy very little health. The roughly $4,500 per person the United States spends annually on health care far outpaces any other country. Yet three-fourths of developed countries outrank America in life expectancy and infant mortality.

The first step is to admit our health care system is in shambles and needs fixing, but some people still have their heads stuck in the sand!


I personally favor Universal Health Insurance (Heck we already have it for the elderly and the poor in the form of Medicaid and Medicare) and tort reform so physicians can go back to practicing medicine, not legal medicine (ie: overordering tests to cover your ass.)

Besides, there is truly no such thing as Universal Health care system that does not involve a healthy private paying sector where if you have the money , you can purchase the type of health care you want. In Britain, there is a healthy private sector that employs almost half of the health care workers.http://www.medrants.com/index.php?s=british+private+health+care&submit=Search under British NHS. In Canada, you just drive over to America!
 
Last edited:

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Our healthcare system is the biggest exchange of money in the history of time and if you ask me it is CRIMINAL theft. If you want to shop at Kmart or Walmart you can compare prizes. Doctors don't have to advertise their prizes. A visit is $60.00, because they SAY that is what it is worth.

Health insurance is absurdly expensive and then you have a co-pay and deductibles. Drugs are way over prized......What health providers charge different insurance Co., medicare or medicaid and self pay is all over the map. WHY????????????? IT IS CALLED PRIZE GOUGING AND IT MAKES ME SICK.

If you think National Health care is too expensive, think about what our health care system is doing to the middle class. If there is even such a thing AS MIDDLE CLASS anymore THANKS TO OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM/REPUBLICANS.

My husband is a bankruptcy Attorney and 90% of his clients are filing due to medical DEVASTATION. This bubble is going to burst.......TRUST ME.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphieb said:
Health insurance is absurdly expensive and then you have a co-pay and deductibles. Drugs are way over prized......What health providers charge different insurance Co., medicare or medicaid and self pay is all over the map.

If
My husband is a bankruptcy Attorney and 90% of his clients are filing due to medical DEVASTATION. This bubble is going to burst.......TRUST ME.
As a 59 year old man with known minor pre-existing conditions, I pay $142 per month for 80/20% coverage that has a $5000 deductible. That is not expensive. Yes, if I need an operation, I will pay the $5000 before the insurance company starts paying their 80%, but I can afford $5,000 per year, and most others can as well. Comprehensive, cradle to grave, all you can consume health care IS expensive, because people will go see the doctor for every little ailment that crops up. There needs to be a large enough co-pay to discourage that.
I would be in favor of national health care that is similar to what I have, with provisions to cover those unable to pay, and even that should have some strict qualifying rules. If you can afford a new car every 5 years, you can afford to pay $5,000 per year for health care. I would also make smokers and heavy drinkers (and certain others who voluntarily take risks) pay a much higher premium.

A study was done that implied that 50% of bankruptcy filers had high medical bills. The same raw data was examined by others and found that only a bit over 25% actually had high medical bills, among other debts. The FACTS in most bankruptcies are that the people tried to live beyond their means and failed to provide for their own futures. The government is not responsible for protecting the foolish.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
UtahBill said:
As a 59 year old man with known minor pre-existing conditions, I pay $142 per month for 80/20% coverage that has a $5000 deductible. That is not expensive. Yes, if I need an operation, I will pay the $5000 before the insurance company starts paying their 80%, but I can afford $5,000 per year, and most others can as well. Comprehensive, cradle to grave, all you can consume health care IS expensive, because people will go see the doctor for every little ailment that crops up. There needs to be a large enough co-pay to discourage that.
I would be in favor of national health care that is similar to what I have, with provisions to cover those unable to pay, and even that should have some strict qualifying rules. If you can afford a new car every 5 years, you can afford to pay $5,000 per year for health care. I would also make smokers and heavy drinkers (and certain others who voluntarily take risks) pay a much higher premium.

A study was done that implied that 50% of bankruptcy filers had high medical bills. The same raw data was examined by others and found that only a bit over 25% actually had high medical bills, among other debts. The FACTS in most bankruptcies are that the people tried to live beyond their means and failed to provide for their own futures. The government is not responsible for protecting the foolish.
"EVERYONE RUNS TO THE MD FOR EVERY AILMENT"? How can you speak for "everyone". Where do you get that information.....assuming?

Smoking is on the decline as opposed to years ago when the harmful effects were not completely known.

"Most people can afford $5000.00 a year" what about people with six kids? Things might be a little tight.

I don't care what you think YOUR facts are about bankruptcies. I have seen first hand many people with bills up to $100,000 after insurance and they cannot make ends meet.

"The government is not responsible for protecting the foolish" What about people with genetic conditions?

Justify doctors living in million dollar homes? That is because they are stealing from us.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphieb said:
"EVERYONE RUNS TO THE MD FOR EVERY AILMENT"? How can you speak for "everyone". Where do you get that information.....assuming?

Smoking is on the decline as opposed to years ago when the harmful effects were not completely known.

"Most people can afford $5000.00 a year" what about people with six kids? Things might be a little tight.

I don't care what you think YOUR facts are about bankruptcies. I have seen first hand many people with bills up to $100,000 after insurance and they cannot make ends meet.

"The government is not responsible for protecting the foolish" What about people with genetic conditions?

Justify doctors living in million dollar homes? That is because they are stealing from us.
You know I did not say everyone. If you can't handle rejection of your position without misrepresenting the position of others, don't post.
I did see some of that, tho, while in the military. Some military wives dragged their kids to the dispensary for a lot of very minor ailments.
Most insurance policies for families would not have a $5,000 limit per child, but a total of substantially less per family. And why should the government support larger families at the expense of small ones?
I know personally 4 families who filed within the last year. ALL of them were foolish with their money, and one of them knew he was going to have to file so he scheduled his knee surgery accordingly. Another hid some of his personal property from the bankruptcy process, like some expensive jewelry and music equipment.
BTW, I have a fairly nice net worth, not a millionaire, but I and my extended family have NONE of the toys that the 4 families I am talking about have. No expensive boats, fancy new trucks, expensive jewelry, etc. The rule is, if it is a toy, you don't get it until you can pay cash.
The only debt we incur is for home loans and one dependable fairly new car per family. My wife's car is 6 years old, my truck is 11 years old.
Foolishness is not a genetic condition, and you know that. Certainly we should help those who cannot help themselves, especially if we insist on calling ourselves a Christian nation.
The dangers of smoking were known a LONG time ago, but the tobacco lobby had lots of money to buy an AMA statement that "smoking is good for you" back in the 50's. I have siblings who did not quit soon enough and are suffering now, but that was their choice.
I am not jealous of those living in million dollar homes, not if they earned the money as doctors. If you want to be upset with someone for living large, look at sports "heroes", crooked wall streeters/lawyers/corporate execs who steal from their companies. The doctors have to put in many years of school and work just getting to BE a doctor, so they deserve a high salary. To think differently is to think like a socialist.
The new rules for bankruptcies says that you pay if you can. There are still provisions for those who have huge bills after insurance, but I don't know the details. Maybe your husband does?
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
UtahBill said:
You know I did not say everyone. If you can't handle rejection of your position without misrepresenting the position of others, don't post.
I did see some of that, tho, while in the military. Some military wives dragged their kids to the dispensary for a lot of very minor ailments.
Most insurance policies for families would not have a $5,000 limit per child, but a total of substantially less per family. And why should the government support larger families at the expense of small ones?
I know personally 4 families who filed within the last year. ALL of them were foolish with their money, and one of them knew he was going to have to file so he scheduled his knee surgery accordingly. Another hid some of his personal property from the bankruptcy process, like some expensive jewelry and music equipment.
BTW, I have a fairly nice net worth, not a millionaire, but I and my extended family have NONE of the toys that the 4 families I am talking about have. No expensive boats, fancy new trucks, expensive jewelry, etc. The rule is, if it is a toy, you don't get it until you can pay cash.
The only debt we incur is for home loans and one dependable fairly new car per family. My wife's car is 6 years old, my truck is 11 years old.
Foolishness is not a genetic condition, and you know that. Certainly we should help those who cannot help themselves, especially if we insist on calling ourselves a Christian nation.
The dangers of smoking were known a LONG time ago, but the tobacco lobby had lots of money to buy an AMA statement that "smoking is good for you" back in the 50's. I have siblings who did not quit soon enough and are suffering now, but that was their choice.
I am not jealous of those living in million dollar homes, not if they earned the money as doctors. If you want to be upset with someone for living large, look at sports "heroes", crooked wall streeters/lawyers/corporate execs who steal from their companies. The doctors have to put in many years of school and work just getting to BE a doctor, so they deserve a high salary. To think differently is to think like a socialist.
The new rules for bankruptcies says that you pay if you can. There are still provisions for those who have huge bills after insurance, but I don't know the details. Maybe your husband does?
I do:
If you make less than 50,000 thousand a year you are still a candidate for a chapter 7(dischargable debt, due to no asset case) Any home equity is exempt for 30,000 and below. However, over 50,000 a year in income you are shoved into a chapter 13 which means you pay back something on the dollar. There is also mandatory credit counseling and the clients expense prior to filing (what a joke).

I totally agree with you on the fact that some people live beyond their means. I have no sympathy for them. Some people that over spend are intelligent to which I don't get as they know better. Can they not add and subtract? My car is 10 years old (no loan). I paid cash for it. The only debt I have is some medical and my home mortgage.

I am not jealous of doctors living high on the hog. I think it is wiser to save your money and live conservately. I could live beyond my means if I was that foolish.

I just think the health care system is a joke as I have explained and many, many people agree with me. Doctors over charge, bottom line.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
StillPhil said:
Isn't it about time for this?

I'm posting two articles for it, and two against it.

Take note that the articles against Universal Healthcare, despite their Compassion of Mind--mentality, they still seem to miss the mark that there are people--right now--who are suffering and need attention as soon as humanly possible. Both 'against' articles are clouded in money-worries above all else.

We don't need compassionate-conservatives or bleeding-heart-liberals. We need representatives of the people (elected officials?) who are going to wake-up to the fact that 60 to 75% of United States citizens have been asking for this for a while now.

For Universal Healthcare:
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers04/petergm/petergm.htm

http://cthealth.server101.com/the_case_for_universal_health_care_in_the_united_states.htm

Against Universal Healthcare:
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27085
I would have to agree with Kandahar here. Socialized medicine would likely destroy incentives for people to come up with innovative, creative new treatments for diseases. I also think the quality of health care would go down as well. One of the big problems with health care costs today is the excessive letigation and lawsuits. It is not the doctors who ultimately pay for these lawsuits, but it is the patients.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Australianlibertarian said:
I refute part of that Kandhar. Universal Health care would only reduce medical incentives if the pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers became nationalised.

I believe that private industry can supply the products, and government can supply the end service, without a reduction in new medicines being developed.

I know that I may not be sounding libertarian, but there are some things like health and education, that I believe are extremely important. And that all citizens should have equal excess to.

For me it's a no brainer, healthy smart people, help an economy propser! (But that is probably for another forum! Ha ha!)
Their are several countries like the UK and Canada who regret going to socialized medicine. Their were serious problems when they did go to this system for both countries.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Personaly i find a lots of talk and little facts in the pro free marked direction.

Check this site to see that in a comparative perspective free-marked health care is more expenicive and creates less health.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

One more think have you free-marked guys thought about what will happen in small towns were there are only room for one hospital? Does the word monopoly ring a bell?
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
Personaly i find a lots of talk and little facts in the pro free marked direction.

Check this site to see that in a comparative perspective free-marked health care is more expenicive and creates less health.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

One more think have you free-marked guys thought about what will happen in small towns were there are only room for one hospital? Does the word monopoly ring a bell?
Canadian citizens who can afford to do so, at times will come to the US to have their surgeries done, because the surgeons in the US are better. The reason why the US has better surgeons than Canada is because they have incentives for being the best in their field. They are paid much better than Canadian doctors.
 

Herophant

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
TimmyBoy said:
Canadian citizens who can afford to do so, at times will come to the US to have their surgeries done, because the surgeons in the US are better. The reason why the US has better surgeons than Canada is because they have incentives for being the best in their field. They are paid much better than Canadian doctors.

So the goal of free marked health care is to create the best care for the priviliged few, becouse thats about the only thing that stament proves...
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Herophant said:
So the goal of free marked health care is to create the best care for the priviliged few, becouse thats about the only thing that stament proves...
Their is certainly some validity to your statement. I am not going to deny that. But on the same take into consideration that socialized healthcare has serious dysfunctional problems such as overcrowding and the quality of healthcare is not always as good as it should be. You can't cheat economics. If you want socialized healthcare then you must be willing to trade off efficiency and accept more overcrowding. You might also have to accept less comptent doctors. That's not to say, that countries that have socialized healthcare don't have good doctors, because they do. But no system is perfect whether it be socialized healthcare or American privatized healthcare. Their are pros and cons to both systems. I prefer American privatized health care. I have gone without health insurance while I was in college and before I got my first job after graduating from college, but I also understand that socialized health care is an attempt to cheat the laws of economics and these laws cannot be cheated and I think in the long term you pay a higher price with socialized health care as opposed to privatized healthcare.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphieb said:
I totally agree with you on the fact that some people live beyond their means. I have no sympathy for them. Some people that over spend are intelligent to which I don't get as they know better. Can they not add and subtract? My car is 10 years old (no loan). I paid cash for it. The only debt I have is some medical and my home mortgage.

I am not jealous of doctors living high on the hog. I think it is wiser to save your money and live conservately. I could live beyond my means if I was that foolish.

I just think the health care system is a joke as I have explained and many, many people agree with me. Doctors over charge, bottom line.
Yes, they do. And they charge the uninsured more than the insured, as the insurance companies dictate to them what they will charge. That stinks,IMO.
And Hospitals will add on stuff that you did not ask for, did not need, etc. Ever hear of the $6 aspirin?
So some controls would be nice, and some published prices, if not advertising, so we can choose our doctors accordingly. These things take forever to change, tho.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
bandaidwoman said:
I've never understood why America's outstanding talents in so many other market forces is so dismally incapable of fixing our medical system as it exists now.


I believe it comes down to our expectation. For the last 30 years, health-care costs have been rising 6 percent to 8 percent a year—more than double the inflation rate in the rest of the economy—because demand keeps outstripping supply.

As people's real income rises, they expect more medical care; our society is aging, so people need more care; and with new technologies treating formerly intractable conditions, people want more care.

In practice, almost everyone, insured or not, has access to health care, especially in emergencies. (By law, an ER in the US cannot turn away a sick patient.) Insurance affects how much people actually use health services:

The access of the uninsured involves inconveniences and costs that encourage them to underconsume medical services, sometimes with grim results.


By contrast, people with insurance often have such broad access that many overconsume those services. People are running to the doc after two days of dealing with a viral upper respiratory infection. (I see this a lot) These consumption patterns drive the price increases that ultimately shrink insurance coverage.


As a society we determine how much health care we want . Unfortunately, our desires have no relation to what we would spend. This is what makes us different from socialized medicine. The current system has no balances. Universal health care would not improve that problem, it would only shift the locus of control.


Our health care insurance system is broken. Perhaps we could look at ways to improve that system, and in some way link behaviors with costs (e.g., smokers and the obese would pay higher insurance) and expenditures with graduated co-pays? I can tell you right now, it is the medical treatment and expense of two of my employees, one a smoker and one obese, who has driven up our premiums for the whole office. Only when each individual starts to understand costs will market forces apply. Without the power of market forces, I suspect that we will be continuing this debate forever.

Regardless, other countries do get more bang for their buck when it comes to medicine . When comparing life expectancy in the United States to other countries, it becomes clear that the vast sums we spend on health care buy very little health. The roughly $4,500 per person the United States spends annually on health care far outpaces any other country. Yet three-fourths of developed countries outrank America in life expectancy and infant mortality.

The first step is to admit our health care system is in shambles and needs fixing, but some people still have their heads stuck in the sand!


I personally favor Universal Health Insurance (Heck we already have it for the elderly and the poor in the form of Medicaid and Medicare) and tort reform so physicians can go back to practicing medicine, not legal medicine (ie: overordering tests to cover your ass.)

Besides, there is truly no such thing as Universal Health care system that does not involve a healthy private paying sector where if you have the money , you can purchase the type of health care you want. In Britain, there is a healthy private sector that employs almost half of the health care workers.http://www.medrants.com/index.php?s=british+private+health+care&submit=Search under British NHS. In Canada, you just drive over to America!
As a mother and a nurse, and with the recent scare of SIDS and RSV etc. which is very dangerous (RSV). One would be neglectful not to take their child to the doctor. Infants cannot tell you what their symptoms are. Resp. infections are very dangerous in babies. High temps. are also dangerous as babies cannot regulate their temps. like adults can.

How does that justify an MD saying OK your babies lungs sound wheezy admin. albuterol with NS per neb. qid......and then get charged $60.00 to $70.00 dollars for a 15 min visit.

Also I have known Md's to admin. an antibiotic without even doing a culture. What if the infection is viral? Plus not ALL antibiotics are effective for ALL bacterial infections. They then charge an arm and a leg, plus induce resistance to infections by over prescrip. antibiotics.

On a different note, if someone is diabetic and has a foul smelling ulcer to their leg or foot don't you think they should run to the doctor or should they loose their leg. I'm bringing this up because you said people go to the doctor too much. You made reference to an upper viral resp. infection (viral resp. infections are rare by the way, they are usually bacterial) They start out viral (flu) and then turn bacterial if untreated (bronchitis or pneumonia). But what if that person IS a smoker and is suspects COPD? Should they just risk it? That still does not justify doctors committing theft by over charging. Most MD visits are short and sweet but cost a fortune.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
UtahBill said:
Yes, they do. And they charge the uninsured more than the insured, as the insurance companies dictate to them what they will charge. That stinks,IMO.
And Hospitals will add on stuff that you did not ask for, did not need, etc. Ever hear of the $6 aspirin?
So some controls would be nice, and some published prices, if not advertising, so we can choose our doctors accordingly. These things take forever to change, tho.
I would agree that some government intervention is needed in our capitalist economy. But I also think that some of the excessive lawsuits need to be stopped because it is causing health care costs to go through the roof.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would also like to state, for the record on my political views, that I am opposed to universal coverage.
 

bandaidwoman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
582
Reaction score
25
Location
Covington,Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
alphieb said:
Doctors over charge, bottom line.
No doubt some do.


But since doctor's salaries account for less than 2% of our healthcare costs we need to be looking elsewhere than blaming doctors.

The average internal medicine specialist in Gorgia makes $95,000 a year working 80-90 hours a week.( Especially the academic ones) That's not overcharging. In addition, doctors give free medical advise when on call over the phone and diagnoses and treats without charge many many times. A lawyer charges you for every minute you are on the phone with them. There are a lot of unseen work that does not get reimbursed. (For instance, a internists who rounds on a medicare patient in a nursing home gets only $35.00 a month wether she rounds one day or every single day. ) A orthodontist averages 35 hours a week and makes $300,000. That's overcharging. A airline pilot makes $200,000 a year working 11 hours a month. (But of course, lives are on the line so they can't work too much)Whoops, but then so are patient's lives on the line and outside of residency, there are no laws to protect a doctor's work hours (since patients demand 24 hour access and doctors on call). This, is unlike socialized medicine where a doctor can leave for a weekend without cross coverage by another physician during the time he is out.
 

bandaidwoman

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
582
Reaction score
25
Location
Covington,Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
alphieb said:
Doctors over charge, bottom line.
No doubt some do.


But since doctor's salaries account for less than 2% of our healthcare costs we need to be looking elsewhere than blaming doctors.

The average internal medicine specialist in Gorgia makes $95,000 a year working 80-90 hours a week.( Especially the academic ones) That's not overcharging. A truck driver hauling chemicals makes more. In addition, doctors give free medical advise when on call over the phone and diagnoses and treats without charge many many times. A lawyer charges you for every minute you are on the phone with them. There are a lot of unseen work that does not get reimbursed. (For instance, a internists who rounds on a medicare patient in a nursing home gets only $35.00 a month wether she rounds one day or every single day. ) A orthodontist averages 35 hours a week and makes $300,000. That's overcharging. A airline pilot makes $200,000 a year working 11 hours a month. (But of course, lives are on the line so they can't work too much)Whoops, but then so are patient's lives on the line and outside of residency, there are no laws to protect a doctor's work hours (since patients demand 24 hour access and doctors on call). This, is unlike socialized medicine where a doctor can leave for a weekend without cross coverage by another physician during the time he is out. This happened to me in England where I fractured my femur and waited two days for an orthopedist to even look at me. In the US, the orthopedist would have been sued.
 

TimmyBoy

Banned
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bandaidwoman said:
No doubt some do.


But since doctor's salaries account for less than 2% of our healthcare costs we need to be looking elsewhere than blaming doctors.

The average internal medicine specialist in Gorgia makes $95,000 a year working 80-90 hours a week.( Especially the academic ones) That's not overcharging. In addition, doctors give free medical advise when on call over the phone and diagnoses and treats without charge many many times. A lawyer charges you for every minute you are on the phone with them. There are a lot of unseen work that does not get reimbursed. (For instance, a internists who rounds on a medicare patient in a nursing home gets only $35.00 a month wether she rounds one day or every single day. ) A orthodontist averages 35 hours a week and makes $300,000. That's overcharging. A airline pilot makes $200,000 a year working 11 hours a month. (But of course, lives are on the line so they can't work too much)Whoops, but then so are patient's lives on the line and outside of residency, there are no laws to protect a doctor's work hours (since patients demand 24 hour access and doctors on call). This, is unlike socialized medicine where a doctor can leave for a weekend without cross coverage by another physician during the time he is out.
I generally try not to talk too bad about lawyers, because you never know when you might need one. But I certainly think that Congress has rigged laws, because many members of Congress used to be lawyers themselves, to where the lawyers make too much money and does not expose lawyers to as much free market competition due to the laws that have been passed. On the other hand, with people like airline pilots or highly skilled or highly educated people who make alot of money, I think at times it is simply the market driving those higher salaries where they are getting paid for what they know rather than how hard they work.
 

StillPhil

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
17
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kandahar said:
So we should just sacrifice everything to help people right now, and to hell with the future?
Take note that the 'againsts' are putting money above all else and not realizing that--right now--there are people suffering (like my father) who need attention as soon as humanly possible--but can't get insurance.

Kandahar said:
Socialized medicine would destroy the incentive to produce innovative new treatments for diseases, to say nothing of the skyrocketing health costs.
Take note that the 'againsts' are putting money above all else.

Kandahar said:
And this is a valid criticism...how? Do you consider money worries to be unimportant?
On the contrary, I consider money worries to be at the heart of this matter. The worries are baseless when talking about the richest nation in the world. If we can put billions of dollars a year into killing people over seas then we can most assuredly take care of our own. But we don't. Why? Money. It is a valid critism if you have ever suffered, had a family member or friend suffer under our system and just lay at home because they can't afford to get help.
Take note that the 'againsts' are putting money above all else.

Kandahar said:
Actually, we need representatives who are going to have the courage to say no to 60-75% of the people.
That's creepy Kandahar.
 
Top Bottom