Please explain something to me...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

A little OT, but I strongly oppose a taxpayer-funded "universal" health-care system. If anything, we need to get rid of insurance companies and HMOs as well in order to have a "free-market" of hospitals and doctors which "compete" for your money by providing health care at a competitive cost. We're all familiar with the insurance and HMO practices of billing as much as possible for a procedure or medicine, driving up costs for everybody. Don't even get me started about medical malpractice suits...

Gone are the days when a doctor just worried about treating his/her patients and didn't have to worry about paperwork up the arse.

:thumbsup: It nice to see some common sense enter this argument.

The problem with the UHC extremists is that they always point to other countries that have been successful with their socialized healthcare plans but without ever pointing out the many bumps along that road that those countries have gone through to get there. This is how you can tell that they're just mindlessly knee-jerking. It's not like Canada or Britain just passed a law for UHC one day and then the next day everything was perfect and roses for them. It's taken them decades, with some serious hurdles and real life pain and suffering along them way. Just like America's health care, in its current incarnation, is undergoing right now. And which we will not fix so long as certain people continue to knee-jerk UHC without any actual plan or vision for what it will look like or how it will be implemented.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

A little OT, but I strongly oppose a taxpayer-funded "universal" health-care system. If anything, we need to get rid of insurance companies and HMOs as well in order to have a "free-market" of hospitals and doctors which "compete" for your money by providing health care at a competitive cost. We're all familiar with the insurance and HMO practices of billing as much as possible for a procedure or medicine, driving up costs for everybody. Don't even get me started about medical malpractice suits...

Gone are the days when a doctor just worried about treating his/her patients and didn't have to worry about paperwork up the arse.

:thumbsup: It nice to see some common sense enter this argument.

The problem with the UHC extremists is that they always point to other countries that have been successful with their socialized healthcare plans but without ever pointing out the many bumps along that road that those countries have gone through to get there. This is how you can tell that they're just mindlessly knee-jerking. It's not like Canada or Britain just passed a law for UHC one day and then the next day everything was perfect and roses for them. It's taken them decades, with some serious hurdles and real life pain and suffering along them way. Just like America's health care, in its current incarnation, is undergoing right now. And which we will not fix so long as certain people continue to knee-jerk UHC without any actual plan or vision for what it will look like or how it will be implemented.

Great post!!

 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

A little OT, but I strongly oppose a taxpayer-funded "universal" health-care system. If anything, we need to get rid of insurance companies and HMOs as well in order to have a "free-market" of hospitals and doctors which "compete" for your money by providing health care at a competitive cost. We're all familiar with the insurance and HMO practices of billing as much as possible for a procedure or medicine, driving up costs for everybody. Don't even get me started about medical malpractice suits...

Gone are the days when a doctor just worried about treating his/her patients and didn't have to worry about paperwork up the arse.

:thumbsup: It nice to see some common sense enter this argument.

The problem with the UHC extremists is that they always point to other countries that have been successful with their socialized healthcare plans but without ever pointing out the many bumps along that road that those countries have gone through to get there. This is how you can tell that they're just mindlessly knee-jerking. It's not like Canada or Britain just passed a law for UHC one day and then the next day everything was perfect and roses for them. It's taken them decades, with some serious hurdles and real life pain and suffering along them way. Just like America's health care, in its current incarnation, is undergoing right now. And which we will not fix so long as certain people continue to knee-jerk UHC without any actual plan or vision for what it will look like or how it will be implemented.
How is UHC 'extremism' when the entire industrialized world has it, aside from the US?

In Canada it took maybe 10 years to be fully implemented. The feds started by funding it 50%, then eventually 100%. It's been refined over the years but has essentially done the same thing.

Really I think that most of the socialized UHC programs work pretty much the same way. The US could just copy another country's framework.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

A little OT, but I strongly oppose a taxpayer-funded "universal" health-care system. If anything, we need to get rid of insurance companies and HMOs as well in order to have a "free-market" of hospitals and doctors which "compete" for your money by providing health care at a competitive cost. We're all familiar with the insurance and HMO practices of billing as much as possible for a procedure or medicine, driving up costs for everybody. Don't even get me started about medical malpractice suits...

Gone are the days when a doctor just worried about treating his/her patients and didn't have to worry about paperwork up the arse.

:thumbsup: It nice to see some common sense enter this argument.

The problem with the UHC extremists is that they always point to other countries that have been successful with their socialized healthcare plans but without ever pointing out the many bumps along that road that those countries have gone through to get there. This is how you can tell that they're just mindlessly knee-jerking. It's not like Canada or Britain just passed a law for UHC one day and then the next day everything was perfect and roses for them. It's taken them decades, with some serious hurdles and real life pain and suffering along them way. Just like America's health care, in its current incarnation, is undergoing right now. And which we will not fix so long as certain people continue to knee-jerk UHC without any actual plan or vision for what it will look like or how it will be implemented.
How is UHC 'extremism' when the entire industrialized world has it, aside from the US?

In Canada it took maybe 10 years to be fully implemented. The feds started by funding it 50%, then eventually 100%. It's been refined over the years but has essentially done the same thing.

Really I think that most of the socialized UHC programs work pretty much the same way. The US could just copy another country's framework.

Case in point. Has it ever occurred to you that such simple-minded knee-jerking is actually quite insulting? Have you considered trying to put just a touch more effort into helping the rest of us come to a solution?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

No, you don't need a violin. I'm sure plenty of people feel the way you do about the way these people profit. The fact is you cannot tell all of these people overnight that hey, guess what? We're going to need you to take a pay cut, or we're going to put you (i.e. insurance company) out of business. While it sounds great in theory I can't imagine anything but failure when it comes to this.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

But how is this a solution? You haven't addressed (1) how doctors and pharmaceuticals are able to get away with charging with they currently do, and (2) what eliminating this profit motive could potentially do their incentive to provide quality care.
In other words, who pays them now and how? and what will they do after we cut their pay? If you can't understand this, try by pretending that you're a doctor or want to become a doctor.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

No, you don't need a violin. I'm sure plenty of people feel the way you do about the way these people profit. The fact is you cannot tell all of these people overnight that hey, guess what? We're going to need you to take a pay cut, or we're going to put you (i.e. insurance company) out of business. While it sounds great in theory I can't imagine anything but failure when it comes to this.

Well... the whole idea of getting rid of the insurance companies doesn't make much sense either. I can see the emotions and motivation behind it, but surely no one is stupid enough to pretend that the need to pay people for paper-pushing and number-crunching will suddenly go away, or that government bureaucracies will be able to suddenly do this better and more cheaply than the insurance companies do now, even accounting for profit margins.
 

mattpegher

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2006
2,203
0
71
What I want to know is how Canada and other government healthcare systems keep people going into medicine. Physicians have to be in the top 5% of their class to get into med school, then some med schools weed out another 25%. Finally a national test is required to get your license, which weeds out even more. Another 3-6 years of residency training is required to practice. Any smart person who had the brains to get into medicine would realize that if he cannot make as much as a lawyer or businessman then why go into medicine.

If the government came in and starting cutting physician salaries then most intelligent people would look into other fields.

To cut medical care costs, first lets eliminate the unnecessary expenses such a the cost of insurance for medical malpractice which is 12% of every health care dollar.

As it is, I am allready looking to get out of medicine esp Emergency medicine. Days,nights, weekends holidays, 12hr days, more paperwork than patient care, babysitting drunks and allready too many people that expect free health care(medicaid or no intention to pay).
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

But how is this a solution? You haven't addressed (1) how doctors and pharmaceuticals are able to get away with charging with they currently do, and (2) what eliminating this profit motive could potentially do their incentive to provide quality care.
In other words, who pays them now and how? and what will they do after we cut their pay? If you can't understand this, try by pretending that you're a doctor or want to become a doctor.

Doctors get away with charging what they do because AMA keeps number of doctors small by limiting the number of med school spots. All these concerns about how we won't have people wanting to go into medicine ignore the fact that we have a lot more people who want to go to medical school and would make good doctors, but are turned away. Pharmaceuticals get away with charging their prices because when a doctor prescribes you medicine, your options are to not take it and get sicker, or pay whatever price the pharmaceutical company charges. Not exactly a recipe for free markets to work if you are only free to chose between paying their price and dying. The government does its best to limit competition in this area with patent protection and reimportation restrictions, and refusing to leg government programs negotiate prices for drugs they pay for.
Also, no one is talking about removing profit motive, just profiteering motive. These companies will still be paid for their products in a single payer system. They just won't be able to take advantage of people under duress, as sick people are. Pharmaceutical companies still do a lot of business in countries with single payer healthcare. And even in our own country, few companies are more profitable than government contractors, and it's almost any company's wet dream to win a government contract. There will still be doctors. Some people just want to be doctors. There are doctors in single payer countries too, in case you didn't know, and the pay is pretty good.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: mattpegher
What I want to know is how Canada and other government healthcare systems keep people going into medicine. Physicians have to be in the top 5% of their class to get into med school, then some med schools weed out another 25%. Finally a national test is required to get your license, which weeds out even more. Another 3-6 years of residency training is required to practice. Any smart person who had the brains to get into medicine would realize that if he cannot make as much as a lawyer or businessman then why go into medicine.

If the government came in and starting cutting physician salaries then most intelligent people would look into other fields.

To cut medical care costs, first lets eliminate the unnecessary expenses such a the cost of insurance for medical malpractice which is 12% of every health care dollar.

As it is, I am allready looking to get out of medicine esp Emergency medicine. Days,nights, weekends holidays, 12hr days, more paperwork than patient care, babysitting drunks and allready too many people that expect free health care(medicaid or no intention to pay).

You do realize that those people in ERs are there because they have no health insurance, and ERs are the only place that has to treat them even if they can't pay. In fact, many of the defenders of current system point to ERs and say, see, the poor can still get care in America. So overloaded ERs are a just a feature of the current system where all the people who could be treated a lot cheaper in non emergency setting are instead channeled to hospital emergency rooms as a health care provider of last resort.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: mattpegher
What I want to know is how Canada and other government healthcare systems keep people going into medicine. Physicians have to be in the top 5% of their class to get into med school, then some med schools weed out another 25%. Finally a national test is required to get your license, which weeds out even more. Another 3-6 years of residency training is required to practice. Any smart person who had the brains to get into medicine would realize that if he cannot make as much as a lawyer or businessman then why go into medicine.

If the government came in and starting cutting physician salaries then most intelligent people would look into other fields.

To cut medical care costs, first lets eliminate the unnecessary expenses such a the cost of insurance for medical malpractice which is 12% of every health care dollar.

As it is, I am allready looking to get out of medicine esp Emergency medicine. Days,nights, weekends holidays, 12hr days, more paperwork than patient care, babysitting drunks and allready too many people that expect free health care(medicaid or no intention to pay).
10-15% of all Canadian med school grads go straight to the US for the higher salary (and lower taxes, and even perhaps nicer weather). This phenominon is affectionately known as the "Brain Drain" (it also affects other fields like engineering). The government does little or nothing to stop it. We actually have tons of foreign trained doctors here but the governing body for the doctors won't allow them to transfer their credentials efficiently (often, it's not even possible).

Doctors here are basically contract workers which is why we have the wait time problems; when there are less doctors, it gives them a sort of job security. This also contributes to doctors rushing and only spending maybe 2 minutes with each patient if they can get away with it. The government pays them something like $100+ for each patient they see. Our system isn't perfect, but I still would take it over the nonsense that is the US 'system'.

I actually find the scariest part of our system to be the mental institutions. People here can be 'pwned' by the government if they are deemed a threat to themselves or to others; they are kept in the mental ward of the hospital and can be coaxed into taking experimental medication.

As for the malpractice bit, American law needs to be changed to prevent people from suing each other so much. It is illegal to sue for pain and suffering here, and I'm pretty sure it eliminates a TON of lawsuits (as unfair as it may be in some cases - my GF has chronic pain from a car accident and got nothing for it from her insurance company).
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

But how is this a solution? You haven't addressed (1) how doctors and pharmaceuticals are able to get away with charging with they currently do, and (2) what eliminating this profit motive could potentially do their incentive to provide quality care.
In other words, who pays them now and how? and what will they do after we cut their pay? If you can't understand this, try by pretending that you're a doctor or want to become a doctor.

Doctors get away with charging what they do because AMA keeps number of doctors small by limiting the number of med school spots. All these concerns about how we won't have people wanting to go into medicine ignore the fact that we have a lot more people who want to go to medical school and would make good doctors, but are turned away. Pharmaceuticals get away with charging their prices because when a doctor prescribes you medicine, your options are to not take it and get sicker, or pay whatever price the pharmaceutical company charges. Not exactly a recipe for free markets to work if you are only free to chose between paying their price and dying. The government does its best to limit competition in this area with patent protection and reimportation restrictions, and refusing to leg government programs negotiate prices for drugs they pay for.
Also, no one is talking about removing profit motive, just profiteering motive. These companies will still be paid for their products in a single payer system. They just won't be able to take advantage of people under duress, as sick people are. Pharmaceutical companies still do a lot of business in countries with single payer healthcare. And even in our own country, few companies are more profitable than government contractors, and it's almost any company's wet dream to win a government contract. There will still be doctors. Some people just want to be doctors. There are doctors in single payer countries too, in case you didn't know, and the pay is pretty good.

Why is UHC required in order to fix this problem of AMA control?
How did the AMA get this control and where do they derive their power from?
Who and what will control doctor training and standards post-AMA and how do you propose preventing a repeat of the same problem?

In light of this nonsensical rant, I propose a system of guaranteed Universal Legal Coverage and to forcibly disband the Bar Associations.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Have a question for those of you who endorse a universal health care. We've had many discussions in here about the need for reform, the need to implement universal health care, regulation, etc. etc. However, I don't ever recall a discussion on how to implement this system. How do we as a country, intelligently implement a system where everyone receives coverage without destroying the economy? Doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the insurance companies will obviously not be able to profit as they do. Are we going to put these companies out of business and all the people who work for them (esp the insurance companies)? Will doctors be willing to take pay cuts or will they only offer services for exclusive clients?

Really, doctors won't be able to profit as they do? You mean they can't charge me $500 for a 20 min consultation or $2000 for a CT? Insurance companies won't be able to profit by refusing to pay or blocking medical services? Pharmaceutical companies won't be able to rip off Americans for much more than they charge the rest of the world? I guess I should order my tiny violin now.

But how is this a solution? You haven't addressed (1) how doctors and pharmaceuticals are able to get away with charging with they currently do, and (2) what eliminating this profit motive could potentially do their incentive to provide quality care.
In other words, who pays them now and how? and what will they do after we cut their pay? If you can't understand this, try by pretending that you're a doctor or want to become a doctor.

Doctors get away with charging what they do because AMA keeps number of doctors small by limiting the number of med school spots. All these concerns about how we won't have people wanting to go into medicine ignore the fact that we have a lot more people who want to go to medical school and would make good doctors, but are turned away. Pharmaceuticals get away with charging their prices because when a doctor prescribes you medicine, your options are to not take it and get sicker, or pay whatever price the pharmaceutical company charges. Not exactly a recipe for free markets to work if you are only free to chose between paying their price and dying. The government does its best to limit competition in this area with patent protection and reimportation restrictions, and refusing to leg government programs negotiate prices for drugs they pay for.
Also, no one is talking about removing profit motive, just profiteering motive. These companies will still be paid for their products in a single payer system. They just won't be able to take advantage of people under duress, as sick people are. Pharmaceutical companies still do a lot of business in countries with single payer healthcare. And even in our own country, few companies are more profitable than government contractors, and it's almost any company's wet dream to win a government contract. There will still be doctors. Some people just want to be doctors. There are doctors in single payer countries too, in case you didn't know, and the pay is pretty good.

Why is UHC required in order to fix this problem of AMA control?
How did the AMA get this control and where do they derive their power from?
Who and what will control doctor training and standards post-AMA and how do you propose preventing a repeat of the same problem?

In light of this nonsensical rant, I propose a system of guaranteed Universal Legal Coverage and to forcibly disband the Bar Associations.

You don't see a conflict of interest where the professional association of doctors gets to decide how many people can go into medicine? As far as why UHC is required, I don't know, but the alternative hasn't worked. If private healthcare can fix its problems, and provide good service at a reasonable price to all Americans, then there won't be political support for UHC. For example we, we have utility companies which are regulated by the government to make sure thy provide service not just to the wealthy, but uniformly to everyone. They are in fact private companies. So a private model can work, but so far the industry is resisting any private model that would bring the current runaway cost and under-servicing of certain groups situation under control, and if that persists and they don't clean up their act, bring on UHC. They don't have as much time as they think they do, the political support against them is building.
 

AnitaPeterson

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2001
5,987
481
126
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: Dissipate
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson

How does this encourage illegal immigration?

Look at the public schools. The same thing will happen to health care.

Canada has universal health care, I bet millions of people are rushing there now.

Canada is on the border of a first world country, the U.S. is on the border with a 3rd world country. Do the math.

Again, WTF has this to do with health care???

What is wrong with you, people? Seriously, every time something like this gets discussed, I feel that some U.S. residents are really not human* in their approach to health care. I can talk to people all over the world, but I never get the same kind of chill in my heart as it happens when I talk to die-hard conservative Americans... *(At least, not human in the sense of the so-called "traditional/Christian" values - which, incidentally, most of them seem to be professing!)

I know the U.S. system is perhaps one of the most frightfully efficient in brainwashing its people, especially the younger generations, but seriously... take a good, hard look around you, and realize a few basic truths:

1) Your country is not the best place to live in the entire world. There are advantages, but there are also some frightful disadvantages. If you're young, healthy and make lots of money to buy a lot of crap which gets tossed when it becomes obsolete (it doesn't even have to break down!), the U.S may seem the best place in the world... I guarantee you would NOT have the same outlook on things if you'd be old, sick, poor etc. But these things aren't put in the spotlight... it's things like the new iPhone that get extensive coverage.

2) With the amount of money spent on idiotic wars like Iraq (currently estimated at
$440,000,000,000, or $440 BILLION!) the U.S. could build new schools, hire new teachers and give health care to everyone of your citizens. That's right, make it a CITIZENS ONLY service, based on a producing a green card or a citizenship certificate when requested to do so. Nobody needs to die because of lack of health care. Nobody should have to choose between paying for his medicine and paying for his children's food.

No citizenship card? no service with the rest of the tax-paying population - but you can still go to special volunteer/community/charity clinics and get treated by doctors who are there to help, with generic drugs that don't cost hundreds of dollars per pillbox. Nobody can argue that this isn't an acceptable trade-off - after all, if you're an illegal resident you ARE breaking the laws of the land, so you are inexorably forfeiting some personal rights and creature comforts.

3) The insurance industry - just like the banking industry and (to a lesser extent) the legal system - is a parasitic creation which does NOT respond to any basic and urgent human needs. Its number one purpose is PROFIT, not social responsibility or stewardship. Blue Cross is a huge behemoth, which is absolutely oblivious to whether you live or die. Like many late-capitalist, quasi-post-industrial ventures (remember Enron and MCI, anyone?), it uses instruments specially-created for acquiring concrete, finite resources through virtual, speculative financial mechanisms.

I wouldn't shed a tear for the demise of the insurance industry as we know it... besides which, even the poor, minimum-wage slaves who work in their call centres (and who probably represent a good percentage of this industry's overall workforce) would be glad to see the giants bite the dust.

4) The U.S. claims to be the greatest country on Earth... PROVE IT with things that would really make everyone else take of their hats in your presence... you know, things like "nobody goes hungry here, and nobody dies because of poor healthcare." Don't flaunt your alleged superiority with military force! Does having the biggest stick on the block make you the greatest, smartest and healthiest? If your economy is really so strong, how come your literacy rate is lower than Cuba's??? If you consume 25% of this planet's natural resources, how come your environmental record is not matching your ecological footprint??? If you can't prevent some of your citizens from dying from a wide range of diseases, ranging from malnutrition to obesity, what's the difference between you and the countries or places you deem "uncivilised", like most of Africa?

Some of you here complain that poor people, living on food stamps and social aid are actually using the food stamps to buy "unhealthy" food and cigarettes? How about the fact that this is exactly the model you've been raising entire generations with? Do they know any better? All they're looking for is instant gratification - aren't the wealthy and healthy ones doing the same? Are those socially-dependent people the only guilty party, or is your society sick along with them? How much food do you waste? How much human capital do you waste? What if the U.S. didn't have ANY immigrants? How about if it would just wallow in mediocrity, as all the generations subsequently born within its borders would not aim for anything more than getting rich, buying three cars, and having a house in the suburbia, three kids and a dog? Hasn't anyone here seen "Idiocracy" ?

5) All the industrialized nations have some form of social net, subsidized medicine, some state-ran healthcare system. The rich citizens of those countries can pay for private treatment and drugs, and he poor can receive medical assistance. The systems are far from perfect in all the countries I've visited so far, but guess what? nobody has to sell their house to pay for medical treatment. That is not human, and is not humane.

6) The rise of leaders like Chavez and Lula da Silva points out to greater needs in the Americas - and no matter what you think about them and their set of political and economic measures, they have a SOCIAL CONSCIENCE - which is more than can be said about many U.S. leaders and "regular" citizens.

7) It makes me sick to hear that subsidized medicine destroying the pharma industry and crippling future research. Let me tell you something: research will go on no matter what, because it's inevitable. The pharma industries worldwide are peaking. Besides which, most of those making this fearful assumption always think from a narrow national (U.S.-centric) perspective, as if the U.S. were the best and only medicine source in the world. Never mind that the Russians have the best ophthalmologists in the World.

You want to talk about research and leadership? look no further than the five largest pharmaceutical companies in the world: Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis and GlaxoSmithKline. Google is your friend!

Pfizer is a U.S. company (created by confiscating a German firm during WWI) and its star products are Viagra ("woohoo! let's give week-long erections to old men!") and Zoloft (an anti-depressant!); its most consistent presence in the media is due to its aggressive fight over patents with countries all over the world. Because they don't want cheap, generic drugs to chew on their profit margins (although Pfizer is the largest pharma in the world...)

Bristol-Myers Squibb is a British company, which makes baby formulas and infant vitamin supplements.

Novartis is a Swiss company, formed after the merger of Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz - a large manufacturer of generic drugs and the inventor of LSD (!)

Sanofi-Aventis is a French company, producing prescription and over-the counter heart medications and vaccines.

GlaxoSmithKline is a British company, known as the leading contributor to a multinational alliance to eliminate elephantiasis, a parasitic disease which threatens over one billion people in 83 countries. They DONATE half of the medication necessary for this project.

Notice something strange? Out of the five, only one is a U.S. company (which, despite its stock growth, is most famous for legal bickering, catering to horny old men and turning children and housewives into complacent, happy and - let's not forget! - "well-adjusted" individuals.) The other four are (gasp!) thriving in countries with strong traditions of social responsibility and universal health care services.

Doesn't this give you the nagging feeling that maybe there's something more to life than money and profits? I'm not an American, and yet I remember some quote about "equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... strangely enough, I look at your Bill or Rights and all I see is "life, liberty and property."

Is it possible that your greed makes you oblivious to other, equally important aspects of life? Are you so entrenched in individualism to forget that man is, essentially, a social animal?

No matter how much you foam at the mouth, no matter what names you call them (and how much of their own private stance can be considered wrong and/or hypocritical), people like Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky, Mike Judge, Morgan Spurlock or even those who made the "Loose Change" video are not traitors. They are actually true patriots, in that they are trying to point out what they (and others) perceive to be weak points in their home society, and they should be applauded, not vilified for this effort.

The fact that these people are going against the grain of the main entertainment-oriented media (which is one of the scariest aspects of the U.S. society, from my own professional perspective) makes them outsiders and exposes them to ridicule... a perfect, cruelly ironic reversal of the situation of the dissidents in the former Communist bloc, who were also shunned by official mass media, but praised by those who had heard of their work.

But I am diverging from the actual question posed in the original post. The answer is: how do you think the rest of the (Western, capitalist, socialist, industrialized, civilised, Judeo-Christian - pick your favourite adjective!) world succeeded in establishing national/socialized/subsidized healthcare programs? How did France do it? How did Germany? Sweden? Italy? The Soviet Union? Poland? Are you telling me that "the nation that put a man on the moon" is incapable of taking care of itself? Your own answer should be "how much of a sacrifice are you and your peers willing to accept?" Perhaps loose the second donut on your lunch plate? make an extra car payment? How about paying an extra $1,000 in taxes for a single year in your life, which would put roughly 200 BILLION in the public coffers in one single bold stroke?

How dare you complain that there's not enough money to care for your own people, while your military is industriously blowing up other people, halfway around the globe, all expenses paid?

Blame your problems on immigration? terrorism? international conspiracies against you, because "they hate us for our freedom/prosperity/lifestyle" ? ...really?

It's your problem, but you feel compelled to make it everyone else's problem as well, and then you innocently wonder why Americans have such a poor image in the eyes of the rest of the world.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,343
53,952
136
Originally posted by: Vic

I can see the emotions and motivation behind it, but surely no one is stupid enough to pretend that the need to pay people for paper-pushing and number-crunching will suddenly go away, or that government bureaucracies will be able to suddenly do this better and more cheaply than the insurance companies do now, even accounting for profit margins.

Uhmm, they already do. Please check the overhead costs of Medicare compared to an HMO.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic

I can see the emotions and motivation behind it, but surely no one is stupid enough to pretend that the need to pay people for paper-pushing and number-crunching will suddenly go away, or that government bureaucracies will be able to suddenly do this better and more cheaply than the insurance companies do now, even accounting for profit margins.

Uhmm, they already do. Please check the overhead costs of Medicare compared to an HMO.

No, that's a myth according to this study.

Also keep in mind that a level of administrative and overhead costs is desirable. For example, a bank could just throw out their underwriting dept. and approve every single loan application that comes through the door. How much longer will that bank stay in business?

Likewise, Medicare can continue to claim low overhead by burying hidden costs and by approving most claims, fraudulent or not, without proper administrative oversight. Which is why the GAO is consistently writing up Medicare for facilitating fraud.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic

I can see the emotions and motivation behind it, but surely no one is stupid enough to pretend that the need to pay people for paper-pushing and number-crunching will suddenly go away, or that government bureaucracies will be able to suddenly do this better and more cheaply than the insurance companies do now, even accounting for profit margins.

Uhmm, they already do. Please check the overhead costs of Medicare compared to an HMO.

I wonder if they factor in fraud in their overhead costs?? I doubt it.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Vic

I can see the emotions and motivation behind it, but surely no one is stupid enough to pretend that the need to pay people for paper-pushing and number-crunching will suddenly go away, or that government bureaucracies will be able to suddenly do this better and more cheaply than the insurance companies do now, even accounting for profit margins.

Uhmm, they already do. Please check the overhead costs of Medicare compared to an HMO.

I wonder if they factor in fraud in their overhead costs?? I doubt it.

Actually, the issue is that not only do they not factor in fraud, they don't even factor in attempting to prevent fraud. Medicare basically keeps their overhead costs low by approving most everything, and then pushing off fraud investigations onto the DOJ.

Naturally, such a system would not be sustainable under UHC (it's not even sustainable under our current system), which is why I made that bolded statement above.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |