PDA

View Full Version : Healthcare Thread



LegalSmash
17 Jul 2009, 07:53am
Has anyone been following the new healthcare contraption bill they are passing into congress? What does everyone think? Do you believe the United States should do more to provide healthcare, given the failings of the current system of private providers and insurance companies that serve no other purpose than standing in as a middleman between provider and recipient?

Or do you believe the system is not flawed, and no problem exists?

Say somethin' fools.

PotshotPolka
17 Jul 2009, 08:11am
I actually think it won't pass. I understand current deficits with medicare/medicaid and SS are unsustainable, but passing this dumbfuckery will only accelerate the process. I've yet to hear how this bill would help close the deficit, and I'm sorry, but I don't have time to read all 1,200 pages of this proposal.

andre1028
17 Jul 2009, 10:10am
I believe your Healthcare system is not as flawed as ours. Our 'Free' healthcare comes at the price of high exploitation, generally long waits, and usually lower quality of help than those South of the border (United States). Though getting in a car crash in the States, being rushed to a low ended hospital, and waking up to a ten thousand dollar bill may be bad... it's not as bad as waiting hours in the emergency room and having your syptoms get worse North of the border in Canada.

To be honest the only thing the that needs improving is speed, quality, and price.

PotshotPolka
17 Jul 2009, 11:06am
To be honest the only thing the that needs improving is speed, quality, and price.

And an order by the President will not make all three of those things happen.

2 Dwarves, 1 Coat
17 Jul 2009, 12:38pm
I can say I support this, although as previously stated, it probably won't pass. My simple reason for support:

I prefer this: Healthcare > Bureaucrat > Citizen,

To this: Healthcare > Insurance Company > Citizen.

It seems very flawed either way, so I'm leaning towards support.

PotshotPolka
17 Jul 2009, 12:56pm
I can say I support this, although as previously stated, it probably won't pass. My simple reason for support:

I prefer this: Healthcare > Bureaucrat > Citizen,

To this: Healthcare > Insurance Company > Citizen.

It seems very flawed either way, so I'm leaning towards support.

You think Bureaucrats are more efficient?

Red
17 Jul 2009, 01:10pm
They really need to get rid of the current health insurance system where the end user (us) don't have as much choice as we do for say, car insurance.

Even at work we basically have 2 choices, the uber duper one, or the less uber one, and since it's bought in a group I'm lumped in with the fat ass nut munching manatees around here who drive up the rates for the rest of us.

We should be allowed to shop around like we do for car insurance and our prices should reflect our lifestlyes/health. Why should I be paying the same for my insurance as the 40 year old lady across from my who constantly sounds like she has pneumonia and complains about her weight while at the same time eating almonds thinking they're "healthy" not realizing how much fat or calories they have.

I'm tired of this half-assed insurance/health system we have now.

2 Dwarves, 1 Coat
18 Jul 2009, 12:13am
You think Bureaucrats are more efficient?

Well, I'd prefer an employee of the US government handling claims over the company hired one who is

looking out for the company's best interests, and not mine. They probably aren't very much more efficient,

but it's a change.

LegalSmash
18 Jul 2009, 12:54am
I disagree with both options in part, I'll be brief:

2d1c: Bureaucrats are not capable of doing their job in a manner benefiting the public, because they have far too much job security. If bureaucrat jobs were LESS secure, and their performance, treatment of claimants, and morale/attitude at work were relevant to their ability to maintain their job, perhaps the idea of a government run program would be more feasible.

Red: private companies running healthcare management is NOT a bad idea, however, healthcare COMPANIES and insurance interests putting themselves between the patient and the doctor is/has/will be/been problematic, and seriously needs to cease. Allow me to explain:

Each insurance company seeks to maintain ITS interests SOLELY, not that of the healthcare profession, nor that of the doctors, and definitely not that of the client. Insurance companies (hereinafter 'Insco' for the sake of simplicity) refuse to pay doctors fair value for their services on their contract, switch rates at will, and largely ignore the realities of the medical profession. In addition to this, they expect the doctors to charge a different rate to non-insurance holders, one that deters people from NOT having insurance, despite a lack of necessity for the "product". This results in the less honest doctors bilking medicair/medicaid, costing us MORE money, and indigent people showing up to the ER with a cold because its the only place that they'll be treated and released without incurring catastrophic medical bills, costing US MORE money.

Basically, the insurance companies are the equivalent to OPEC for healthcare. The people in this country were bilked adn douped into believing that they needed insurance, rather than following the old medical treatment model, one of prevention, rather than secondary and tertiary treatment (ill explain below):

Preventative healthcare implied that the average consumer of medical services only went when he needed it, broken bones, too sick to work, birth, catastrophic injury and chronic condition. Generally, the average american PRIOR to 1950 would do this thing called SAVE MONEY. People kept 10-15% of their income for eventualities. Insurance companies tricked America into believing that for a small monthly/yearly payment they could have necessary treatment. This, in and of itself was NOT a bad concept, however, once the people are IN the system, they are at the whim of that system, and the companies know this. Each person paying into the system is at the mercy of said system when it raises premium prices, cuts services, defines elective/nonelective treatment, or determine point of service distribution (end use doctors). Add to this the lovely concept of CO-PAY, even AFTER I gave the company a grand for "comprehensive medical care" I still have to pay the doctor on site, and then get medicine, which for 6 years after release of medication MUST be name brand, costing me 5-10x more than the generic. ON TOP of this the insurance adjuster, NOT the doctor, gets to make the ultimate decision of whether or not a procedure that is medically necessary can be covered.

If a doctor decides to give equal payment options to a noninsured patron, the ins co put them "out of network" which pretty much blackballs the doctor.

If you don't see a problem here, you are not looking hard enough...

This 'smorgasboard' style medical care results in people coming to the doctor for stupid shit... in conjunction with readily available **Affordable** healthcare, people are willing to use newly developed, but less than necessary medicines (think Viagra and restless leg syndrome). Further, people, when they DO go to check ups, are given tests by the medical professional they don't need, while avoiding tests that are necessary, or useful in preventing disease on the basis of HIPAA protections and privacy issues. How exactly does it make sense to check a child/young adult for varicella, and vaccinate against it, but NOT check for STDs, Genetic diseases, easily transferred, dangerious bacterial infections? It doesn't.

I think these services CAN be provided AND the healthcare of this nation remain in the hands (largely) of the private sector, but several things must occur:
1. Ins Co cannot be allowed to donate to politicans.
2. Doctors and clients must be able to operate without interference from a company/industry where the sole purpose of the industry is to artificially inflate the price of , control the results of, and create scarcity in the supply of available healthcare.
3. Insurance companies, as a whole, need to be either more closely monitored, or run out of the business of medicine and practicing medicine. There is a fundamental difference between the work of the doctor, and the work of the insurance adjuster, there is a fundamental difference in desired end result: One is "supposed to" treat the patient, regardless, whereas the other is naturally more concerned with a bottom line.

I REALLY don't like federal insurance, but truth be told, the current system is broken, seriously problematic, and needs to be fixed, sooner rather than later.

LegalSmash
18 Jul 2009, 12:54am
Can't sleep

PotshotPolka
18 Jul 2009, 08:57am
Well said I suppose. Are there currently any laws in place that may have helped cause these problems, like say making insurance necessary in certain areas, including car insurance?

LegalSmash
18 Jul 2009, 09:27am
Well said I suppose. Are there currently any laws in place that may have helped cause these problems, like say making insurance necessary in certain areas, including car insurance?

Yes. Laws in Florida requiring the carrying of car insurance to drive, but not criminalizing driving WITHOUT said insurance is problematic.

Massachusetts has a ridiculous system of required insurance on each family, and penalizes you for not having it.

Allowing the companies to set the prevailing price for DOCTOR services for NONinsured is the biggest problem. Its essentially price fixing on an industrywide scale.

Desum
18 Jul 2009, 10:54am
Yes. Laws in Florida requiring the carrying of car insurance to drive, but not criminalizing driving WITHOUT said insurance is problematic.

Massachusetts has a ridiculous system of required insurance on each family, and penalizes you for not having it.

Allowing the companies to set the prevailing price for DOCTOR services for NONinsured is the biggest problem. Its essentially price fixing on an industrywide scale.

Wouldn't that further the problem if they're forcing people to buy it..? If you HAVE to buy it or you get in trouble with the government, then the insurance companies can shoot their prices up majorly.

LegalSmash
18 Jul 2009, 01:14pm
Wouldn't that further the problem if they're forcing people to buy it..? If you HAVE to buy it or you get in trouble with the government, then the insurance companies can shoot their prices up majorly.

Which is why I consider the idea stupid.

PotshotPolka
18 Jul 2009, 01:20pm
Which is why I consider the idea stupid.

indeed

Metal
18 Jul 2009, 06:31pm
i been watching CNN about it but there is one thing


<-- Canadian

Hunt3r.j2
20 Jul 2009, 12:58am
I can say I support this, although as previously stated, it probably won't pass. My simple reason for support:

I prefer this: Healthcare > Bureaucrat > Citizen,

To this: Healthcare > Insurance Company > Citizen.

It seems very flawed either way, so I'm leaning towards support.
Actually, it's more like this:

Hospital > Red-tape, lots of waiting and people slowly dying. > Citizen

The alternative is:

Hospital > Health care that's good, but requires an arm, leg, and first born. > Citizen.


Pick yer poison, death, or debt.

LegalSmash
20 Jul 2009, 07:51am
Actually, it's more like this:

Hospital > Red-tape, lots of waiting and people slowly dying. > Citizen

The alternative is:

Hospital > Health care that's good, but requires an arm, leg, and first born. > Citizen.


Pick yer poison, death, or debt.

In a country where debt essentially results in death, I'd rather Doctors and Hospitals be reality checked into the fact that healthcare is about health, and not about jewing everyone out of every last penny while providing no service worth the money paid, and that people take care of themselves enough to require less healthcare.

PotshotPolka
20 Jul 2009, 08:24am
In a country where debt essentially results in death, I'd rather Doctors and Hospitals be reality checked into the fact that healthcare is about health, and not about jewing everyone out of every last penny while providing no service worth the money paid, and that people take care of themselves enough to require less healthcare.

Surely you don't believe the majority of doctors chose their profession for the purpose of public welfare?

zero
20 Jul 2009, 10:08am
One of the biggest gripes with our system, it seems, is this pre-existing condition clause. I actually have a friend who's stuck because he already has a pre-existing condition and is having problems getting health insurance. While I do sympathize with him, I do see why insurance companies have this clause. Why have insurance if I can sign up at anytime? To me, it would be similar to asking for car insurance after you've had your accident. *shrug*

As for our healthcare system, it is absolutely flawed. However, my solution would be to get government out of it. I have this poster (http://site.despair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/governmentdemotivator.jpg) hanging up in my cube and I truly believe it.

zero
20 Jul 2009, 11:23am
This story was released about a month ago on a local news site (Denver Post) I frequent titled, "Debunking Canadian health care myths". Its the most discussed story on their web page even today.

http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

LegalSmash
20 Jul 2009, 12:29pm
One of the biggest gripes with our system, it seems, is this pre-existing condition clause. I actually have a friend who's stuck because he already has a pre-existing condition and is having problems getting health insurance. While I do sympathize with him, I do see why insurance companies have this clause. Why have insurance if I can sign up at anytime? To me, it would be similar to asking for car insurance after you've had your accident. *shrug*

As for our healthcare system, it is absolutely flawed. However, my solution would be to get government out of it. I have this poster (http://site.despair.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/governmentdemotivator.jpg) hanging up in my cube and I truly believe it.

Government IS currently out of it for everyone but the poor and the elderly. Sadly, for everyone but the poor and the elderly prices are through the roof for BOTH premium AND copayed service AND if you have no insurance its 3-4x more.

IMHO, setting price controls on nonelective, health maintenance/preventionary care medical service across the boards for the meds, ins cos and hospitals will be the only way to reign in the cost and maintain some sort of nonpublic, but affordable system.

zero
20 Jul 2009, 01:16pm
Government IS currently out of it for everyone but the poor and the elderly. Sadly, for everyone but the poor and the elderly prices are through the roof for BOTH premium AND copayed service AND if you have no insurance its 3-4x more.


Don't forget military and family of military. I know because my dad is a retired vet and he's fully covered. I lost that coverage when I moved out of his house. Anyway, I don't know if I go as far as saying that cost is not through the roof for them. Isn't medicare and medicaid spending out of control too? In fact, I thought it was unsustainable at the current rate of spending...

I have no doubts that the cost of care for those with no insurance are far more expensive. However, from my experience all of the people that I know who aren't insured are not insured by choice. One guy I know makes at least $55k a year and he still won't get health insurance, though he'll spend over $2,000 a year on RC toys... true story.

For the record, I'm very happy with the cost of my health coverage and the service I get.

LegalSmash
20 Jul 2009, 01:32pm
Don't forget military and family of military. I know because my dad is a retired vet and he's fully covered. I lost that coverage when I moved out of his house. Anyway, I don't know if I go as far as saying that cost is not through the roof for them. Isn't medicare and medicaid spending out of control too? In fact, I thought it was unsustainable at the current rate of spending...

I have no doubts that the cost of care for those with no insurance are far more expensive. However, from my experience all of the people that I know who aren't insured are not insured by choice. One guy I know makes at least $55k a year and he still won't get health insurance, though he'll spend over $2,000 a year on RC toys... true story.

For the record, I'm very happy with the cost of my health coverage and the service I get.

Social Security is unsustainable as currently funded by FICA, because after somewhere near 100 K the income is not taxed for that basis, I believe.

As for the military, considering the less than attractive base pay for the enlisted and officers, healthcare had damn best be included, lest they wish to have to resort to the draft again.

Third re your example: 55K is shit when you have loans and payments to make, or if you have kids, further, 55 in NY is pretty much poverty, whereas in Missouri, its the yearly wage of a well paid professional. Its all relative.

Regarding RC Toys, you have to realize two things: Willingness to be insured, and insurability are two different concepts, most americans that DONT have insurance, are unable to afford it due to financial inability, this is especially true when the lowest cost insurance has a deductible of multiple thousands of dollars. What benefit do you receive from catastrophic HC insurance when the insurance will still leave you at minimum, paying 5K per procedure?

If the insurance will cost the man all his entertainment money, and a bout of illness STILL leave him paying MORE than his entire year's worth of monthly premium, where exactly is the benefit of being insured? Let me answer: there is none.

You also have to take into consideration the cost of insurance for children, which is as a whole MUCH more expensive than for adults.

Its not as simple as "you no buy because you no wants" that the politicians on both sides of the shitbox we call congress want us to believe. There ARE people that don't want to buy it, and are perfectly healthy... these people are not the ones at risk for problems though, its the ones that WOULD buy it, but for the rampant costs associated, cannot, or the plan they CAN get is not cost effective in a dollar to treatment ratio.

IMHO the "exchange" idea they are pushing is crap, simply cap the prices on treatments that are non cosmetic in nature, and require the insurance companies to use full disclosure in any transaction, and CHECK IT.

RE medicaid and medicare, many times, doctors just defraud the company, charging 3-4 tests for something they had not done... its a lack of oversight and trained employees on the fed side that fucks those programs IN CONJUNCTION WITH the private doctors trying to pull a fast one.

zero
20 Jul 2009, 01:37pm
From a moral stand point, robbing from Peter to pay Paul is immoral, regardless of the situation, but that's just me.

Oh and the dude doesn't live in NY... he lives in one of the more affordable places of United States. I don't want to mention it because he's a good friend and I don't want him stumbling across this thread. :)

Next, government isn't completely out of privatized health care. It's my understanding that this industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there and its only going to get worse.

Anyway, here's an interesting graph I ran across that shows the Healthcare costs of the United States when compared to other nations.

Public spending, in the U.S. is obviously SS, Medicare, and Medicaid :

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/upload/2009/05/whats_health_care_like_in_aust/commonwealthfigureII8.jpg

LegalSmash
20 Jul 2009, 02:52pm
From a moral stand point, robbing from Peter to pay Paul is immoral, regardless of the situation, but that's just me.

Oh and the dude doesn't live in NY... he lives in one of the more affordable places of United States. I don't want to mention it because he's a good friend and I don't want him stumbling across this thread. :)

Next, government isn't completely out of privatized health care. It's my understanding that this industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries out there and its only going to get worse.

Anyway, here's an interesting graph I ran across that shows the Healthcare costs of the United States when compared to other nations.

Public spending, in the U.S. is obviously SS, Medicare, and Medicaid :

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/upload/2009/05/whats_health_care_like_in_aust/commonwealthfigureII8.jpg

Morality means shit these days. Sorry. There's little you can say or do to change my mind otherwise. Especially in this industry.

The health care industry "appears" to be heavily regulated, its actually not, because the insurance and pharmaceutical companies influence the form of regulation, making the regulations paper tigers. Read HIPAA for a good example of this... it doesn't do much more than inconvenience the end user, and the company still gets to fuck them.

I think the only real solution is tight controls on service prices at the doctor/hospital and patient level, full disclosure of all services, and/or auditing of the lists to ensure honesty and preventing private insurance companies from squirming out of the regulations.

zero
20 Jul 2009, 03:36pm
Actually, I'm not sure if the health care spending is even a problem. Sure, we spend 100% more than other nations on health care, but hey, that's money back into the economy. We're creating jobs.

LegalSmash
20 Jul 2009, 10:05pm
Actually, I'm not sure if the health care spending is even a problem. Sure, we spend 100% more than other nations on health care, but hey, that's money back into the economy. We're creating jobs.

Not really, the cost of the fuck ups in paperwork overshadow the "jobs" created (which don't do shit for our unemployed in non medical coding fields) and money put back into the economy. You need to stop looking at the issue ideologically and look for the practical, but not government run solution.

b0red
20 Jul 2009, 11:00pm
Well if we americans didn't eat so unhealthy the health care system wouldn't have to use all its money on insulin for the people who didn't develop the sickness by natural causes instead by over eating. We cannot fix the system so why mess with the system?

LegalSmash
21 Jul 2009, 07:45am
Well if we americans didn't eat so unhealthy the health care system wouldn't have to use all its money on insulin for the people who didn't develop the sickness by natural causes instead by over eating. We cannot fix the system so why mess with the system?

Your comment leaves a LOT out. Eating is only part of the cause of the problem, and the healthcare system is not driven to hell and back due to "using all its money on insulin", but on a combination of chronic disease treatment and people going to the ER without an ER level problem, especially illegals and people without insurance... and they STILL get saddled with the bill, unless they are indigent, and then WE get saddled with the bill.

Also, the companies only pay the doctor half the actual cost of a treatment, but make the patient pay 1-1.5x the cost, especially with high deductible. This leads to the imbecile doctor cooking books to stay even, or buttfucking the patients on cost, both insured and uninsured.

Considering the fact that your ass gets booed out of any thread you post in, you may want to consider making an attempt to actually have a source and explanation for your comment rather than just bukkakking on your keyboard and hoping for the best.

zero
21 Jul 2009, 07:51am
Not really, the cost of the fuck ups in paperwork overshadow the "jobs" created (which don't do shit for our unemployed in non medical coding fields) and money put back into the economy. You need to stop looking at the issue ideologically and look for the practical, but not government run solution.

lol, I was kidding when I said that.

The first thing that came to my mind when you answered my post seriously was :

http://www.nomad4ever.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/spock-raised-eye-brow-tn.jpg

PotshotPolka
21 Jul 2009, 08:34am
Here's an idea, charge people for trips to the ER, period. Out of pocket if they have no claim to an insurance policy, and turn them away if they have no money to offer in return for the Hospital's services.





(Wait's for fire and brimstone)

LegalSmash
21 Jul 2009, 09:22am
Here's an idea, charge people for trips to the ER, period. Out of pocket if they have no claim to an insurance policy, and turn them away if they have no money to offer in return for the Hospital's services.





(Wait's for fire and brimstone)

Then you have lawsuits out the ass. Hospitals, especially public ones, are charged the duty of having to care of the sick, despite immediate ability to pay. Trust me on this one, they simply cannot do that, because the hospitals half the time write off the lost payments as bad debt (see giant economic clusterfuck of 2008 for more details) and STILL charge the person and put it on their credit.
Now, mind you, I have no problem with people making money, but where the healthcare companies and hospitals essentially get to dump their bad debt, NOT provide services AND STILL charge people and STILL get money from the federal and state government, aren't we just basically Robbing Peter, to Pay Paul Goldfeld, Herschell, Jacob, and Hymen?

IMHO, at that point you have a crackhead (the healthcare industry, in general) who's debt and drug problem is being subsidized by EVERYONE, and is getting away with essentially murder financially, and under polka's idea, literally.

Here's a thought: Doctors took an oath to provide healthcare and save life, regardless of cost... how about these fucktards deal with the fact that no profession guarantees you'll be a millionaire, deal with a little bit less extravagance, live within their means, and DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS rather than bitch and moan about the people they all wrote about how they wanted to help on their med school entry essays?

PotshotPolka
21 Jul 2009, 10:12am
Then you have lawsuits out the ass. Hospitals, especially public ones, are charged the duty of having to care of the sick, despite immediate ability to payThus you have found the source of the problem.

The Hippocratic oath is a load of bullshit, to expect a man to work his ass off to learn skills for the purpose of benefiting others instead of himself.

LegalSmash
21 Jul 2009, 10:14am
Thus you have found the source of the problem.

but THEY got public money by AGREEING to cover that burden. Its essentially a breach of their contract by not covering it.

zero
21 Jul 2009, 10:41am
but THEY got public money by AGREEING to cover that burden. Its essentially a breach of their contract by not covering it.

Well hell, if you're paying, I'll have top sirloin (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/816364/posts)...

PotshotPolka
21 Jul 2009, 02:24pm
but THEY got public money by AGREEING to cover that burden. Its essentially a breach of their contract by not covering it.

My statement was that the money shouldn't have been given to them to the first place.

LegalSmash
22 Jul 2009, 07:40am
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=108304551729&h=lgoyS&u=yItIm&ref=nf

Hunt3r.j2
22 Jul 2009, 07:59pm
I think we should just limit civil suits against hospitals and doctors for malpractice. Can't sue for anything but small claims.

In other countries, health care is cheaper because they don't have to have malpractice insurance (or very much)

Also, pay cuts for doctors. After you paid off your debts your pay should be decreased.

LegalSmash
22 Jul 2009, 08:57pm
I think we should just limit civil suits against hospitals and doctors for malpractice. Can't sue for anything but small claims.

In other countries, health care is cheaper because they don't have to have malpractice insurance (or very much)

Also, pay cuts for doctors. After you paid off your debts your pay should be decreased.

No. Limiting civil suits prevents people from getting recourse against a doctor who violated his ethical obligation to not fuck up, or act according to the very low standard of "a physician of average ability practicing in his area.". Second, in Medical Malpractice claims, there IS no small claim, the price of human flesh is quite high there, buddy. Small claims is less than 5K in some places, and those are the generous ones. In Florida, 'small claim' would be below 15K to get you into a county court. The price of willful negligence, bad behavior, or "enter asshole doctor activity here" is a LOT higher than small claim.

Also, this is not "because I'm a lawyer", because in Florida, as in many states, Lawyers get paid SHIT for medical malpractice claims due to state legislation.

Malpractice insurance is required by the STATES themselves, or if it is not, the doctor is PERSONALLY LIABLE, which means HE gets sued, and HE pays, not the insurance.

If they want to play god, they should carry insurance IMHO, or put up bond to practice.

Lastly, there is no real "pay cut to doctors" to be given, the problem IS that we have a "service oriented" medical culture in this nation, instead of a "Salaried doctor". Ergo, since Dr. Ed only gets paid based on quantity as opposed to quality of service, the service quality suffers.

IMHO, eliminate the need to spam shitty medical service, and instead pay these douches a salary with loan forgiveness.

Slavic
22 Jul 2009, 11:51pm
Lastly, there is no real "pay cut to doctors" to be given, the problem IS that we have a "service oriented" medical culture in this nation, instead of a "Salaried doctor". Ergo, since Dr. Ed only gets paid based on quantity as opposed to quality of service, the service quality suffers.

IMHO, eliminate the need to spam shitty medical service, and instead pay these douches a salary with loan forgiveness.

Would help stop conducting unnecessary tests and procedures in order to rack up costs on the patients.

As I see it, the primary reason why the health care industry can't be "completely" privatized is because the Hippocrates's Oath can not function in a free market. That's not to say I am putting down the Oath, I am just stating fact. The Oath forces doctors to provide a service to a demand that may not be payed for in it entirely. In a free market, you don't provide a service if you are only receiving a fraction of the payment, but that is the situation we are in.

Because of the Oath, our only way to "fix" the health care industry is to limit unnecessary costs to limit hospital and client debt as much as possible. Such would be salaried positions for doctors to stop test/procedure stacking, taking "minor" medical procedures out of the hospitals and leaving them up to local physicians, and price caping essential medical procedures ( leave the cosmetics, and experimental procedures up for competition). The hospitals must be placed in an environment where doctors and staff compete based off of quality and skills instead of costly procedures to bolster hospital coffers. The Oath doesn't, and shouldn't allow hospitals to compete on the market as other businesses do.

There is no catch all solution to the crises, there is no Right Wing/Left Wing solution, there isn't even a compromise solution. The only solution is damage control, and hopefully if that is done right, I would not mind a part of my taxes to go to getting hospitals out of debt. Until we switch the paradigm of the health care industry from Profit to Care, I will not support any system being proposed through Congress whether they be cutting or raising my taxes.

Hunt3r.j2
23 Jul 2009, 02:05am
The point is that we can't have socialized health care. Even if ours is expensive, we just have to bear with it. The Canuck system is failing to give our level of health care, with the rich going to the US for health care. Socialism just doesn't work because the taxes needed to keep this welfare going makes everything more expensive.

PotshotPolka
23 Jul 2009, 06:35am
The point is that we can't have socialized health care. Even if ours is expensive, we just have to bear with it. The Canuck system is failing to give our level of health care, with the rich going to the US for health care. Socialism just doesn't work because the taxes needed to keep this welfare going makes everything more expensive.

Socialism doesn't work for much simpler reasons, mixed economies bleed, but it's not enough to kill the system in most cases.

LegalSmash
24 Jul 2009, 12:16am
The point is that we can't have socialized health care. Even if ours is expensive, we just have to bear with it. The Canuck system is failing to give our level of health care, with the rich going to the US for health care. Socialism just doesn't work because the taxes needed to keep this welfare going makes everything more expensive.

this is not about socialism versus nonsocialism, reg, and everyone here who can't see this either does not pay for medical care at all, seriously has a large enough silver spoon in their ass to have never lacked it, in addition to a complete lack of understanding of medical care, the interrelation between medical care and economics, or the nature of the united states' care system, in correlation to other countries systems.

First, the entire thing being pushed is NOT A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. Do you understand that, hunter? Canada is a single payer system, as is any "socialized medicare", please, PLEASE stop fucking quoting out of the Michael Steele lexicon and use the proper terms. I'm seriously getting tired of people tossing up "whateverthefuck" comes out of "politician not yet touching a 10 year old # 203".

Let me lay a few things out:

Single payer system= completely government run. From a "conservative economic standpoint" based on free market capitalist principles, it would be "bad" for the "medical industry" (Read: Medical Insurance, Healthcare Insurance, Medical companies, and basically any place that makes money off of, through, or on the "medical industry".).

This in itself is not a BAD thing if you want a "healthy population" at a low cost to the population. However, if you want people to make money off healthcare, its not as good.
This is essentially because the government is allowed to compete with the industries.

Technically, if we were all arguing pure capitalist theory, the government COULD enter as a competitor, and the companies would not bitch like girls with skinned knees... but that would require our politicians to follow some semblance of ideology aside from the ideology of being dickheads.

Completely privatized: No medicare, medicaid, elder care, SSA, disability, everyone fends for themselves, if you get sick and can't afford it, you die.

Honestly, dumbasses that either have no real world experience with anything related to healthcare, or ACTUALLY EXPECT A COMPANY TO DO RIGHT WHEN IT CAN MAKE MONEY, are the ones that argue for this. Here is the thing, we've NEVER really had entirely Privatized healthcare because prior to the rise of HMO groups and insurance companies, doctors made housecalls, and the closest thing to "modern medicine" was Morphine for pain, and MAYBE, a wonder drug called penicillin, around the time of world war two.

In a world where an MRI costs several tens of millions of dollars, and doctors have NO DIAGNOSTIC TALENT BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THEIR STUPID FUCKING EXPENSIVE TOYS, we literally cannot completely privatize insurance.

For those who say "but deh insurances", remember something, insurance is essentially a form of socialism... we ALL pay premiums, which go up and down, and service is reduced, based on the condition of other people also under the same company, same plan, or under the same area policy (work plans). Basically, Red, who pays his premium at work STILL COVERS his fat co-worker, and every other co worker, but is made to think that the plan is solely for his care. It is a bulk plan, available to employers... an individual receiving the same sort of care, seeking the same insurance on his own would pay a much higher cost... where exactly is the benefit of the rugged individualism that was championed by our country there?

Clusterfuck: What we have now; a hodgepodge of private and public pay plans... if you are poor as fuck,or old, you have federal plans, which don't ask questions when the doctor requests 6 MRI scans for someone with a case of Gonohreah, despite the fact that the treatment is unnecessary... or for that matter, whether the treatment was done...
On the other vein you have the rest of us, left to pay out the ass for shitty service, rising premiums with higher co-pays, and less choice on venue over the barrel of "well other plan holders are unhealthy" by the companies that have enough money to fund BOTH SIDES OF EACH ELECTION IN THIS NATION AT A STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. This results in anyone WITH a plan getting fucked, and anyone without a plan getting double fucked, because they are in financial ruin if they get sick... nevermind the fact that they can't afford the cheapest catastrophic plan, with a 10,000.00 deductible, and at that point, why pay 4,000.00 in insurance a year to get a 10,000.00 bill mailed to you for the ER trip? It makes a lot less sense when you look at it this way.

This, is in essence, the results of an industry unchecked in its activities, going ass-wild. FDA may require medicines to be screened, but no one is screening HMO plans, or their practices in granting or denying healthcare. Technically speaking, because of my dad's and grandfather's problems, under most conditions, if the company had their way, I'd be uninsurable, despite ability to afford premium... even though science has shown time and again statistically, that environment and active behavior is a much more powerful indicator than heredity. Still, we allow the companies to do what they will.

People just need to realize that the company is there to make money, and at that point you, I, we as a nation much decide if healthcare is going to be a necessity that should not be subject to the whims of stockholders, or a business and that's it.

If its the former, no one needs to bring out the commie flag and start yelling socialism, but seriously consider capping necessaries... physicals, prescription generics, mammograms, papsmears, prostate exams, and vaccinations... Doing this would prevent more than 50% of chronic disorders that effect the US as a whole. Leave cosmetics, medical electives (viagra, pimple meds, tit jobs) and new medications up to competition... but the basics... things that keep us healthy, put them on capped costs, and reign in the bureaucratic costs of these procedures.

We have hundreds of thousands of new doctors in this country.... doing shit work, for shit pay, why not give them a good diagnostics learning opportunity for them? Sending them to Frogballs Dominican Republic to do rounds achieves nothing for US here... but funding for clinics was at an all time low the past 8 years (and before you go apeshit for bringing up 2000-2008, medical clinics are a healthcare issue, under state function police powers, retards), this is because the first thing states CUT are education and medical care. The problem is, when that care is cut, and people no longer get care due to cost, they get sicker, stop working and then get on federal disability, requiring maintenance treatment for a chronic condition, and saddling us with federal debt (See fica and medicare taxes on your paychecks).

The moral to the story, imho is that prevention care is much cheaper than reactionary... and until the government, medical industry, etc. realize it, well still be paying out the ass...

wait, the companies DID figure it out, and its why we are still paying out the ass... .

Hunt3r.j2
24 Jul 2009, 02:32pm
this is not about socialism versus nonsocialism, reg, and everyone here who can't see this either does not pay for medical care at all, seriously has a large enough silver spoon in their ass to have never lacked it, in addition to a complete lack of understanding of medical care, the interrelation between medical care and economics, or the nature of the united states' care system, in correlation to other countries systems.

First, the entire thing being pushed is NOT A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. Do you understand that, hunter? Canada is a single payer system, as is any "socialized medicare", please, PLEASE stop fucking quoting out of the Michael Steele lexicon and use the proper terms. I'm seriously getting tired of people tossing up "whateverthefuck" comes out of "politician not yet touching a 10 year old # 203".

Let me lay a few things out:

Single payer system= completely government run. From a "conservative economic standpoint" based on free market capitalist principles, it would be "bad" for the "medical industry" (Read: Medical Insurance, Healthcare Insurance, Medical companies, and basically any place that makes money off of, through, or on the "medical industry".).

This in itself is not a BAD thing if you want a "healthy population" at a low cost to the population. However, if you want people to make money off healthcare, its not as good.
This is essentially because the government is allowed to compete with the industries.

Technically, if we were all arguing pure capitalist theory, the government COULD enter as a competitor, and the companies would not bitch like girls with skinned knees... but that would require our politicians to follow some semblance of ideology aside from the ideology of being dickheads.

Completely privatized: No medicare, medicaid, elder care, SSA, disability, everyone fends for themselves, if you get sick and can't afford it, you die.

Honestly, dumbasses that either have no real world experience with anything related to healthcare, or ACTUALLY EXPECT A COMPANY TO DO RIGHT WHEN IT CAN MAKE MONEY, are the ones that argue for this. Here is the thing, we've NEVER really had entirely Privatized healthcare because prior to the rise of HMO groups and insurance companies, doctors made housecalls, and the closest thing to "modern medicine" was Morphine for pain, and MAYBE, a wonder drug called penicillin, around the time of world war two.

In a world where an MRI costs several tens of millions of dollars, and doctors have NO DIAGNOSTIC TALENT BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THEIR STUPID FUCKING EXPENSIVE TOYS, we literally cannot completely privatize insurance.

For those who say "but deh insurances", remember something, insurance is essentially a form of socialism... we ALL pay premiums, which go up and down, and service is reduced, based on the condition of other people also under the same company, same plan, or under the same area policy (work plans). Basically, Red, who pays his premium at work STILL COVERS his fat co-worker, and every other co worker, but is made to think that the plan is solely for his care. It is a bulk plan, available to employers... an individual receiving the same sort of care, seeking the same insurance on his own would pay a much higher cost... where exactly is the benefit of the rugged individualism that was championed by our country there?

Clusterfuck: What we have now; a hodgepodge of private and public pay plans... if you are poor as fuck,or old, you have federal plans, which don't ask questions when the doctor requests 6 MRI scans for someone with a case of Gonohreah, despite the fact that the treatment is unnecessary... or for that matter, whether the treatment was done...
On the other vein you have the rest of us, left to pay out the ass for shitty service, rising premiums with higher co-pays, and less choice on venue over the barrel of "well other plan holders are unhealthy" by the companies that have enough money to fund BOTH SIDES OF EACH ELECTION IN THIS NATION AT A STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL. This results in anyone WITH a plan getting fucked, and anyone without a plan getting double fucked, because they are in financial ruin if they get sick... nevermind the fact that they can't afford the cheapest catastrophic plan, with a 10,000.00 deductible, and at that point, why pay 4,000.00 in insurance a year to get a 10,000.00 bill mailed to you for the ER trip? It makes a lot less sense when you look at it this way.

This, is in essence, the results of an industry unchecked in its activities, going ass-wild. FDA may require medicines to be screened, but no one is screening HMO plans, or their practices in granting or denying healthcare. Technically speaking, because of my dad's and grandfather's problems, under most conditions, if the company had their way, I'd be uninsurable, despite ability to afford premium... even though science has shown time and again statistically, that environment and active behavior is a much more powerful indicator than heredity. Still, we allow the companies to do what they will.

People just need to realize that the company is there to make money, and at that point you, I, we as a nation much decide if healthcare is going to be a necessity that should not be subject to the whims of stockholders, or a business and that's it.

If its the former, no one needs to bring out the commie flag and start yelling socialism, but seriously consider capping necessaries... physicals, prescription generics, mammograms, papsmears, prostate exams, and vaccinations... Doing this would prevent more than 50% of chronic disorders that effect the US as a whole. Leave cosmetics, medical electives (viagra, pimple meds, tit jobs) and new medications up to competition... but the basics... things that keep us healthy, put them on capped costs, and reign in the bureaucratic costs of these procedures.

We have hundreds of thousands of new doctors in this country.... doing shit work, for shit pay, why not give them a good diagnostics learning opportunity for them? Sending them to Frogballs Dominican Republic to do rounds achieves nothing for US here... but funding for clinics was at an all time low the past 8 years (and before you go apeshit for bringing up 2000-2008, medical clinics are a healthcare issue, under state function police powers, retards), this is because the first thing states CUT are education and medical care. The problem is, when that care is cut, and people no longer get care due to cost, they get sicker, stop working and then get on federal disability, requiring maintenance treatment for a chronic condition, and saddling us with federal debt (See fica and medicare taxes on your paychecks).

The moral to the story, imho is that prevention care is much cheaper than reactionary... and until the government, medical industry, etc. realize it, well still be paying out the ass...

wait, the companies DID figure it out, and its why we are still paying out the ass... .
I have to admit that you have won the argument that the US isn't proposing a single-payer system.

Besides, the health industry is a big place. It creates jobs. One thing that the US seems to be running short of.

LegalSmash
24 Jul 2009, 02:50pm
I have to admit that you have won the argument that the US isn't proposing a single-payer system.

Besides, the health industry is a big place. It creates jobs. One thing that the US seems to be running short of.

The problem with the alleged "jobs" created is that people that have those skills are not the ones that are unemployed. We need more jobs related to manufacturing, construction, and financial services, where the industries are taking hits.

Put it this way, having 300 size A widgets, and giving them to someone who requires 300 Size C widgets won't solve the person's problem.

This applies to the 'medical field'. The industry "needs" medical care personnel**

(this means there is demand for NURSES, triage clinic, RN, PAs, and hospice/convalescence workers, and the base level entry position in these jobs requires substantial schooling. Moreover, the only other reasonable alternative is to work in medical billing and coding, and tbh, these jobs are based off the very problem the healthcare industry suffers from greatly: bureaucracy.

IMHO, we need programs like CCC or remodeling of fed buildings and or land to get the people with these skills working again.

Drox
26 Jul 2009, 02:29am
Good vids about the healthcare reform;

YFV5Tx4LxBM

AqD-nMpsYAY