|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:19 AM |
|
|
Of course, the aspects of health care that are public goods (vaccinations, standardisation, etc) should indeed be managed by the government to some extent. I agree with you there.
Quote:
Fails for reasons of force: people aren't really free in choosing their docs, hospitals and drugs on one hand, while on the other the capacity of any doc or hospital is limited: if you would like to be treated by a certain guy, but his next free appointment is in 4 weeks you can't wait.
Then you pick the next best guy.
Quote:
Lastly there's no way to effectively compare the abilities or performances of docs, hospitals and drugs for the laymen.
While this is true to a certain extent, it need not necessarily always be a problem. There are hundreds of thousands of restaurants in the world. And yet people don't need to eat in every one of them to be able to say, "This one is bad, this one is good, etc." Presumably, some kind of rating/review system could arise - the Zagat Guide to Doctors. 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:22 AM |
|
|
Yes I agree JJ the free market has failed miserably. I've seen the 'slap a sticker on it and move it out the door' menality too many times. Because the more patients seen, the more money.
Instead of actively trying to diagnose it seems that they just assume it is something and go with that.
Until I FINALLY found a doctor willing to listen to me and do the tests every time I went in with fatigue or nausea they never even ran tests. It was stress or flu (or acid reflux). They would throw medicine at me and send me on my way. I went to different hospitals, family doctors, etc because their treatments were not working and they would not listen. If you think this is an abnormality, I am afraid it is not. Many people I have spoken too have similar stories.
All in the name of the almighty dollar AND ego. "These people have the internet, think they know what the problem is but we are the doctors." Just process them, give em some medicine, and ship them out the door as fast as possible.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:25 AM |
|
|
The free market hasn't failed because the current state can't be described as "free-market" by any means.
Truthfully, the majority of the people coming in with fatigue and nausea don't really have anything wrong with them - and the doctors tell them so. Then they insist that, yes, they do have something wrong with them. Then the doctor sighs, and thinks, "OK, whatever, at least it's money."
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:29 AM |
|
|
That may be true. Except the people who really DO have something wrong pay the price if the tests are not ran. If they don't take the time to bother, then people like me get lost in the shuffle. IF they had ran the tests and found my illness EARLIER there is a cure for early stages. Pardon me if I am a bit bitter over that.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:48 AM |
|
|
If we allow personal stories to get into this, then let me tell you a personal story about universal health care. When I was a little kid, I got really sick and it ruined my vision (I became crosseyed, my eyes started to shake, etc). I should've gotten surgery to fix it immediately. Instead, they gave my family the bureaucratic runaround, and my grandma and I had to wait for my treatment for 5 hours SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK - and ultimately my treatment didn't do a thing, so they finally decided to do a surgery. I was lucky to have one of the top surgeons in the country operating on me, or else there would have been a real possibility of them botching something. And guess what? The surgery turned out to only have cosmetic value - I still don't have stereoscopic vision, and my eyes still shake, meaning I have 20/40 vision even with my glasses on. Thanks, universal health care!  At least my problems were treated for free - if you don't count the time lost!
Once, I had surgery in the US. Everything was done quickly and effectively - of course, there was a bit of bureaucracy thanks to the insurance system (but infinitely less so than under universal health care), and it cost money. No complaints: no 5-hour long waits - and everything was effective!
Pardon me if I'm a little bitter over that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:55 AM |
|
|
Oh I agree that Universal Health Care isn't the answer either. I just have no idea WHAT the answer is. Both have their problems, and both have their good points. I don't think there is even a way to have both that would work perfectly.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 07:56 AM |
|
|
I think a real free market in health care - not this convoluted semi-private, semi-regulated, semi-public insurance system - would be the real solution.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:02 AM |
|
|
Mvass, do you know the difference between a restaurant and a doctor?
You can go to the restaurant whenever you like, and it's pretty easy to determine the quality: you order, you eat, and you pay. If it was tasty, waiters were just the right mix between unobtrusive and attentive and the bill didn't tear a too big hole into your wallet, everything is fine. This way you'll find probably a couple of good restaurant over the course of a couple of months or years.
With a doc, however, you don't just make a round, "hi, doc, just wanting to check on you, suppose I had these symptoms, how ould you treat me". Go go to a doc, if you feel ill or know you are ill, had an accident - if something's wrong.
And then it's already too late to start picking: you have to go to someone who is near and who is available, and you have to trust on whether he or she treats you right and - in case of free market - isn't overcharging. Worse, I cannot really afford to disagree with the doc's prices: if you are dead sick, you don't to go to a doc, looking at the price list and decide that the guy is too expensive for your wallet. Since you generally don't know what your problem is, when you are sick, you can't make an informed decision on what you need, obviously, so you can't inform on prices.
I know I can't sway you from your idolizing of the hypothetical "free market", but if there IS an area where it is guaranteed to fail then it's health, because when there is need for health services, most of the necessary components for a free market to be able to function are offline due to the nature of the services needed.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:03 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 08:05, 06 Aug 2009.
|
If the general population was knowlegable about medicine I would agree. Since they are not, I am not so sure. Take price gauging. For a lot of things price gauging is at least somewhat noticible. I go in to a store and a gallon of milk is $4 I know that the store has jacked the price up. Then I would go to another store.
If a doctor or hospital jacks prices up, the average person may not know the difference. If the people did notice, sure that place would probably stop getting patients and that would ensure that doctors and hospitals would not do that. However, most know that patients are clueless and I hate to say this but there are MANY who would take advantage of this. Heck even under the semi-regulated (etc) they do this, let alone if nobody was keeping track.
In a perfect world, yeah. But in a perfect world we wouldn't really need doctors or hospitals cause nobody would get hurt or sick.
Edit : And what Jolly said also. ((I agree with that post, we just posted at the same time)). It is hard to be choosy when you are say gushing blood or such.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:07 AM |
|
|
JJ:
Not for emergency care, of course (which would be handled by the catastrophic insurance I mentioned). But for routine things.
Mytical:
Quote:
even under the semi-regulated (etc) they do this
Because the system isn't transparent. Under a more free-market system, it would be.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:10 AM |
|
|
Ok..explain this to me please. How would it be more transparent? As it is people are 'supposed' to be watching them (though I admit I have no idea if they are), so how does it become more transparent when the regulations go away?
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:13 AM |
|
|
The whole thing with "submitting insurance claims" (and, of course, everyone has different insurance that covers things differently), and, as a result, no one knows how much anything costs. A few weeks ago I had to have an X-ray. When asked how much it cost, it took the clerk half an hour to find out part of the price. Only part of it.
It seems redundant to say this, but if the system were less complicated, it'd be more simple, right?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:17 AM |
|
|
With that I agree. However, consider this. In a free market prices could/would change to the competition correct? Supply/Demand. So prices might fluctuate frequently..causing just as much confusion. Add to that the fact that the average person will be clueless as to what it should cost AND the hospital would have nobody to give any reports to (just a profit/loss report). Or..do you think I am mistaken? (Hey I am human, it is possible )
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:17 AM |
|
|
This stuff is far more complex than people make it out to be. And that's just another reason why the government shouldn't be doing a major overhaul of the system, because they don't understand it either. It's so complex that there might not be ANYBODY who understands it in totality.
I agree that something needs to be done, and probably at the federal level. The question is, what should be done? How much should be done? When should it be done?
Because of the complexity and a virtual guarantee of unintended consequences, I think it should be done very slowly, one or two things at a time, starting with some of the more obvious things. To take something as huge and complex as the health care system and completely overhauling it in one fell swoop is just plain irresponsible.
There is a lot of political pressure to make changes, and I suspect that the populous will not accept piecemeal changes like I said. If Congress only does a couple of obvious things and responsibly stands back for a while to see how that affects things, they would be accused of only giving lip service.
If the government comes in with some sort of broad sweeping change, they will be praised whether or not the changes are good or not (which will take years to know). "Most" people are smart enough to understand the complexity of the health care system. If the congress/pres approaches it right, most people will understand the reason for caution as opposed to simply making sweeping changes just for the sake of doing something.
Unfortunately, many of the people who are in the most need of health care WON'T understand it, and probably won't even listen to reason if it's explained. Again, back to the political reality of the need to be seen as doing something, even if it's the wrong thing. Health care sure wouldn't be the first thing where that was the case.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:20 AM |
|
|
I agree with Binabik on that. It is way too complicated currently. Doing a 'mass overhaul' will probably mess it up so bad that it will take decades to sort out.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The whole thing with "submitting insurance claims" (and, of course, everyone has different insurance that covers things differently), and, as a result, no one knows how much anything costs. A few weeks ago I had to have an X-ray. When asked how much it cost, it took the clerk half an hour to find out part of the price. Only part of it.
It seems redundant to say this, but if the system were less complicated, it'd be more simple, right?
I've seen this up close. I've spent many many hours going through insurance paperwork myself. And when my mother was in a nursing home, my father probably spent 1-2 hours PER DAY doing paperwork.
____________
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I agree with Binabik on that. It is way too complicated currently. Doing a 'mass overhaul' will probably mess it up so bad that it will take decades to sort out.
Back to the thread title "Our Government is Inept"
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:22 AM |
|
|
Mytical:
Quote:
So prices might fluctuate frequently..causing just as much confusion.
?
Not at all. The price of internet service is free-market, and its fluctuations - such as they are - don't cause confusion.
Binabik:
The problem with doing things one at a time is that it would probably make everything more complicated.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:28 AM |
|
|
Yes but we are not talking ONE thing here Mvass. Even internet rates change often (daily basis) and you see advertisements to that fact every day. "For a limited time, Act now. Etc." Sure once you get the service it stays one price, but the prices do change very often (although there may not be a 'contract' you agree to pay a certain rate even if the price drops for everybody else).
But we are talking hundreds maybe thousands of different things under one roof. Everything from Asthma to Zoster (herpes zoster defined as follows : Reactivation of a latent or dormant virus (varicella,or chickenpox virus) in the body. When the virus is activated, it spreads through part of the nervous system called the dorsal root ganglia, causing the characteristic crops of blistering lesions (vesicles) of shingles. Can affect any age, but most common in adults over the age of 50.) and like gas stations (ever seen a gas station pricing war?) they would have to compete with their competitors. So prices would change.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 06, 2009 08:29 AM |
|
|
I'm not saying that prices wouldn't change. What I'm saying is that this isn't a major problem.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
