|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
posted March 06, 2013 01:19 AM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 02:10, 06 Mar 2013.
|
@Vlaad, Sal
be in hopes that 
bad land
listener to usa
where's doctor?
Russian belief
they get a poison teeth
matter of faith
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 04:42 AM |
|
|
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it's primary goal is to fix a purported problem with access to insurance. But the problem with the US Healthcare system isn't access to insurance, or even access to healthcare. True, part of the problem is related to the cost of insurance - which affects access - but even that is a symptom of the greater issue of cost of services in general. The Affordable Care Act does very little to bring down actual cost of services. It tries to improve access to insurance, but it goes about it the wrong way. If you bring down the cost of services, the cost of insurance will naturally decrease, and single user policies can become affordable, which increases access for everyone. And will also enable all people to purchase insurance policies that are tailored to them as individuals (much like auto or home insurance policies are now). Right now, you pretty much HAVE to have the cost of health insurance subsidized by your employer. Either that or belong to medicare. That leaves people who aren't elligible for medicare and people who aren't covered by employer insurance policies without adequate health insurance coverage. Removing prohibitions against pre-existing conditions and removing the yearly payout cap - mandated under ACA - are great intentions, but they're going to make insurance MORE expensive, not less expensive, which ultimately is going to make insurance harder for individuals to buy, not easier. The ultimate goal for Obama and his supporters seems to be a universal insurance run in total by the government that everyone is forced to buy into, but even that's not a salient solution until the costs of services decrease, because the gov't simply can't afford it!
No, the solution is to bring insurance premiums down by bringing costs of services down, and the only way to do that is to beging to regulate what is essentially an unregulated, untaxed industry. Unfortunately the ACA just doesn't do this, and that's why it won't fix anything in the long run. All the ACA is going to do is cost all of us more money.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 05:56 PM |
|
|
Well said Corribus but I think additionally some changes need to happen concerning the laws surrounding health-care. Another thing I would be interested to see is how the enormous costs of testing are determined?
Anyway, I'm for a free-market and all of that vibe but as others have said; how exactly does it work with health care? Since if I buy a gadget and can weigh the choices based on several factors and then choose what suits my economic status; but an illness? Not a chance. Since I do have something dreadful, my only free-market choice is to decline treatment and services that are beyond my means, that is, if it was not already freely decided by someone else.
Healthcare is not manufacturing widgets, so to make things better for the poor, I think some comprimises will have to be reached, instead of greed always ruling the day.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 06:51 PM |
|
|
|
Simple question: wouldn't the same reasons that let you have "free" public schools be true for letting you have "free" public health care? I mean, the public schools are not the only schools there are, right?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 10:39 PM |
|
|
Free health care for USA would involve a massive change in infrastructure, even if it does not require a large investment. That and the lobbying against any changes.
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 10:45 PM |
|
|
|
What happens in the US when a homeless guy gets a heart attack?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 11:07 PM |
|
|
Unless he has health insurance, he's likely to die. Just as well, he's not really much of an asset to society. I did hear this story about a hobo who paid this woman's hotel bill when she was put on the streets with her son, so idk maybe he can afford home insurance.
But yeah, he's likely screwed.
Quote:
Simple question: wouldn't the same reasons that let you have "free" public schools be true for letting you have "free" public health care? I mean, the public schools are not the only schools there are, right?
Yes but each child receives a proportional amount of education that's relatively the same as everyone else. While health-care you do not, the differences between people can and is drastic.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted March 06, 2013 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Simple question: wouldn't the same reasons that let you have "free" public schools be true for letting you have "free" public health care? I mean, the public schools are not the only schools there are, right?
It is a difference of where they are now, and you also have to remember that a lot of people see public schools as inferior also.
Right now hospitals have been 'monopoly capitalistic' entities for sometime. Pretty much they got everybody by a stranglehold, and they know it. Why on earth would they want to give that up, when they can pretty much charge what they want? Would be like Ford (if it had remained the only car dealership in the world) handing the keys to the government. Would not happen, they will fight tooth and nail, because they KNOW that they will not be able to mark things up 500% or more if it happens.
The hospital you have in your town/city whatever, is the only game in town. They make a ton of money, which is supposed to help the economy..and it does..they employee a lot of people. The doctors and such buy a lot of things also. So yeah, it is a huge portion of our economy. I say let the government tax them, and regulate how much they can mark up things, and like Corribus said..it would eventually become manageable.
Until such time..any measure put forth is doomed to failure. With the conspiracy nuts and people who panic screaming the sky is falling every time somebody mentions regulations...not going to happen soon. Pure capitalism only works on paper, just like every government type and such on the planet. When people get involved..it quickly comes apart at the seems.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 07, 2013 05:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What happens in the US when a homeless guy gets a heart attack?
Don't listen to Tsar. They wouldn't turn him away. In principle, nobody gets turned away who need urgent, life-saving care. Lots of people turn up at ERs with no insurance and they are treated. Being perfectly honest I'm not sure who eats those costs. Maybe the hospital. But those losses are far overshadowed by the enormous profits the hospitals extort out of everyone else.
@markkur
Costs of medical tests are determined like other services. I.e., they seem to be pulled out of a hat. Tests a big money for hospitals, and more and more often hospitals are offering these services themselves rather than outsourcing them to other companies because it's such a money generator. Even if you give the hospitals the benefit of the doubt that they don't order tests just to make money, you still have the fact that lots of tests, or more expensive tests, are ordered all the time because of liability. And that goes back to the issue of tort reform. If you put limitations on the ridiculous lawsuits, you reduce the costs of malpractice insurance for physicians (drives down costs) AND you remove the incentive of hospitals to order needless expensive CT scans every time someone comes in with anything even remotely resembling a head injury.
The funny thing is, the healthcare system is enormously complex, which would make it seem like the problems are simply too complex to solve. But practical solutions are really simple and obvious. These solutions may not fix everything that's wrong, but they'll help a lot. There's just no political will to make them happen, in part because of lobbyists and in part because most people just don't understand what the real problems are. The Affordable Care Act is great politically, because it's easy to sell it as "free insurance for everyone!! no pre-existing conditions!! woohoo!!". People think if they have insurance, the costs don't matter, because they're not paying the direct costs. What they don't understand is that the costs are indirectly a burden on everything, a drag on the entire economy. In the end, we all suffer. Solving the real problem of escalating costs just isn't as sexy as handing "free insurance" out.
What we need are politicians with the stones to do the right thing and actually fix the problems rather than whitewashing the symptoms that the problems create.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 07, 2013 06:49 PM |
|
|
That's a QP post Cor (yours)
I think the liability is the place to start. Every time I went in for emergency care; if I "just" mentioned my back/chest-pain, (my thoracic-region is also toast)I was quickly tested for heart-attack...no matter how much I said; "will you listen to me...my bones are hitting nerves!" Didn't matter, I might as well have been speaking a indo-martian. I will only talk to my family MD now.
@JJ
I see what you mean, but school is covered by my personal-property-taxes whether I had kids in school or not.(that's a whole nuther can o' worms) I suppose things could be done in the same fashion but the enormous costs, mean gov. flees, no matter the level.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 07, 2013 08:15 PM |
|
|
But that's how it's done in the UK. NHS is paid from taxes (of course UK has higher taxes than the US, but every country in Europe except Monaco does).
Generally, public health is a time bomb, that will sooner or later detonate everywhere, because in theory there is no limit to the amount of money that can get into it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 04:42 AM |
|
|
Sneaky Obama. The "death panel" had to be taken out of Obamacare for it to pass. But the Bumster is once again bypassing the legislature via bureaucratic regulation.
Are you old? Chronically sick? Be prepared to be told to go away and die already.
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 09:44 AM |
|
|
If you had actually watched that, you'll see that the "death panel" is the end result of a study started in 1996.
Anyway. As usual, when it's ideological people are missing the point. The problem is this: all humans will die eventually and most probably by some disease. This means,
a) ALL health care - time and money spent on treatment have only a limited and relative value;
b) some treatments have more value than others.
c) there is no end to the amount of time and money that CAN be spent.
Now, let's say you let everyone take care of their own health, like you let everyone take care of their own, err, religious belief - difficult to find something, actually - then all of this is no problem insofar, as everyone may do with their money what they want, and if some billionaire wants to spend a couple of them to live a week longer - it's his money.
The downside is, though, that if everyone takes care of their own health a lot of people will unnecessarily die - children among them, in case their parents are poor. So one way or another, society socializes - and now comes the part that is critical and discussworthy - PART of the costs of health care: Everyone should get some sort of minimum and emergency treatment, and since someone will have to pay up for it eventually, it will be financed by the public.
Now there is the serious question of WHAT kind of treatment is to be socialized. And if this is organized in some form of insurance, what shall be covered.
Now look at point c) from above. Obviously it IS possible to put time, effort and money in even the worst and most hopeless cases - as it is obviously possible to put RESEARCH into bettering the chances of the worst and most hopeless cases; after all, there's something like medical progress, or isn't there?
In the health department nothing is ever clear-cut. Oftentimes there will have to be made decisions. Take prostate cancer with old people. There are very slowly growing ones, and if the patient has reached a certain age - it makes no sense to treat them with something else than hormones: it's unlikely the patient will die from that cancer (it's more probable that something else will fail sooner), and a more invasive treatment would be a lot more stress for the patient and might do more bad than good; lastly it's a much cheaper treatment.
However, what about cases where your statistical chances are roughly the same with or without treatment - and there are such cases? What about treatments that cost a fortune? And the billion dollar question: are you really prepared to let the "health care racket" decide whether a 90-year old will undergo a multi-million dollar treatment (paid for by society), that may lengthen her life by a year, but may just as well kill her from strain or simply fail?
Health care is no self service; when something is steadily rising in cost for the whole of society, then it's high time to start thinking of how to limit it.
The death panel is nothing like that - it's just a study of where to draw the line and leave it to everyone on their own; which is something YOU and the likes of you want anyway, right? Making complaints against it a hypocrisy. But even that is the rule anyway, and not only from you, because it's fairly difficult to find a really satiosfactory position here.
But society must act, otherwise in 10 years's time we'll all be paralyzed because every third buck will go into "health care". Remember, costs grow exponential. Every day of additional life is bought with exponentially more money, the older people get. From an economical point of view it's suicide, when a society puts a sizable part of its money to find means and ways to let people live longer who are living only because millions of dollars are pumped into them - wouldn't it make more sense to pump those dollars into the young?
Now, I know, it sounds like screw off and die - but it's something society must LEARN. We must learn to teach the members of our society to ACCEPT the fact that there is reasonable limit for medical help. That is supported by the fact, that if a body becomes weaker and weaker, people WANT to die, because living on is too much of an effort.
In fact, the way the system is working NOW is the actual scandal, because the way it is, these poor people are not allowed to die when their time has come, but are used as hostages in the fight to make money out of this.
This should be obvious especially in s so called Cristian environment. Live has its value - but death as well. Death is as important as life because without death there is no new life, and no matter what we do, we won't live forever.
How long will it take, until there will be a law that makes organ donation mandatory for everyone? How long, until people will sue each other, because having been infected with some germ unknowingly?
This is all spiralling completely out of control, and it's high time to firmly step on the brakes.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 04:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, I know, it sounds like screw off and die - but it's something society must LEARN. We must learn to teach the members of our society to ACCEPT the fact that there is reasonable limit for medical help. That is supported by the fact, that if a body becomes weaker and weaker, people WANT to die, because living on is too much of an effort.
In fact, the way the system is working NOW is the actual scandal, because the way it is, these poor people are not allowed to die when their time has come, but are used as hostages in the fight to make money out of this.
This should be obvious especially in s so called Cristian environment. Live has its value - but death as well. Death is as important as life because without death there is no new life, and no matter what we do, we won't live forever.
How long will it take, until there will be a law that makes organ donation mandatory for everyone? How long, until people will sue each other, because having been infected with some germ unknowingly?
This is all spiralling completely out of control, and it's high time to firmly step on the brakes.
So the old and chronically sick should just go away and die already in your viewpoint. Government should have the say so as to when you die and also control over your body after you die. "Government is god" liberalism at its finest.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 04:57 PM |
|
|
Dude, YOU are the guy who doesn't want public health care, not to mention FREE health care - so if itīs up to you they would die anyway and sooner due to having no money for any kind of treatment, so don't even start.
And that idiot doctor in your clip - the guy has lost it. He's like a general who should know that the war will be lost eventually, but is not too dumb to cry and demand to fight up to the last drop of blood and to the last penny - THE PUBLIC is to pay. Because if you have the money, you can of course do whatever you want.
That it's you from all people who now sound that horn, is somewhat obscene.
It also looks like you should read again what I wrote - I do not think that the government should have the right to make organ donation mandatory, but that will probably happen, because no one wants to die and demi-gods in white have made us believe that they can treat everything and keep people alive for a loooong time. For that they are paid royally, but that bubble will explode on us one of these years.
There are LOTS of treatments that cost a ton of money, but offer slim chances of success at best. Having a chronical CONTROLLABLE disease is something else completely. OBVIOUSLY.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 07:07 PM |
|
|
All forms of economic organization ration. Government health care is rationed by bureaucrats who use some metric to determine what conditions are worth spending taxpayer dollars on. Private health care is rationed by prices. The reason private health care is better is that those prices reflect people's preferences, while under government health care, bureaucrats don't have much incentive to get the prices (if any) right, and if taxpayers subsidize health care, individuals have an incentive to overconsume health care.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 07:23 PM |
|
|
That's complete and utter nonsense. It's so much away from any sane and rational discussion of the issue, that I'm wondering when you will start to THINK, mvass, instead of learning ideological nonsense by heart that has no connection to reality.
Private healthcare will work like everything else. Rich people can afford every treatment, poor people only the crap. Everything that's expensive - sorry. Exactly the thing US health care is critisized for.
Private insurance business works that way that obviously your premiums will be all the jhigher the more you are insured against. So - cancer treatment, yes or no? Might make a couple thousands bucks difference each year in the premium.
Then there is the slight problem of contagious deseases. Do you really think, it's a good idea to run this like in the middle ages? What happens happens? No public action against smallpox, polio...
Not worth a discussion. You are just ideologically blinded, Mv.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 07:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Then there is the slight problem of contagious deseases. Do you really think, it's a good idea to run this like in the middle ages? What happens happens? No public action against smallpox, polio...
Obviously, contagious diseases are different. It benefits me if some guy gets a flu shot, because it means I'm less likely to get sick. The same is not true for, say, cancer or heart disease.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 08, 2013 08:08 PM |
|
|
It's benefitting only the pharma corps and the docs when you or your neighbour gets a flu shot, but that's a different problem.
If contagious diseases are different, though, isn't that enough to already make your statements invalid? Because it's part of health care.
Now, since I'm generally a friendly person, start thin king about this:
Take bowel or stomach cancer. These are not the most frequent cancer types, and treatment of the most frequent cancer types is already expensive enough. With completely privatized health care it may have made sense to research the most frequent ones, getting enough return even if the treatment is expensive - but not so frequent cancer types?
Then think of the social consequences. If you can only afford a Pinto while others drive a Merc or even a Ferrari or Rolls, that's one thing; but if you cannot afford being treated against cancer, but only against flu - or if you can't afford to let your CHILDREN be treated against serious stuff - BETS ARE OFF, simple and easy. Why should I sit down and die, although I COULD be cured?
Curing major diseases is a major task of the whole society; it's not a question of "consumption" or "market"; it needs the investment of billions and trillions of bucks, and it won't happen, if only a handful of people can afford it.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 09, 2013 10:32 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason private health care is better is that those prices reflect people's preferences, while under government health care, bureaucrats don't have much incentive to get the prices (if any) right, and if taxpayers subsidize health care, individuals have an incentive to overconsume health care.
Private healthcare can not compete with a 0% profit margin if it wanted to.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
