supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL | I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal
Congress needs to start working on things people need NOT what some people want.  |
|
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Optimum Online
| said by supergirl  :Congress needs to start working on things people need NOT what some people want. If by fixing health care you mean creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE.
This is not a bad idea. And 384kbps might be really slow for most people, but it is good for people who can't get service out in the middle of no where... At least basic web browsing of text sites and e-mail would be able to be done.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
|
|
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by Tzale :creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE. Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here? |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH | Canada's universal healthcare isnt bad either. You still have the option to have your private health care from your employer or not. Its better to pay for your own health care though in Canada that way you can get into see a doctor. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to lg75
said by lg75 :said by Tzale :creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE. Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here? Most people use phrases designed to invoke kneejerk reactions among Americans. Like, "it's *socialism*" or "I support free markets."
What they ignore is that there's virtually nothing truly "free" about the health-care market. The number of doctors who can enter the profession is severely limited *by the profession" through it's limitation of licensing of medical schools, a requirement to being licensed as a doctor.
Some will say it's the states' medical boards that license medical schools and doctors. But, those are almost entirely made up of health care professionals. That's not necessarily bad. I wouldn't want an auto mechanic regulating health care standards. But, those standards exist for *collective* goals (public health and safety, a more predictable market which reduces the need for "caveat emptor.").
There seems to be something really perverse about society limiting a "free market" in the interest of higher standards (for those who can afford the resulting higher prices), and then telling those who can't afford it: "It's just a free market. What are you, some kind of socialist?"
Opponents to universal (socialized) health care need to focus on deregulating health care and allowing lessor professionals to practice medicine. Doing nothing while insisting they're promoting "free market choices" is absurd. It's a recipe for greater socialization.
Mark |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
 ·Qwest.net
| reply to hottboiinnc
I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon.
I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else? |
|
sides14
join:2007-11-29
Glendale, AZ | reply to lg75
It works so well that people come to the United States for service. |
|
fallenangel
join:2005-10-04
USA | reply to Tzale
Oh, I would love to read your reasons why a "universal health care" is worse than what we currently have?
Please, enlighten us. |
|
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to lg75
said by lg75 :said by Tzale :creating a "universal health care" system in this country, then that isn't FIXING the problem, that is making it WORSE. Would you care to explain your statement? Virtually all of Europe has publicly sponsored and regulated health care that works. Why couldn't we do that here? I never said Universal Health Care. Tzale, one I ignore usually, did.
I just think Congress needs to get off their collective a@@es and start dealing with REAL problems not some HSI wi-fi crap.
Why did Congress waste OUR money on steroids in baseball? Who cares? I don't. Shoot up to your hearts content MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc.
Health Care can be fixed by making the Blue Cross/Blue Shields of the U.S. truly non-profit. Insurance salespeople make $100,000-250,000+ a year selling it. In fact, all health care companies should be truly non-profit. Medicare spends a whopping 1% on administration. Blue Cross, and most others, spend 35-40% on administration like "how to deny a claim."
Health Care in Socialized Medicine countries are non-profit but don't work. People in Britain pull their own teeth because the can't see a dentist. Canadians come down here for a "vacation" to get care.
I say start by making them all non-profit, not allowing a denial of person in because a pre-existing condition, and, yes, make all people buy in the system. Hospitals shouldn't be for-profits either. Health Care should be a non-profit business all around. Doctors and nurses still make tons of cash but insurance companies, Hospitals, etc. shouldn't be making tons of cash. One hospital CEO made $120 million one year. That's ridiculous.
Congress could also ban small companies from buying drugs no longer with a patent then charging outrageous money for it.
I'm sure corporate America would like it since it would lower their premiums.
The simple fact is: we need to start somewhere. Congress hasn't started anywhere. But, they have no problem having ridiculous inquires about steroids in MLB. Revoke their anti-trust exemption and the NFL's. Let them compete.
And, for the we can't do anything people, isn't non-profit in the lofty oaths Doctors take?
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl |
|
sitrix
join:2002-04-15
Tacoma, WA | reply to sides14
While plenty of us (Americans) drive up to Canada to buy our medicine or with any means necessary try using their medical facilities. |
|
Neyland
join:2003-02-04
USA
| reply to supergirl
Seeing the Medicare 'system' I can certainly see how they spend 1% on administration....
My wife is a nurse. The nursing field is way understaffed and simply not up to handling the large glut of the very soon to be aging populace. One of the goals is to reduce the cost of health care. See how many nurses or medical professionals you get when you greatly increase the demand and start trying to lower 'costs'.... |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to fallenangel
said by fallenangel :Oh, I would love to read your reasons why a "universal health care" is worse than what we currently have? Please, enlighten us. I think he has a point as far as it goes. It will be worse for some, better for others. Socialization of anything boils down to who's ox is being gored. When health-care standards were raised (beyond what a so-called "free market" would naturally yield) it benefited those who could afford the resulting higher-quality (but more limited) products and services. It was at the expense of those who couldn't (and were left with no lessor choices).
To me, that's the problem with the health-care debate. Those who can't afford our non-free market want products and services that are higher quality than they would get in a truly "free" market. Those opposed to such an arrangement want to use government to artificially create a market that is more predictable, requiring less due diligence and corresponding "caveat emptor." They don't care if it's unaffordable to those "other people" (who aren't working hard enough, didn't make the right career choices, etc.).
It always cracks me up that the debate devolves into slinging buzzwords designed to evoke kneejerk reactions among Americans. There's nothing more "socialist" about giving higher-quality products and services to those who can't afford it than it is creating an artificial market (via government regulation) limiting willing buyers and sellers. Both sides are engaging in the goring of oxes.
It seems to me the only question is whether we (as a society) are willing to loosen up standards so folks can choose lessor-quality products and services. If not, we have an obligation to those who are denied access due to this artificial socialized market.
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to supergirl
said by supergirl :Why did Congress waste OUR money on steroids in baseball? Who cares? I don't. Shoot up to your hearts content MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, etc. In MLB, it's probably because it's a monopoly created by an act of Congress. Another example of America's so-called "free markets."
Mark |
|
linflas
join:1999-08-18
Manassas, VA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to viperlmw
said by viperlmw :I would point out that Japan, a country often held out here as an example of how broadband *should* be, also is on the universal health care bandwagon. I would also point out that, as a 20 yr vetran of the US Navy (retired) that, for those 20 years, I was only allowed to use the universal health care provided by the military. Why was it good enough for me and my family, and not everyone else? As far as I'm concerned it wasn't. I sure as hell know that I learned early on in the 4 years I was in the Navy not to see Navy doctors unless the choice was them or death. |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
But as Supergirl said, who cares about the players??? Just a bunch of overpaid prima donnas. Also prone to lawlessness. So, exactly, why do I care if they decide to shoot up. We have a lot of more pressing matters to worry about than the above mentioned prima donnas.
Just how much money was wasted doing this investigation? It should be noted that the Feds aren't going after clemons for steriods, but for lying to the congress or someone. Tells me that there isn't really any good laws against steriods. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to sides14
said by sides14 :It works so well that people come to the United States for service. It's not just people coming the the U.S; more and more U.S. citizens are taking "medical vacations" to India and Mexico.
you can get heart and other types of major surgery for much less than it would cost in the U.S. The cost is so much less that the air fare, cost of lodging/hospital and cost of surgery is all still half or a third of the cost in the U.S., and the outcomes are just as good.
In one area of Mexico, just south of the border with Texas, there is a "dental city", with numerous dental offices that provide dental services just as good, but much cheaper than what can be obtained in the U.S. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to Austinloop
said by Austinloop :So, exactly, why do I care if they decide to shoot up. We have a lot of more pressing matters to worry about than the above mentioned prima donnas. I can see why it falls under social purview: It was exempted from anti-trust laws. Perhaps with competition it would self-regulate better (or be replaced by a competitor that does). Similarly, how many stadiums are created with public funding? Should that give society an interest in the conduct of the orgs using those stadiums?
I'm not opposed to creating a national monopoly (for essentially a national icon). Nor partnering in stadium ownership. Just saying that it naturally leads to greater social interest in the behavior of those organizations (compared to more traditional businesses).
If it's a problem, then the problem seems to be further up the chain of events (exempting MLB from competition, and building them stadiums).
Mark |
|
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
·Optimum Online
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :
Those who can't afford our non-free market want products and services that are higher quality than they would get in a truly "free" market.
Answer me this question then. Who are we to dictate what services you will get because that's all you can afford? Are you honestly telling me that every working person in this country has access to every service available?
Some people may not have got the education you may have, but the reasons for that are a whole different subject on its own. But there are people out there, that went to school and are working, yet when it comes down to it you may not qualify for a surgery because your insurance company deems it as a pre-existing condition. |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
As I said, who cares about the individual shooting up. Further I haven't seen any of the "organizations" being investigated. It is just the individual players, so for the time being, the "organizations" are irrelevant to the discussion.
Also there is limited relevance to discussing public funding for stadiums. I don't believe that the U.S. Government is giving any money for the stadiums. Most that I have read about are for local (city, county, etc.) funding. Let the local government worry about the societal impact of local steriod use.
I would prefer something positive from the national congress critters concerning the energy situation, health care, the war, etc., all of which are one hell of a lot more important than whether some trainer kept used needles, etc. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to lg75
said by lg75 :Who are we to dictate what services you will get because that's all you can afford? But, that's my point. It's being dictated right now because the medical profession effectively has a monopoly. They limit the number of medical students each year by limiting the number of licensed medical schools. You can't choose to see a doctor licensed (or unlicensed) by an alternate review board. You can't choose to enroll in a lessor medical school (and presumably perform services for less money to those willing to spend less, for perhaps lower quality).
Same thing with medicine. You can't manufacture antibiotics in your bathtub and sell it to those willing to spend less for lower quality.
The bottom line is: It's not a "free market." Perhaps it shouldn't be. I'm not saying we should have socially-imposed high standards, or that we shouldn't. Just that it's perverse to create an artificial market (using the not-so-invisible hand of society, the antipathy of Adam Smith's theories) and then claim we should oppose socialized medicine because "free markets work better." If they work better, then why not allow a truly free market of lower-priced (and consequently lower-quality) products and services? Those who argue for preserving the status quo don't want this because they tend to be the same people who want uniformity (at the expense of some, by limiting willing buyers and sellers, for the benefit of others: a more predictable market with less "caveat emptor.").
said by lg75 :But there are people out there, that went to school and are working, yet when it comes down to it you may not qualify for a surgery because your insurance company deems it as a pre-existing condition. Advocates who believe free markets solve all problems would say those who are denied coverage can vote with their feet, or purchase additional coverage. But, the root problem is that health care is not a free market. Insurance companies are just responding to the same lack of choices (and increased costs such a "market" leads to).
There seems to be only two possible conclusions. Open up health care to greater competition (and disparity of quality). Or, those who benefit the most (by being able to pay for services others can't) have to pay more for this artificial "market."
I think we're saying the same thing. I'm just coming at it from a different angle.
Mark |
|
