ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
 ·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Healthcare and socialism?
said by amigo_boy  :Trust me, someone's paying for your health care today. It's just not as clear (to you) as removing $ from your wallet. ...Yes -- we ARE ALREADY paying for poor folks healthcare -- and at the very highest possible costs -- with virtually no effort whatsoever for prevention -- under the absolute certainty that everyone -- especially poor people -- do get sick. Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need.
We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations).
Even Rush Limbaugh is paying for indigent healthcare! -- he's just too frick'n dumb to know he could save a bundle through a "medicare-like" option for needs-qualified patients -- to get preventative care (like cholesterol meds). "Stupid is as stupid does"
--
Remember the future. |
|
Fox McCloud
Crazy like a fox.
join:2006-07-23
·Embarq
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
|  said by ronpin :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). What a gross distortion of what Ron Paul and libertarians, in general, stand for; only the staunchest objectivist would do something as you describe. Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). Milton Friedman talked about how back in the 20's and 30's the poor and upper class could get excellent healthcare, but it was the middle-class who struggled with it, a bit.
It's one thing to say "Ugh, those libertarians; they believe in deregulation, low taxes, and are somehow anti-war", but to make a statement like you just did is horrendously inaccurate. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin :We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). I don't know if I'd compare us to other industrialized nations. Less developed nations don't regulate health care quality like we do. You can see a doctor for $5-$10. Prescriptions are cheap.
Developed nations have accepted the social responsibility that comes with setting social standards on health care (to create higher quality than a market of "willing buyers and sellers" would produce). They make goods and services available to those who can't afford the artificially-created high priced "market" which allows no lessor choices.
That's what's funny (in a perverse way) about opponents to health care reform. They complain that you'll have to wait for services. People wait today! If you can't afford the artificially- (socially-) created market, you'll wait until your illness is bad enough to be seen by an emergency-room physician.
I liked (in a perverse way) Rs speaking to the camera about how "if you like the DMV or Post Office, you'll love health care reform." That's an apples/oranges comparison. There is a sizeable portion of the public who can't buy any service. For them, there's not even a line to wait in.
Rs don't talk about that. All they do is act like a precedent is being set if their own ox is gored.
However, I agree with Rs that health care reform will create problems for many people. I'm not looking forward to waiting for services that I can afford today. But, the Rs strategy seems to be to ignore how many people have it far worse than simply waiting. Maybe when the problem is *everyone's* problem we'll look for better solutions.
Personally, I'd like to see competing medical associations. The AMA providing top-shelf accreditation for those willing to pay top-shelf prices. A PMA (Public Medical Association) for those willing to accept lower quality goods and services at a discount. Giving the AMA a monopoly has been bad (unless you are among the few who can afford to pay for these monopolized goods and services).
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud :Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out If you want to play the "way it used to be" game, we could go back to when health care was lightly regulated. Your neighbor could set a fractured arm, or deliver a baby if you wanted to save money on a doctor visit.
The root cause isn't "public funding." It's that we didn't want third-world health care conditions. To achieve that goal we gave the medical association (which became the medical establishment) control over its industry, to establish standards and use Public Law to enforce those standards "in the public interest."
It was the loss of those "free market" choices (for the social good of a rising standard of living) which led to increased calls for "public funding."
This is no different than other social evolution, such as public water, sewer, roads, etc. Society is always looking to improve standards -- and recognizing that a social responsibility goes with those improved (artificial, not "market-based" standards).
That's where Ron Paul breaks down. IMO, Ron Paul pseudo-libertarians are a fraud. They like to use the big-L Libertarian rhetoric to sound like their positions are "principled" (unlike everyone else). But, they quickly dodge all the disconnects in big-L rhetoric by explaining "I'm not a big-L Libertarian...."
The result is a mish-mash of incomprehensible positions based upon sound bites. Selectively focusing on things like how we should "return to a time before public funding" -- while ignoring what public funding was a response to. (I.e., they don't want to return to a time before public standards because, "hey! I'm not a Big-L Libertarian!!!!").
Mark |
|
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | reply to Fox McCloud
said by Fox McCloud :said by ronpin :Only "Ron Paul" and the Libertarians would "step-over" a dying street-person "for the public good". The rest of us swallow-hard and allow our taxes to subsidize various "hospital districts" around the country -- 'cause we know God loves everybody -- and allows us to help others as we would like to be helped -- if it was our child in need. We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). ...Ron Paul has specifically described that non-profit organizations and churches would help provide healthcare for those who couldn't afford it, which is the way it used to be until public funding crowded them out (after all, why donate when you're forced into paying for it anyway?). ...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?")
I was raised with no healthcare -- through no fault of my own -- living in an obvious "shack" right across the street from a large church! -- during the "good 'ol days" of racism, sexism and "manifest destiny" No -- libertarians are only worse than repugs because they attempt to rationalize their convenient, selfish inhumanity. At least Rush Limbaugh is too dumb to actually rationalize anything (demonize - yes)
If only selfish people were not inherently ignorant -- they'd be the very first to embrace expanding Medicare -- to save the money that now leaks-out between the cracks in our system. GM, Walmart and most other Fortune 500 companies now see what a competitive disadvantage we now suffer by foisting-off the healthcare of sentient beings to the randomness of the "business cycle". It's time to grow-up.
--
Remember the future. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by ronpin :...you only proved my point!!! (...leave it up to God -- it's not my problem ("am I my brothers keeper?") That gets back to my observation about Ron Paul pseudo-Libertarians. A Big-L Libertarian would say it's not government's job to coerce anyone to be someone else's keeper.
Ron Paul pseudo-Ls intimate suggest that principle, but won't go that far because, to be consistent we'd have to question why government sets social standards (and resulting market prices) high (so we don't have third-world medicine). They want to suggest Big L's "non-coercion principle," but at the same time distance themselves from what that really means because Big L's are largely irrelevant due to their unrealistic/unpopular principles.
That's what I don't like about he modern health-care debate. It's driven by ideologues who simply parrot polar positions rather than think about the issues for themselves. It's just slogans about "wealth transfer." Or, the other side not acknowleging that reform will truly create problems for many -- *but, that won't be a precedent since we create problems for many today*.
Mark |
|
sonicmerlin
join:2009-05-24
Cleveland, OH | reply to amigo_boy
Well-written amigo. |
|
Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23
| reply to ronpin
said by ronpin :Even Rush Limbaugh . . . he's just too frick'n dumb . . . Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is dumb like B. Hussein Obama is an American patriot.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
|
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by Shamayim :said by ronpin :Even Rush Limbaugh . . . he's just too frick'n dumb . . . Yeah, Rush Limbaugh is dumb like B. Hussein Obama is an American patriot. Yes to both.
I do know one thing. Healthcare *must* be addressed because if nothing is done, it is one of the planks that America is going to walk right off the end of.
The spiralling costs of healthcare ALONE could sink the entire country. Something MUST change.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
dumbamericans
@rr.com
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :said by ronpin :We are in fact a very decent society -- just not very smart! (like all the other industrialized nations). I don't know if I'd compare us to other industrialized nations. Less developed nations don't regulate health care quality like we do. You can see a doctor for $5-$10. Prescriptions are cheap.Developed nations have accepted the social responsibility that comes with setting social standards on health care (to create higher quality than a market of "willing buyers and sellers" would produce). They make goods and services available to those who can't afford the artificially-created high priced "market" which allows no lessor choices. That's what's funny (in a perverse way) about opponents to health care reform. They complain that you'll have to wait for services. People wait today! If you can't afford the artificially- (socially-) created market, you'll wait until your illness is bad enough to be seen by an emergency-room physician. I liked (in a perverse way) Rs speaking to the camera about how "if you like the DMV or Post Office, you'll love health care reform." That's an apples/oranges comparison. There is a sizeable portion of the public who can't buy any service. For them, there's not even a line to wait in. Rs don't talk about that. All they do is act like a precedent is being set if their own ox is gored. However, I agree with Rs that health care reform will create problems for many people. I'm not looking forward to waiting for services that I can afford today. But, the Rs strategy seems to be to ignore how many people have it far worse than simply waiting. Maybe when the problem is *everyone's* problem we'll look for better solutions. Personally, I'd like to see competing medical associations. The AMA providing top-shelf accreditation for those willing to pay top-shelf prices. A PMA (Public Medical Association) for those willing to accept lower quality goods and services at a discount. Giving the AMA a monopoly has been bad (unless you are among the few who can afford to pay for these monopolized goods and services). Mark i dont know what world you live in.
the US has the WORST overall health care system IN THE WORLD for its OWN PEOPLE.
try being elderly on ssi paying insurance premiums and prescriptions, or state funded ssi and state Medicaid with subsidized so called insurance.
be a "typical" AMERICAN with wow "insurance" and be the lucky one to be struck with a major illness lets try a major heart condition that amounts to $500,000 in medical expense, and now the hospital is demanding "UPFRONT" payment before they cover any procedure of what your "INSURANCE" WILL NOT COVER!!!! yea your now REFINANCING YOUR HOUSE TO THE TUNE OF $100k+. you think your covered because you have insurance? THINK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the ones who can "afford" insurance are paying into a for profit agency seeking for profit treatment/s on top of for profit drugs these are the huge huge flaws in the U.S medical system.
health care in America is VERY BROKEN AND YES IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
MEXICO has 100% coverage on any working person and everyone is treated EQUALLY. as far as health care goes.
and this coverage is PAID FOR BY THE EMPLOYERS of the working people |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :Personally, I'd like to see competing medical associations. The AMA providing top-shelf accreditation for those willing to pay top-shelf prices. A PMA (Public Medical Association) for those willing to accept lower quality goods and services at a discount. That's a pretty interesting idea. I think that provided that some basic standards were observed, you could make a distinction based on professional accreditation. Unfortunately, history tells us that the field of medicine does need some regulation, you only have to look at the stories of quackery and patent medicines from the early 20th century for proof.
There are other ways to achieve what you suggest. One could be that patients could agree to a limited tort against a doctor for malpractice... such a tactic has reduced car insurance costs in jurisdictions where it has been tried.
Based on my own experiences at the business end of the medical industry, I've found that treatments for most medical problems are indeed cut and dried, and you don't need the latest and greatest medical technology to treat most diseases. Allowing patients to see a doctor who has a slightly less impressive set of credentials, but who also has a low to nil rate of malpractice problems (and even the current system doesn't fully address that) would indeed reduce costs and allow more people access to adequate healthcare at a reasonable cost.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| reply to dumbamericans
said by dumbamericans :
the US has the WORST overall health care system IN THE WORLD for its OWN PEOPLE.
try being elderly on ssi paying insurance premiums and prescriptions, or state funded ssi and state Medicaid with subsidized so called insurance. I agree with you. However, I also agree with Rs who say "America's health care system is the best in the world." The problem is that both sides don't recognize the other side's valid perspective.
If you have a lot of money (or a good job with good insurance), you can get the latest MRI, etc., which isn't available to the average person in other countries (or, they have to wait, even for older MRI, etc.).
But, if you don't have money, you can't get much of anything. You're prohibited by law from buying inferior goods and services in the interest of "public safety" (a collective, socialist argument).
IMO, that's the problem with the healthcare debate. Both sides arguing without considering the legitimacy of the other side.
I understand people who fear that *more equitable* distribution of *already socialized* healthcare will eliminate the leading-edge choices they have available to them (and which aren't available in other countries).
But, they tend not to recognize that the artificially-created market of high-quality goods and services is responsible for the availability of leading-edge choices. And that this "market" came at the expense of those denied the choice of goods and services *they can afford.*
Mark |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :I think that provided that some basic standards were observed, you could make a distinction based on professional accreditation. I agree. The root of the healthcare debate is "market choice." Those opposed to [greater] socialization of the market complain that it will eliminate their ability to buy goods and services within the "market" as it exists today.
Those who support [greater] socialization object to today's "market" because it doesn't produce goods and services which meet their needs (defined partially by what they can pay for).
The debate quickly breaks down into one side complaining that the other wants "something for free." Or, the other side isn't "compassionate."
They both miss the point. Today's beneficiaries of "the world's best healthcare system" are getting "something for free." They can choose goods and services within a "market" whose quality has been artificially raised by society. Much more predictable "market outcomes" than would exist if more variation existed (in quality). Less responsibility to exercise due diligence when checking credentials. (It's a very efficient "market" for those who can afford it. This efficiency, and higher quality came at the expense of those denied other market choices.).
There's nothing magic about 8 years of education. Why not 9? Or, 12? The AMA set the education level based upon a pragmatic balancing of cost/benefit.
We could have 40-year medical degrees -- and only a dozen practicing doctors in the country! Those who could afford to see these dozen doctors would say we have the best health care in the world. 
So, why not have 7-year degrees? Or 6?
Same thing with pharmacists (no offense to "Jeffery"). I see these guys answering the phone, making change at the cash register, counting pills. Anyone can do that. We're told they're necessary to research drug interactions and perform patient consultations. But, that could be done remotely. We could have regional pharmacist service centers to leverage an economy of scale. Kiosks in each pharmacy where the patient could consult with a pharmacist.
The point being: we made an arbitrary pragmatic cost/benefit choice concerning pharmacists. If their services are so essential, then why not have 2 or 3 in each pharmacy? We decided one was enough. We could easily decide that using shared, remote services is good enough too.
The "market" can't decide these things because the doctors and pharmacists exclusively control their professions. They have no incentive/pressure to meet market needs this way.
I agree with you that we can't have a Libertarian, anything-goes market. Nobody wants a "market" where you can buy medicine manufactured in your neighbor's bathtub.
But, we're pretty far from that problem. I think we could have multiple accrediting agencies (multiple medical associations) and let the market decide.
I think this would be a perfect Republican position. Ds tend to focus on protecting people from "market" injustice. Rs don't want market injustice either (if it affects them). But, they're more inclined to look for ways to establish a "framework" for the market to operate within, and correct itself. Multiple accrediting associations would do that.
If the AMA's high standards cost more than a majority are willing to pay for, they're likely to lower their standards to gain more marketshare. (There would have to be some emphasis on compliance regulation. We wouldn't want to justify non-compliance to an association's standards because someone was willing to pay for it.).
Also, I don't know about individually waiving malpractice in return for lower prices. There is a long-standing legal doctrine that you can't sign away your rights. For example, if I enter a carnival, and the back of the ticket says "you accept all responsibility for injury," this doesn't eliminate the carnival's responsibility to take "reasonable" steps to prevent injury. The definition of "reasonable" is what ends up in the hands of a jury.
We've established a high expectation for "reasonable" because we've set artificially high medical standards through public law. Maybe this definition of "reasonable" would change if we had multiple accreditation associations (with discernible quality expectations). If you chose the top-shelf AMA, you might expect a multi-million settlement due to the AMA's depiction of itself. If you chose the commoner's medical association, you'd bear some responsibility for different outcomes. "Reasonable" would be defined by the standards expected by that accrediting association.
Mark |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| The system you describe for pharmacies already exists in a way. Most mail-order pharmacies (similar to the remote ones you described) charge significantly less than traditional in-store pharmacies.
From the experience of myself, my family and most people I know, the quality of the service from the mail order pharmacy is comparable to that of a traditional pharmacy but you trade timeliness in getting your product for savings in money.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102 :The system you describe for pharmacies already exists in a way. That probably demonstrates the hypothetical system to an extent. It illustrates the economies of scale that can be had by placing expensive (highly-educated) pharmacists over more transactions (so they have less time to make change, answer telephone inquiries whether an order is ready, etc.).
But, that's the nature of e-retail. The problem is that there seems to be a law requiring every pharmacy to be overseen by a pharmacist. I don't think it's possible for CVS to have a dozen pharmacists handling 4 dozen stores remotely. Approving prescriptions. Providing consultations via kiosks.
There's probably a state pharmacy board made up of pharmacists who recommend to the legislature how pharmacies should be governed. That's good as far as it goes. I wouldn't want plumbers regulating pharmacies. But, there's obvious problems with a professional group having essentially a monopoly (through public law) on their profession. They won't be inclined to look for ways to make their profession more efficient if it means 3 in 4 losing their jobs.
Everything in the world comes down to that simple calculus. Who's ox is being gored. Going back to the modern healthcare debate. Those who can afford our artificially-created "market" are upset because their ox will be gored. But, they're ok with goring the ox of those who can't afford our system, *and are denied lessor choices they can afford*.
It's human nature.
Mark |
|
