lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to Tzale
Re: I think fixing Health Care is a Better Deal
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
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, 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
 ·EarthLink
| 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. |
|
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. |
|
Neyland85
join:2003-02-04
North Augusta, SC
·AT&T Southeast
| 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
·EarthLink
| 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
| 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
edit:
April 21st, @03:23PM
| 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
·EarthLink
| 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 |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
edit:
April 21st, @03:46PM
| 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
·EarthLink
| said by Austinloop :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. The individuals are part of the organization. Often the superstars which the organization pays [obscene?] amounts of money to. They're the poster children. If Congress has purview over the orgs, I don't see why they wouldn't have purview over the celebrities of those orgs, who tend to define the orgs.
said by Austinloop :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. It's a long-established tendency that when socialization of a business occurs nationwide, it tends to role up to national interest. Just the law of economies of scale.
said by Austinloop :I would prefer something positive from the national congress critters I would too. I'm just pointing out that it's not as illegitimate as some may believe. And, fans of MLB may feel that it *is* positive.
As I said, if investigating steroid use within major league sports is undesireable, how much more undesireable is exempting those orgs from anti-trust laws, or building their stadiums with tax dollars? Focusing on Congressional investigation seems to miss the forest for the trees.
Mark |
|
Austinloop
join:2001-08-19
Austin, TX
| In my first post, I alluded to the fact that they are not going after Clemons, for example, for steriod use, but for lying to the government. Seems to me that maybe, while undesirable, steriod use is not all that illegal, at least not at the federal level.
As for the national scope of the teams, so what. I could really care less how the NY Yankees, the Dallas Cowboys, etc., etc., finance their stadiums, as long as it isn't out of my pocket, I couldn't care less than I do now.
Again, so what if the superstars are paid obscene amounts of money, as long as it isn't out of my pocket, so what.
What is the basis for congressional purview of this people, if it is unethical behavior, well, the pot is calling the kettle black. This whole steriod investigation reeks of self serving publicity for the congress critters. |
|
older dog
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Norwich, NY | reply to linflas
Then your experience was far different than mine.
The doctors I had in the Navy were far better and more dedicated to proper health care than the quacks I have had since. |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to supergirl
I think the biggest issue here is a misconception regarding healthcare. Healthcare is something everyone is going to need. It's not a "risk" like an automobile accident is. So insurance doesn't necessarily make sense. You don't insure your car against oil changes.
Insurance always costs more than just paying for the problem. It's a way to pool risk. But you can't get any economy of pooling (made up, not sure what the real term is) if the risk is 100% for each person trying to pool the risk.
It seems to make much more sense to treat Healthcare like we treat Road maitenance - something that we know will need to be done every year for small stuff, and that there will be occasional major work needed (bridge wears out etc)...
Likewise, we know everyone will "need" (like cars need oil changes, and roads need potholes patched) a physical etc each year.
Sadly, I don't have a solution. Medical savings accounts don't make sense as they aren't pooling costs for bulk discounts. Maybe something like the various legal clubs, or even like the insurance, but you're buying a set of services provided every year rather than "insurance".
Governement doesn't seem to me like a bad way to do this. Health isn't something that really works as a competitive system, as when you're sick, you're not really able to "shop around" or wait for deals etc...
--
Opera 9.23(Build 8808); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 X2 4600+; 2.5GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 3;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 5/23/07(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
·ViaTalk
| reply to viperlmw
Thank you for your service to our country sir.
I think the numerous cases of waste, abuse, fraud, and bureaucracy in the VA system that we've all heard about is a much better example of what we have to look forward to from universal socialist health care. The care you and your family received on base as active personnel was surely excellent and without hassle. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| reply to jp10558
said by jp10558 :Medical savings accounts don't make sense as they aren't pooling costs for bulk discounts. I have an HSA just because the odds are I won't get sick and I'll make more money from it than I would from traditional insurance. I just take the money out every 3-4 months and pay tax (and 10% penalty). For me that's a better deal (despite the higher deductible) than traditional coverage.
What seems like a real scam with my HSA is that it only paid 1.5% APR back when CDs were paying 5%. Its premise is undermined right out of the gate. If I keep saving over the years, I'll lose money due to inflation. The choice is to shun the program, or take the money.
And, like you pointed out, it seems to be based upon a belief that individuals will negotiate prices because it's their money. I don't think that will happen. I don't know many people who will bargain for a co-pay like they're at the Tijuana flea market.
Free market incentives aren't going to work (very well) when the market isn't free.
Mark |
|
