- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 22, 2012 at 7:00 pm #750813
jamminjMemberoh, about those wonderful for profit system we have:
“one in seven Medicare patients are harmed while in a U.S. hospital, and 15,000 die each month as a result of lapses by hospitals and their employees.”
http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/report-hospital-errors-cause-15000-deaths-month-6743
March 22, 2012 at 7:05 pm #750814
dyn99ParticipantThe difference:
You can sue the hopsital. There is accountability.
Try suing the Federal Government and see how it works for you.
Plus, those statistics are not related to the HIV infection. “Injure” can mean anything to anyone.
The fact of the matter is that I’d much rather have choice. You can lookup information and see how many people those hospitals kill.
You have no choice under a single-payer system where the government does all service delivery.
I’ll take a choice over no choice. And the right to sue over no right to sue.
March 22, 2012 at 7:54 pm #750815
kootchmanMemberNo a single payer system would NOT look like the VA. The VA looks the way it does because the AL got into the candidate endorsement business. The AL is the eyes of the Vets on the VA. With 2.5 million voters, they are as powerful now as the NRA. It was the horrendous treatment of Viet Vets that galvanized the AL and VFW. See, you have to “earn” the vet vote now… under Obamacare they don’t have to continue to earn the votes. the AL holds Shoeless Patty accountable… and Obama, and they throw their political weight now. Hey redblack… see the Centralia Massacre… not a statement just an interesting footnote in the history of labor…
March 23, 2012 at 4:55 am #750816
jamminjMember“No a single payer system would NOT look like the VA.”
ding ding ding, correct kootch, for once you are right.
the VA is pure socialism, where the doctors, care, facilities, funding is all via the government.
Nice that you support the VA, you socialist you.
single payer only deals with collection of premiums to pay private doctors/facilities.
But hey, if you believe in the ‘eyes of the Vets’ to take care of those that sacrificed for us, maybe they can be the eyes for all citizens, since you believe it to be so efficient.
March 23, 2012 at 4:58 am #750817
jamminjMember“You can sue the hopsital. “
unless you have tort reform. then private hospitals would be just like govt hospitals, they can fuk up and kill you… and you just have to take it.
March 23, 2012 at 5:00 am #750818
jamminjMember“You have no choice under a single-payer system where the government does all service delivery.”
you have no idea what single payer is, do you?
March 23, 2012 at 5:33 am #750819
redblackParticipantdyn99 re: post 304:
Under a single payer system, one of two things happens:
1) The government acts as the insurer, and all medical practices bill the government instead of a private insurer. The same infrastructure for billing/payment/anti-fraud has to exist as for a private insurer to minimize taxpayer losses.
copy that. it’s what we’re aiming for.
big difference: no shareholders and no profit. and no DDOS.
2) The government runs all medical practices in the country and instead of acting as an insurer, it is one giant HMO. All doctors are employed by the government, as are all nurses, medical assistants and even the janitors that clean the medical facilities/hospitals. And they’re all members of unions, driving up costs for lower-wage employees while reducing wages for high-skill employees like doctors.
“objection!”
sigh. “on what grounds?”
“speculation, your honor.”
name one country where this scenario exists and/or where all of those employees belong to unions.
this is ‘merica. ain’t gonna happen. nor does any american liberal with 2 neurons to rub together desire such a scenario.
you know why? because that’s socialism. and, like it or not, try as you might to pigeonhole us so that you can compare us to stalinist russia – or nazi germany or whatever totalitarian flavor you’re calling us this week – and terrify the poor, stupid masses, that dog don’t hunt.
the rest of your post seems to be based on a flimsy initial hypothesis, so i didn’t read it.
sorry.
JV:
Dyn, that was great…but it won’t fit on a bumper sticker so they might not read it.
i read the premise for the argument, skimmed the rest, and i found it specious, at best.
that’ll fit on a bumper sticker, won’t it?
March 23, 2012 at 5:37 am #750820
redblackParticipantdyn99: re: post 314:
The reason that you pay a different bill for the Doctor vs. the “overhead” is that in Washington State (as well as many others), non-medical practicioners are forbidden from having any equity stake in a medical practice.
[scoff]
why in the hell should they? they’re doing nothing but skimming. and they’re hoping that i get fat and need all kinds of meds. hopefully, the doctor’s motives are a little more humane.
you do live here, don’t you?
March 23, 2012 at 3:37 pm #750821
dyn99ParticipantFirst of all, I am not calling you any names nor comparing you to Russia, China or any other totalitarian regimes.
I did call JamminJ a socialist. That comment stands.
I am not trying to inflame people…I am trying to argue the points. Unlike most people on this topic…
Back to the topic, so let’s assume that nobody here wants the 2nd option – the one that Redblack calls “socialism”. That’s good, as it’s the worst idea you could create for a medical system.
So now Redblack, instead of forcing doctors to make certain choices and choosing certain procedures over others as employees, you are basically forcing them to do the same thing monetarily through your reimbursement policies.
Unfortunately, that’s not much different.
Effectively, you’re putting a panel of bureaucrats in charge of making health decisions for the entire country. That’s not as bad as the government doing that AND employing the doctors, but it’s close. It’s really not that much different.
I don’t disagree that we need a system where much of the vulnerable public has nthe government choose and care for them. But I would argue that’s less than 30% of the population.
The other 70% are better off choosing for themselves. Or for the young/elderly, having their families make those choices.
So why not give everyone the option to have single-payer insurance coverage provided by the government “Medicare for All” – wait, strike that, “Financially Responsible Medicare for All” (which means that if you want Medicare, you’re going to have to pony up for part of the cost unless you REALLY can’t afford it), but let anyone who wants to opt-out, as long as they have a minimim of a catastrophic insurance plan supplemented by their own health care contributions?
Heck, Redblack, you could use your union raise to pay for the same darn Cadillac plan you have now!
Or, if you really believe that profit is evil, you can select a non-profit insurer or better government plan (there’s no reason that people couldn’t have access to improved government plans for additional cost).
The only way for us to drive down cost is to improve access and competition. This can be done without the government monopolizing the entire industry.
So Redblack, why not take my deal and give it a chance?
March 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm #750822
JVMemberTo add to DYN’s point about competition, why not allow health insurance to be purchased accross state lines?
Competition equals better prices and better results.
Government monopolies result in terrible outcomes, higher cost, waste and corruption.
March 23, 2012 at 5:03 pm #750823
WorldCitizenParticipantJV, Redblack, dyn99, jamminj, jv, etc…
War on women is the topic…just sayin’
ALSO, pretty sure none of you have any idea of how to fix this problem as it is FAR too complicated to sum up in a little forum such as this. Are any of you economists with a heavy understanding of the intricacies of the current healthcare system? Do any of you claim to know the driving forces behind the numbers? You all seem to have all the answers, yet none of them really seem to work in the real world. You all are getting so worked up about this and are not willing to admit how completely ignorant you all are to the complexities of the situation. But FOR SURE the other guy is DEAD WRONG!
Can we at least admit this?
Socialist isn’t any more a bad word than Republican or Democrat.
Oh yeah, right…women’s rights. Forgot. Sorry.
March 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm #750824
jamminjMember“War on women is the topic…just sayin'”
Part of a healthy discussion is to branch out wherever the topic may lead. The discussion started off with just the topic of ‘war on women’, why, health care. And with that pertains to many many more topics, which all can be related back.
Govt can’t do anything right, yet we entrust our military to protect us and fight our wars. Govt run health care will be the death to all of us, yet that is what we give our soldiers. We don’t want govt to intrude in our lives, yet many want govt to limit and define marriage, we don’t want govt to force one to pay for an abortion, yet have no problem with a private insurer kicking someone off the plan for a technicality (or pre-existing conditions).
calling me a socialist doesn’t matter. As having served in the armed forces in my younger days, proudly serving under Bush I, I am proud to have served in our biggest form of socialism in this country, our US military.
as far as “Effectively, you’re putting a panel of bureaucrats in charge of making health decisions” – hmmmm, where do we see this, oh yes, its called private insurance.
It must be great to live in your perfect little bubble. Where no one you know has ever had to deal with claim denial from an insurer, even though the doctor says it necessary. Must be nice to not know anyone who’s child is kicked off a plan because of severe allergies. Must be nice to never have known anyone who had to file bankruptcy because insurance wouldn’t cover their cancer treatment.
sure, call me a socialist, but just don’t call me a republican.
like i have said, pro-life, only until birth.
March 23, 2012 at 5:34 pm #750825
WorldCitizenParticipantJust trying to keep everyone focused on how this pertains to the topic at hand, that’s all.
March 23, 2012 at 5:44 pm #750826
dyn99ParticipantWorldCitizen,
It’s a pretty stupid idea to tell us all how we have no idea what were talking about, and then…
Don’t even try to come up with better ideas. It might be more complex than we can solve in a forum discussion. But we want to try.
If you don’t want to try, you don’t have to participate. In the meantime, if we can actually come to some semblence of a compromise, then there just might be a framework for a solution, subject to a whole lot of tweaking.
Especially given the supreme court will be overturning the mandate here shortly, which breaks the economics of Obamacare, and will require both parties to come up with another compromise.
March 23, 2012 at 5:50 pm #750827
dyn99ParticipantAlright, JamminJ. Here is the difference:
Putting a single panel of bureaucrats in charge of a government-controlled healthcare plan vs. allowing you to choose the panel of executives (for or non-profit) that control the healthcare plan of your choice.
The two are different. I will always take choosing over having something shoved down my throat.
And I congratulate and thank you for serving our country honorably. I think the government should pay for you to get care in the private system if you need it after you are discharged.
For those that are actively deployed, it is impractical for them to get coverage from anything other than a system run by the military. You need the expertise in trauma and specific kinds of injuries in the theater, and can’t rely on variying medical systems in a variety of different countries to do the job.
So that’s not really a situation where you have much choice…
But really, would you agree to a single-payer system that people could opt-out of, as long as you were able to get the single-payer coverage you wanted? What is the problem with that?
March 23, 2012 at 6:21 pm #750828
WorldCitizenParticipantdyn99:
Noooo… it’s not stupid to acknowledge the ignorance of one’s self and others. It’s also not stupid to not contribute to a debate based on ignorance.
You’re trying to rationalize a position with numbers that are simplistic at best. And then you want to tell me that is a good way to form a framework for a solution?
That seems foolish. Maybe it’s not. But I think so.
March 23, 2012 at 6:53 pm #750829
WorldCitizenParticipantOR I could put it to you another way
We have a problem ‘X’ with literally thousands of variables.
The current solution and existing situation ‘A’ takes into account all of these variables. Solution ‘A’ doesn’t work correctly.
The proposed solution ‘B’ refutes solution ‘C’ because of variables 47, 93,264 & 1,486. Solution ‘B’ ONLY takes into account variables # 1, 3, 246, 597 & 1,169 to justify it’s legitimacy.
The proposed solution ‘C’ refutes Solution ‘B’ because of variables 2, 12, 673 & 941. It ONLY sites variables 998, 1,345, 651 and 45 as it’s reasons for legitimacy.
All other variables are not referenced for whatever reason (I suspect either convenience, ignorance or most likely a combination thereof).
Proponents of solution B & C say any mention of the facts stated above are counter-productive.
I call BS on that.
What I propose is acknowledging your ignorance and debate the philosophical points to frame the discussion. Come to some semblance of a consensus and then let those in the know figure out how to make the numbers work. Don’t use incomplete and simplistic numbers based on a broken system to justify a stance. Also, realize you are not qualified enough to figure the numbers out when a consensus is achieved.
March 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm #750830
WorldCitizenParticipantMarch 23, 2012 at 8:02 pm #750831
JoBParticipantJV..
“you believe government can do ANYTHING more efficient than the private sector”
before you decide what i think
don’t you think it would be good to ask me?
because that would not be an accurate reflection of what i think at all..
just a reflection of what you think a person like me would think
i think we have forgotten about the health care part of health care and turned it into multiple profit centers driven by financial interests that have little or nothing to do with delivering a quality product.
Our outcome stats prove that.
there are several ways to fix that
but none of them include pandering to the current structure
Dyn99
LOL.. so adding all those profit centers adds to the efficiency of the system thereby controlling costs?
The stats don’t support that assertion at all :(
if they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
March 23, 2012 at 8:06 pm #750832
JoBParticipantWorldCitizen..
health care delivery is integral to women’s rights since our current health care delivery system is not supportive of women’s health.
our infant mortality rate is abysmal…
third world countries do better at delivering live babies to healthy mothers.
that said. i cross posted my last comment to the new topic heading
March 23, 2012 at 9:41 pm #750833
WorldCitizenParticipantMarch 24, 2012 at 3:03 am #750834
redblackParticipantdyn99:
So now Redblack, instead of forcing doctors to make certain choices and choosing certain procedures over others as employees, you are basically forcing them to do the same thing monetarily through your reimbursement policies.
where do you get this? i think you made it up.
look. the bottom line is delivery of health care. doctors should choose the best course of treatment for their patients. period. end of argument. no influence from big pharma reps or MRI salesmen. no political pressure. no one in that room but the patient and the doctor.
we agree on this, right?
payment for those services is actually a separate issue.
what went wrong with our system is manifold, but it basically boils down to hyperinflation – which, itself, is caused by a number of unrelated factors.
i’ll sum up thusly:
for one thing, medical school is expensive.
secondly, the AMA controls the number of licensed doctors, pretty much arbitrarily, in an effort to keep doctors’ salaries high. i.e. there’s a manufactured and highly intentional labor shortage in the health care industry.
which – thirdly – directly contradicts the fact that american medical science has advanced to the point that we know a lot more about causes of maladies and, because of advances, we have better diagnostic tools. those things are expensive – not only to consumers, but also to medical practices.
and – maybe fourthly – that results in a lot more people having known maladies. i.e. the risk pool has grown, but the number of practitioners stays arbitrarily static.
then there are the vultures. knowing that medical costs are so high, a bunch of well-heeled bankers got together and said, “uhh, gee, we could make a lot of money by “helping” people pay for the high cost of medical care.”
now, how do we remedy this “free market” health care “system” and ensure that the bottom line – delivery of health care – is met?
in other words, how do we make sure that access to health care doesn’t have a prohibitively high bar?
no one ever had to argue that health care was a right until it started becoming inaccessible to any and all citizens.
then, and only then, did conservatives start arguing from the position that health care is a paid privilege.
Effectively, you’re putting a panel of bureaucrats in charge of making health decisions for the entire country. That’s not as bad as the government doing that AND employing the doctors, but it’s close. It’s really not that much different.
tell me how that’s any different from what we have now.
the only difference is that the people keeping the gate now are insurance actuaries whose sole job is to figure out how to pay out as little for delivery of health care as possible in an effort to maximize shareholder profits. (and yes, i understand that “profits” is a broad word that means different things to different health care businesses or non-profits.)
we have to assume that we, the people, will do a better, more fair job of maintaining a pool of money that pays our health care industry.
because the insurance industry sucks at that job, and they should be fired forthwith.
March 24, 2012 at 4:03 pm #750835
kootchmanMemberGoogle Medicare fraud…. we have seen the federal government in action.
March 24, 2012 at 4:17 pm #750836
JoBParticipantkootchman..
and you think insurance fraud doesn’t exist?
or that you don’t recover the insurance company’s costs for fraud in your premiums?
you might want to reconsider that
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.