dust1n
Zindīq
Actually, the cost of bullets is just too much for us to spare. How 'bout we just let them die on their own. Now that's efficiency.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would you fix the US health care system?
- Thread starter Trey of Diamonds
- Start date
Actually, the cost of bullets is just too much for us to spare. How 'bout we just let them die on their own. Now that's efficiency.
If all we saw the doctor for was life and death visits you would be right.
The difference between you and I is, you believe every man woman and child should be able to see the doctor for anything they like and I see every day medical visits a luxury.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I have diabetes. I have to see the doctor twice a year at the very least and take a ton of medication. That life or death enough for you? I wonder if it's only healthy people who share your view? :sarcastic
I have battled two different kinds of cancer, have had numerous operations, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy.
Does that sound healthy to you?
The difference between us may be that I don't feel entitled to live forever at someone elses's expense.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
I would do five things:
1. First and foremost to fix a system, you need information - to that end I would cut out as much privacy stuff as I could without impacting on the patients (yes, even if it effects practitioners/providers) that would include preventing silence clauses for settlements. I would then set up stringent requirements in terms of ensuring that clients are made aware of issues such as potential complications, the practitioner's rating by some reputable medical authority, safety record and so forth - in a way that they can understand.
2. I would attempt to make it as easy as possible for individuals to move from one (healthcare/insurance) provider to another by mandating that providers do away with penalty clauses and exhaustive exit procedures; as well as mandating the acceptance of people with pre-existing conditions (either for insurance coverage or for non-cosmetic medical procedures), though I would not mandate any specific level of cover beyond the standard coverage, provided the client is willing and able to pay for it.
3. I would set up for profit providers (insurance AND drugs AND medical care) to compete with industry; I would then scale back the public system and the taxes that are supposedly paying for it
4. I would completely revisit medical patent processing; curtailing absurd applications that provide no benefit yet extend patents which drive up costs; I would also reduce the existing duration of all such patents.
5. I would require that imported medical stock, equipment, insurance coverage and personnel would need to go through the same medical screening as domestic equivalents, though I would need the suppliers of drugs and equipment to have significant assets in order to provide collateral, along with agreements with the governments of their countries in order to address what happens if litigation becomes necessary.
EDIT:
Actually I would do six things, I would also attempt to reduce the red tape for medical practitioners as much as possible in an attempt to reduce costs (though personally I think that No# 4+5 will do more to keep costs from increasing as much; this would include an examination of how to deal with lawsuits against medical providers, which I would make no more difficult, but would reduce the maximum payments which I feel can be exorbitant. Increasing labour costs are still a problem though, that is mainly because there is an assumption that people should receive automatic raises - which is patently foolish given that it merely increases the cost of the good or service and thus drives inflation.
1. First and foremost to fix a system, you need information - to that end I would cut out as much privacy stuff as I could without impacting on the patients (yes, even if it effects practitioners/providers) that would include preventing silence clauses for settlements. I would then set up stringent requirements in terms of ensuring that clients are made aware of issues such as potential complications, the practitioner's rating by some reputable medical authority, safety record and so forth - in a way that they can understand.
2. I would attempt to make it as easy as possible for individuals to move from one (healthcare/insurance) provider to another by mandating that providers do away with penalty clauses and exhaustive exit procedures; as well as mandating the acceptance of people with pre-existing conditions (either for insurance coverage or for non-cosmetic medical procedures), though I would not mandate any specific level of cover beyond the standard coverage, provided the client is willing and able to pay for it.
3. I would set up for profit providers (insurance AND drugs AND medical care) to compete with industry; I would then scale back the public system and the taxes that are supposedly paying for it
4. I would completely revisit medical patent processing; curtailing absurd applications that provide no benefit yet extend patents which drive up costs; I would also reduce the existing duration of all such patents.
5. I would require that imported medical stock, equipment, insurance coverage and personnel would need to go through the same medical screening as domestic equivalents, though I would need the suppliers of drugs and equipment to have significant assets in order to provide collateral, along with agreements with the governments of their countries in order to address what happens if litigation becomes necessary.
EDIT:
Actually I would do six things, I would also attempt to reduce the red tape for medical practitioners as much as possible in an attempt to reduce costs (though personally I think that No# 4+5 will do more to keep costs from increasing as much; this would include an examination of how to deal with lawsuits against medical providers, which I would make no more difficult, but would reduce the maximum payments which I feel can be exorbitant. Increasing labour costs are still a problem though, that is mainly because there is an assumption that people should receive automatic raises - which is patently foolish given that it merely increases the cost of the good or service and thus drives inflation.
Last edited:
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
The difference in the two of us is you haven't been put into a situation where you have to chose between grocerys and medicine. I paid my insurance through my company for 16 years. The recession hits and my department takes a million dollar budget cut and I'm on the street. Cobra's fine for awhile but then it sky rockets in price. So, I have to go looking for insurance that I can afford. The 16 years I paid mean NOTHING. All that money is gone. I have to start over with a company that is just looking for excuses to tell me no. Thankfully they can no longer say "pre-existing conditions". The system you are claiming is so great is the same one that said insurance providers didn't have to accept pre-existing conditions.
I'm really sorry Rick but your system does nothing but allow for the abuse of the sick by insurance and medical bullys. Unless you can come up with some form of check and balance system, more and more innocents people will continue to fall between the cracks. I guess as long as it isn't you that doesn't matter to you.
It matters to me. Have you considered enrolling in the pre-existing condition insurance the government provides under the new Obamacare legislation?
PCIP.GOV
Or... you could take the Canadian approach:
Health insurance is provided by the government, so costs are kept in check by the fact that we have a monosony... a single buyer who can, to a large degree, dictate the price it pays. There's a table of fees for services set by the government, and if a doctor wants to get paid by public health insurance, the his or her fees have to meet the ones set out in the table. Of course, there's a review process for that table of fees involving representatives of the government, medical providers, and the public to make sure it's reasonable.
And as for hospitals, they're owned by the government anyway, so the net cost to the taxpayer is really just the actual cost anyhow, and the set price is only a matter of moving money between different accounts with different branches of government.
There you go: *fully* public health care addresses your concerns!
BTW: when was the last time you shopped around for the best value in firefighting or police services?
Or, if yes look at it another way, that you don't feel obliged to help someone in a similar situation who can't afford their care.
For me, public health care is much more about meeting a basic need for society than it is about getting something for myself. Yeah, I think that private health insurance is unfair in ways that would put me at risk if I had to rely on it, but I'd probably be just fine under an American-style system. The big reason why I'm in favour of public health care is because of everyone else who isn't so lucky.
OK, let me make my position clear. I was defending the attack of capitalism saying this was the reason medical costs where so high.
If we had pure capitalism in the medical system, things would be more efficient and cost less than the current so called capitalist system we have here in the States right now.
We have discussed this before, and the one thing we got to the bottom of is some folks want a plan while others want insurance.
I believe medical plans which pay for everything a person could ever need are too much like socialism. I despise the mentality that believes that an individual could not possibly provide anything for themselves.
I don't support people losing their home because of medical expenses and realise that not everyone can be self sufficient, but at the same time lowering the bar so no one has any personal responsibility encourages irresponsibility.
I don't want to deny folks life saving medicine or crucial care. At the same time, I don't want to pay for your perfect teeth or acne creme. There should be more over the counter drugs available and many folks should be able to talk to a pharmacist and correct small non life threatening problems.
Another issue is refills. Why should I have to sit in a room with a bunch of sick people and spend half the day waiting to see a doctor to refill my prescriptions?
Common colds, you can go to the doctor and two weeks later you are better. You can stay at home and not infect anyone and be better in two weeks as well.
It is all this all inclusive care I am opposed to. I'm sorry, I don't care if you have zits or not, get your own creme at the store and stay out of my pocket.
If your poor and have cancer, my heart pours out to you and want you to have the best of care.
If we had pure capitalism in the medical system, things would be more efficient and cost less than the current so called capitalist system we have here in the States right now.
We have discussed this before, and the one thing we got to the bottom of is some folks want a plan while others want insurance.
I believe medical plans which pay for everything a person could ever need are too much like socialism. I despise the mentality that believes that an individual could not possibly provide anything for themselves.
I don't support people losing their home because of medical expenses and realise that not everyone can be self sufficient, but at the same time lowering the bar so no one has any personal responsibility encourages irresponsibility.
I don't want to deny folks life saving medicine or crucial care. At the same time, I don't want to pay for your perfect teeth or acne creme. There should be more over the counter drugs available and many folks should be able to talk to a pharmacist and correct small non life threatening problems.
Another issue is refills. Why should I have to sit in a room with a bunch of sick people and spend half the day waiting to see a doctor to refill my prescriptions?
Common colds, you can go to the doctor and two weeks later you are better. You can stay at home and not infect anyone and be better in two weeks as well.
It is all this all inclusive care I am opposed to. I'm sorry, I don't care if you have zits or not, get your own creme at the store and stay out of my pocket.
If your poor and have cancer, my heart pours out to you and want you to have the best of care.
They're not true socialized systems, though. They're private, single payer.
The VA is socialized -- hospitals owned by the government and medical personnel on salary.
Socialized insurance is what Germany has. Mandatory insurance from one of many private, non profit companies. We had something similar in the '60s with Blue Cross.
Last edited by a moderator:
But you can't have "pure capitalism" in the medical system... not if by this you mean things running like a purely free market.
Health care is one of those things where there's going to be huge market distortions: in many smaller markets, a hospital is a natural monopoly, and the demand for health care from someone who's just broken their arm or had a heart attack isn't exactly "elastic". If an unscrupulous person said to themselves "hmm... what sort of industry would give me the maximum potential to take advantage of people?", the answer would probably be health care, provided it's unregulated or only lightly regulated.
What's wrong with socialism?
Actually, let me back up: what do you mean by "socialism" in the sense you're using the word?
How does making sure everyone's medical bills are paid create a situation where "no one has any personal responsibility"? Medical problems still have major personal costs even if the bills are paid. I don't think there are many people out there who think to themselves, "Hey! If my insulin will be paid for, why not get diabetes?!"
But those aren't the only options. It's completely reasonable and workable to have a system where a person's critical care and regular checkups are covered, but not cosmetic treatments. Lots of places do it - for instance, the place I live in. I have government-funded health care, but my taxes and premiums don't pay for "perfect teeth or acne cream".
These are all valid points, but I don't see what relevance they have to the question of how health care should get funded.
So you wouldn't object to a public health care system that's not "all inclusive"?
Would you go for one that's like the Canadian system? Cosmetic procedures and frivolous items aren't covered, prescriptions aren't generally covered (though many people have private supplementary health insurance for this), and medically necessary care - whether unexpected or routine - is covered?
I mean, it seems like that sort of system addresses all the objections you've stated.
When a hospital did this, it would create an opportunity for competition for the market share. One would go out of business and another would start. There should be no monopolies, thats not true capitalism.
Think for a moment, without breaking up monopolies, we would still be talking on black corded phones. :yes:
It takes away incentive to provide for yourself and reduces people to cattle in the field. Subjects of the governments grace. At the very least it produces an entitlement mentality and reduces citizens obligations for themselves.
Entitlement society unable to provide for themselves.
Red herring
Just back rubs
We are too far down the road as it is. We at this point should just give everyone medicare and be done with it.
I would like to see catastrophic health care coverage that started kicking in after a few thousand dollars.
Obama should have just expanded medicare. I don't want socialised medicine, but if we are going to go in that direction, we should have done it right instead of this cluster truck of a health care bill he passed. No one understands it and it expands the IRS powers.
Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
Ok, let me make my position clear. I have not once ever said we should go with a totally socialist system. I believe there is a place in medicene for capitalism. The entire time I have been saying the insurance system should be socialised not the medical system. I have always said the we need a balance between the two systems, not just in the medical system but over all in the US.
So don't go implying that I am in favor of socializing the system to the extent that it pays for zits. I expected better from you my friend.
Perhaps we can agree that insurance companies do little to improve things in the medical field.
Well, it's not a truly free market, but it's what emerges in certain situations through market forces.
It's like the Econ 101 example of the island ferry: if only 10 people per day want to go to the mainland and a ferry boat needs at least 8 people per day to break even, then the island can't sustain a second ferry operator. Competition will cause everyone to lose money, so there's no incentive for a competitor to enter the market.
Same with healthcare in many places: if a region can barely sustain one hospital, then it won't be able to sustain two, and health care companies would know this. So if you ran a health care company, which would you rather do:
- build a hospital in an area that can't sustain more than one, and try to drive out the established competition by forcing the other hospital gets tired of running at a loss (while you run at a loss yourself)
- go build a hospital in an area that doesn't have one at all, or maybe build some other sort of facility
If we leave things just to market forces, then in many areas, healthcare is a monopoly.
The phone monopoly came about as a result of market forces. The breakup of it came about as a result of government interference. I thought you were arguing against government interference, no?
Oh. Well, if that's what you mean by "socialism", then I don't think that public health care is close to that at all.
Then what did you mean? How does public health insurance take away people's responsibility?
No, not back rubs.Just back rubs
I do have massage coverage, but it's through my private supplementary insurance though my employer. The government doesn't pay a dime toward "back rubs", and it doesn't mandate that insurers or employees have to give people coverage for them.
I think we agree there.Obama should have just expanded medicare. I don't want socialised medicine, but if we are going to go in that direction, we should have done it right instead of this cluster truck of a health care bill he passed. No one understands it and it expands the IRS powers.
I think our disagreement is with the general principle at play: whether the government should be ensuring that everyone has access to health care. I think we both agree that if the government's going to do that, the proposed system is probably a bad one to do the job.
It does seem that way.
What puzzles me, though, is I don't see why it has to be that way. I mean, with fire insurance, the insurance industry were leaders in making things better. For instance, they went out of their way to create fire safety standards even before governments had building codes and fire codes. They saw it as in their best interest to reduce claims by reducing the risk that their customers would have fires, and by reducing the damage that would occur when fires did happen.
It seems like the health insurance industry these days isn't interested in doing this. It'd be awesome if they decided that the way to make more of a profit is to reduce the risk that their customers would get major diseases and injuries, but they don't seem to want to do that. I don't know why, because it should be in their financial interest.
We agree