National Health Care
-
out there;282672 wrote:
from what i've been hearing from various other people and the little news that i watch/hear (with all of the lies, right now, it just infuriates me even more), it does sound like all employers are at least going to be required to make health insurance available to all employees. that's the only thing i like, but i suppose that depends on if "affordable" becomes part of the equation.what's affordable? 10% of your pre-tax income? post-tax? 20%? 30?
They are going to be forced to offer health insurance to all employees. I suppose somebody who is incapable of getting a job where health insurance is offered rather than being forced to provide it would like this idea.
-
Here is a post I made on another forum.
Ok, I gave up reading this thread about half way through the 3rd page. Here is my take on the current outrageous medical costs and my theory on a few things that could help the cost go down.
- Smokers - I would have to guess that over 75% (and probably higher, but I don't have facts backing it up) of smokers find themselves in the hospital at least once in their life for a smoking related cause. A lot of causes are life threatening cases like lung cancer, emphyzema (sp?), etc.
Much like the points that have been stated about our eating habits and how the FDA and the US Gov't should regulate the food that is put on store shelves, but why do they not BAN smoking. Yes, I said BAN. Smoking does not have ONE SINGLE BENEFIT that goes with it. The only thing it is doing is killing off our own people and putting people in the hospital. Ding Ding Ding. Smokers in the hospital for life saving procuders are not cheap. You think insurance wants to cover this? Nope, but they have too. Ban smoking and insurance companies won't have to worry about it, therefore rates will go down (just with that alone I bet prices would drop).
Now you say that that would be breaking our rights as stated in the constitution? Ok fine. Then we do this. If you smoke and are in the hospital for something that is SMOKING RELATED (and the doctor can prove it), you are held 100% responsible for the full bill. If you can't afford it, tough crap. You can die then. You made the choice to smoke in the beginning, now you can shell out the money to keep your self alive, or just die. Simple.
- Alcohol related hospital visits.
If you are a severe alcoholic, my views are the same as that of smoking. If you are putting your life in danger by consuming that much alcohol, insurance should not be covering it. As I said about smoking, if you are going to put your life in danger (and others), you have to pay for it 100%. No if's, and's, or but's.
Now you say.. What if this alcoholic is driving and kills someone. Since I life is not replacable, insurance would be there to cover the person's life who was lost, however, the alcoholic would be held 100% responsible for ALL injuries to himself/herself (medical bills, auto damage bills, etc). Insurance SHOULD NOT be covering crap like this.
-
Sue happy people causing doctors insurance to be expensive (which in turn makes healthcare more expensive):
As someone stated before, the loser should be paying everything. OUT OF POCKET. Insurance should not cover it. The loser should be held 100% responsible for paying 100% of the bills associated with the court process, lawyers, etc. This itself will stop people from being sue happy as they have a risk of losing their whole life over sueing for a dumba$$ reason. -
Worthless visits to the hospital:
If you are sneezing for 3 hours straight, stay the hell out of the hospital. The hospital is there to provide care for those who need it. Not for some hypochondriac who thinks they are going to die because they have a minor sneeze. I refuse to go to the doctor unless I'm in an outrageous amount of pain. Hell, I went for 3 weeks with a broken arm before I finally went in. People need to stop being ******* and going to the hospital for every little thing.
Or to stop this, we raise the minimum the insurance will pay. Say.. 300 bucks per visit. Most visits are way under this (for the walkin clinic per say). ER is different as those are emergency procedures. But if your going to the walking for a minor cold and you want the doctor to prescribe you some cough medicine with codine or whatever the case is, you should be paying 100% of the visit. No insurance on the visit, no insurance on the medicine, NOTHING. Patient is 100% responsible for the full cost. This will cut down on the small worthless visits (that insurance companies end up paying money for (little or a lot.. some is more than none), which will in turn lower the prices.
- Our school system
Our school system's are far insuperior to that of other countries. Why are a HUGE majority of doctors foreigners? Because they are EDUCATED. Our school system in the United States is TERRIBLE. Elementary school is getting tougher forcing the kids to learn more, but high school is a complete joke.
Let me put it in perspective for you. I never went to class and when I did, I slept through it. I never did my homework until about 45 minutes prior to class. Meaning, it was all BS to get the credit. Tests come around, I smack a A on the tests with ease. I ended high school with a 3.4gpa and I didn't do ANYTHING. That's sad. Someone like me should have failed high school.
Our school system needs to be informing our citizens more on health that it does. If I remember correctly, I had 2 or 3 mandatory classes (from 7th grade to 12th grade) on health related stuff. There should be MANDATORY classes taken on the health related aspect of life. This would properly inform our citizen's of how to keep themselves healthy.
Ok, my figures are going numb from typing and I gotta get back to work. Call me a moron or what not, I look forward to hearing your opinions on my statements.
Fuck the gov't control health care. Find ways to reduce the cost of medical aid. That will then reduce the cost of insurance. If you lower the cost of medical aid enough, insurance will be way more affordable.
-
are you sure that part of the increased cost of medicine isn't hospitals providing care first and then getting money second? that's one of the more ridiculous problems. where else can you drive away with a car and then get billed a month later?
"oooh, you're going to ruin my credit? so what? i already got what i came here for, and it won't get you anything!" -
i think if we nationalize anything it should be grain belt. it was amazing as usual tonight.
-
torbs;282697 wrote:
Personally, I think it'd be great to be able to shop for insurance across state lines...Oh and this whole nationalized healthcare stuff...See Canada/Europe...Not fun.Again, I'm not in favor of Nationalized Healthcare....however, we usually just here the horror stories of Canada's healthcare. I have lots of friends/relatives up there that love the system. They also have the option of purchasing private health insurance as well. Like I said, I'm still not hoping for nat'l healthcare, just throwing out a competing perspective.
-
Yes they do. Not everything you hear on the news is true. It is supplemental insurance that guarantees them earlier access and over things not covered (Dental, vision, etc....)
Insurance accounts for 10% of Canada's GDP, whereas it accounts for 17% of the US GDP.
The largest reason for the long wait in Canada is because of the severe shortage of Dr's and Nurse's there. Which coincidentally is part of the reason why we have expensive insurance here. Not everyone that wants (and is qualified) gets to be a Doctor. I can't remember who is directly responsible (AMA maybe?) for choosing who qualifies.
Essentially the supply of Doctors is artificially limited in the United States of America.
The number of Doctors is artificially limited to keep Doctors wages high.
The supply of Doctors in the United States of America is limited by the number of places in Medical Schools for Doctors to be trained.
Every year far more qualified students are rejected by Medical Schools than are accepted.
You could easily have ten times as many Doctors Graduated each year if Medical Schools did not severely limit the supply of Doctors.
This would be with no reduction in the quality of students that are accepted to Medical School.
Often due to Political considerations in the United States of America, far less qualified students are accepted to meet affirmative action requirements.
Much better qualified students are rejected and forced to find another profession other than medicine even though they are far better qualified than the affirmative action students that are accepted.
If you had approximately ten times as many openings for Medical Students as you do today, you would not have the anomaly of highly qualified students being rejected and forced to find another profession, while less qualified affirmative action students are accepted and permitted to become doctors.
With far more Doctors you would have much better quality Medical Care at much lower prices bacause of competition.
If you want to get the cost of Medicine down, I recommend that you encourage your Politicians to dramatically increase the number of Doctors Trained each year in the United States of America.
Sounds like protectionism to me and/or monopoly creating (essentially).
(And yes, I know that frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance are a huge factor as well....also insurance costs spiked in the 80's when prescription drugs were allowed to advertise their products on tv/magazines/etc... which created an artificial demand and a huge pressure for doctors to provide drugs that were probably not medically necessary...I don't need to know about every drug on the market, that's what I pay my doctor to know)
-
Uh, the pile of ex-canadians I work with tell me that private health insurance, in any way we'd recognize it in the US, is illegal in Canada. "Nobody should have it better than anyone else".
Regarding the AMA limiting the number of doctors in the US to keep wages high -- agreed 100%. The AMA is a labor union that has the full force of law behind it. Same thing with the Bar association. Naturally the lawyers that write the law write their union into the law of every state. Their doctor friends get the same benefits.
But that has nothing do to with the fundamental lack of choice and lack of performance issues that Canada suffers from. Besides, this thread isn't about canada, and stop pasting shit [and if you're not pasting, stop fucking up your capitalization ;)]
-
I did paste some of the above.....I was trying to find the wording I wanted to use and make sure I had it right....turns out someone else had put down nearly exactly what I wanted to type...so I didn't reinvent the wheel.
-
Grr;282583 wrote:
All i know is that almost every dem up for re-election next year will be defeated by somebody, and that is a great thingUnfortunately, I think you are wrong. I think that some seats will be lost, but not huge numbers.
-
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
Yes they do. Not everything you hear on the news is true. It is supplemental insurance that guarantees them earlier access and over things not covered (Dental, vision, etc....)Insurance accounts for 10% of Canada's GDP, whereas it accounts for 17% of the US GDP.
Who says that is a bad thing?
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
The largest reason for the long wait in Canada is because of the severe shortage of Dr's and Nurse's there. Which coincidentally is part of the reason why we have expensive insurance here. Not everyone that wants (and is qualified) gets to be a Doctor. I can't remember who is directly responsible (AMA maybe?) for choosing who qualifies.Could the shortage of Doctors and Nurses be due to the careers not being appealing as a result of their national health care system?
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
Essentially the supply of Doctors is artificially limited in the United States of America.The number of Doctors is artificially limited to keep Doctors wages high.
Hmm, I thought that there were a limited amount of doctors due to licensing and education. Aw hell, lets let just anybody be a doctor. That can't be a bad idea... er...
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
The supply of Doctors in the United States of America is limited by the number of places in Medical Schools for Doctors to be trained.Every year far more qualified students are rejected by Medical Schools than are accepted.
Proof? And what is the reason that they were rejected?
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
You could easily have ten times as many Doctors Graduated each year if Medical Schools did not severely limit the supply of Doctors.This would be with no reduction in the quality of students that are accepted to Medical School. So the medical schools are to blame for a supposed shortage of doctors which results in higher health care costs?
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
Often due to Political considerations in the United States of America, far less qualified students are accepted to meet affirmative action requirements.Much better qualified students are rejected and forced to find another profession other than medicine even though they are far better qualified than the affirmative action students that are accepted.
I'll agree with you there but affirmative action is a whole 'nother argument.
Trafik Jamz;282760 wrote:
If you had approximately ten times as many openings for Medical Students as you do today, you would not have the anomaly of highly qualified students being rejected and forced to find another profession, while less qualified affirmative action students are accepted and permitted to become doctors.With far more Doctors you would have much better quality Medical Care at much lower prices bacause of competition.
If you want to get the cost of Medicine down, I recommend that you encourage your Politicians to dramatically increase the number of Doctors Trained each year in the United States of America.
Sounds like protectionism to me and/or monopoly creating (essentially).
(And yes, I know that frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance are a huge factor as well....also insurance costs spiked in the 80's when prescription drugs were allowed to advertise their products on tv/magazines/etc... which created an artificial demand and a huge pressure for doctors to provide drugs that were probably not medically necessary...I don't need to know about every drug on the market, that's what I pay my doctor to know)
How about instead you get the fucking politicians out of everything and let the market work?
-
MisterCMK;282899 wrote:
Could the shortage of Doctors and Nurses be due to the careers not being appealing as a result of their national health care system?No, they still set their own rates. It is more due to the unionization of the Dr's not allowing enough Doctors into med school....even if the qualify.
Hmm, I thought that there were a limited amount of doctors due to licensing and education. Aw hell, lets let just anybody be a doctor. That can't be a bad idea... er...
It is more due to the unionization of the Dr's not allowing enough Doctors into med school....even if the qualify. See thrash's response, he pretty well nailed it.
Proof? And what is the reason that they were rejected?
Schools don't need to have a reason to reject you....they just do it...especially undergraduate schools.
So the medical schools are to blame for a supposed shortage of doctors which results in higher health care costs?
In part, yes. Part is due to the AMA.
I'll agree with you there but affirmative action is a whole 'nother argument.
We agreed on something
How about instead you get the fucking politicians out of everything and let the market work?
So are you saying monopolization is a good thing? Do you have any idea how bad our industry would be fucked if SimplexGrinnell/Tyco had free run to just buy up/force out everyone? They already hold a huge market share advantage over any other manufacturer/vendor/service company in this country.
This country DEPENDS on small business to remain a capitalist (as we know it) country. Not Walmart. Not Microsoft.
I'd rather live in a semi-socialist society than one in which the HUGE corporations are the primary employers and primary suppliers of all things...because in all honesty, if it comes down to that, you are basically looking at socialism anyway. Only this time instead of the Gov't/Public owning the businesses you have the businesses owning the Gov't/Public.
Hence my reasoning for saying that (reasonable) rules/regulations are needed on business practices IF we want to keep capitalism in place as we know it.
(Yes, I know we are talking healthcare in this thread, but the statement led me off-track...and no, I am not in favor of Nationalized Health Care, I'm just pointing out the flaws in BOTH systems at present)
-
oh, fwiw, it looks like the current bills aren't even going to get an up/down vote.
-
Monopolies are created by government -- the ultimate monopoly. Explaining that we need government to keep monopoly in check is hillarious. (Except it isn't because so many people keep repeating this)
I never met a regulation I wouldn't mind getting rid of
-
So, you think that competition isn't healthy? And that a corporate bully should be able to effectively buy out/shut down everyone in their path? I don't buy it. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this point, but to make an analogy of what I mean, I'll relate it to driving laws.
I think that restrictions need to be placed on roadways. The regulations that are there are for the safety of everyone on the road. While there is no doubt that an Enzo is certainly capable of speeds far faster than the posted speed limit, and can do them safely because it has the proper safety equipment you still have the safety of those around you to be concerned about. Those who own a 1980's K-car, for example, become rolling chicanes for the faster, more nimble cars which creates a problem for both the Enzo owner and the K-car owner as both will have to make adjustments to how they drive. Whereas by creating a uniform regulation, the cars (In theory) should be able to both handle adequately at posted speed limits.
Your version of this is: Let everyone drive how they want. Eventually either the slower cars will get tired of getting out of the way of the faster cars or the faster cars will all be destroyed....taking out a wake of slower cars in their process. Eventually only cars of one speed capability will exist and the people who used to drive slower cars will be forced to catch a ride with the people in the faster cars in order to get anywhere.
But what happens when the faster cars approach speeds that even they can not sustain and crash?
When that happens....then who drives?
The slow cars are already off the road and their technology is obsolete.
The owners can not afford to resurrect the old cars and make them road worthy again, so we end up with a group of people needing to get places and no one able to take them there.
Now if there were only a speed limit that still allows for swift/safe travel for all....
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login