The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

0 Replies

Well, I know and knew some doctors, perhaps more than most here.
Among those, some more greedy.

But as you said, not by definition.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

Of course most of the individual doctors are not greedy.....but the health insurance companies are legally bound to be greedy.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

No one is saying the doctors shouldn't be paid... in fact the question here is how should the doctors be paid-- so this is a silly point you are making.

There are many doctors who are in favor of a single payer health care system. The reason for this is that a doctor (even though they should be paid) is supposed to put the needs of her patients first.

When I went to buy a cell phone I was helped by a sales person. I walked in knowing that this sales person was on commission... and that her sole purpose was to get me to spend as much money as possible. I didn't expect her to care about my budget... or to care about whether I needed a phone... or even to care if this phone was good for me.

This cell phone sales person was helpful only because it would mean more money for her. I understood this relationship and was fine with this.

But I don't want this type of relationship with my doctor.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

okie wrote:
Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

No one is saying the doctors shouldn't be paid... in fact the question here is how should the doctors be paid-- so this is a silly point you are making.

This is not a silly point. It is one of the most basic points and simplest points of understanding basic economics and how we relate to each other in this world every day.

Quote:

There are many doctors who are in favor of a single payer health care system. The reason for this is that a doctor (even though they should be paid) is supposed to put the needs of her patients first.

Important point here. If the patient pays them directly or through their insurance company, or if the government pays them, who do you think the doctor is going to care more about, the government or the patient? We generally are responsible to those people that pay us. This is crucial and I think a very important factor. I could cite many examples of this effect, but you should be able to think of many yourself.

I would submit to the fact that some doctors would still care about the patient to an extent, but the government pay system applies more tendency and economic pressure to simply please the government, if the government pays everything. In fact, pleasing the government would be mandatory whether the doctor wanted to or not, even if it is not in the best interest of the patient.

Quote:

When I went to buy a cell phone I was helped by a sales person. I walked in knowing that this sales person was on commission... and that her sole purpose was to get me to spend as much money as possible. I didn't expect her to care about my budget... or to care about whether I needed a phone... or even to care if this phone was good for me.

This cell phone sales person was helpful only because it would mean more money for her. I understood this relationship and was fine with this.

But I don't want this type of relationship with my doctor.

You are simply making my argument. A doctor paid by the government would be more akin to a salesman on commission. If they can convince anyone you are sick, and perhaps even order tests that are not necessary, they can make more money, whether you benefit or not. If the doctor is paid directly by you or your representative, such as an insurance company, the doctor tends to be more responsive to you and the people that are looking out after your interests. In cotnrast, the government, or bureaucrats, do not care about you personally, and probably never will.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

okie wrote:
Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

Of course most of the individual doctors are not greedy.....but the health insurance companies are legally bound to be greedy.

Another patently ridiculous statement. Where do you people learn this stuff, in college nowadays?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:
okie wrote:
Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

Of course most of the individual doctors are not greedy.....but the health insurance companies are legally bound to be greedy.

Another patently ridiculous statement. Where do you people learn this stuff, in college nowadays?

Please tell me how I'm wrong. Health Insurance companies (at least the publically owned ones) ARE legally bound to work in the best interest of the shareholders...meaning they are requried to make as much money as possible (i.e. GREED). They are only operating in the interest of the patients in the interest of keeping them paying their policies, not medically.

Instead of me taking your word that this is a 'rediculous statement' please explain to me how that is.

0 Replies

No need to be rude to maporsche, okie. Insurance companies are private corporations that are accountable to their shareholders to make as high a profit as possible. That is the perfectly reasonable point she is making.

Quote:

If the doctor is paid directly by you or your representative, such as an insurance company, the doctor tends to be more responsive to you and the people that are looking out after your interests.

This is what I think is your strongest point (and well stated).

The question is whether doctors should be motivated by their pay.

My assumption is that doctors should be motivated by a sense of care for their patients, professionalism and duty. They should be paid decently... but profits should not be their motivation.

I agree with maporsche that one of the problems with private insurance is that private corporations exist to make a profit. There is nothing wrong with this if the product is cell phones... this is a problem when the product is public health or patient care.

There are clear examples of decisions that insurance companies have taken that have been against the interests of their patients.

But, if doctors can only be motivated by money... then your argument is correct-- and we should all have our hands on the purse strings to force our doctors to treat us as we want to be treated.

Again... this kind of relationship if fine with my phone company.

I am not comfortable with this type of relationship with my doctor.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

okie wrote:
maporsche wrote:
okie wrote:
Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

Of course most of the individual doctors are not greedy.....but the health insurance companies are legally bound to be greedy.

Another patently ridiculous statement. Where do you people learn this stuff, in college nowadays?

Please tell me how I'm wrong. Health Insurance companies (at least the publically owned ones) ARE legally bound to work in the best interest of the shareholders...meaning they are requried to make as much money as possible (i.e. GREED). They are only operating in the interest of the patients in the interest of keeping them paying their policies, not medically.

Instead of me taking your word that this is a 'rediculous statement' please explain to me how that is.

If I am being rude, as ebrown says, I apologize, but I said it was a ridiculous statement, and I did not call you ridiculous. To suggest that health insurance companies are greedy makes no more sense than to suggest that the local roofing company is greedy, or the local pet groomer is greedy, or that your expectation to be paid for going to work every day is greedy. I repeat, it is patently ridiculous, and is a commonly stated mantra put out there constantly by liberals and leftists. I don't buy it and I suggest nobody needs to buy it, and all you need to do is simply put a little thought into the subject instead of repeating a line that you have probably been fed somewhere, perhaps in college, or in the media, or whatever.

Insurance companies provide a useful service, and they compete for your business on the open market, so the service they provide is competitive and fair, according to how their customers value their services, as compared to other companies offering the same service. It is no more greedy than you trying to make as much money per hour at a job as you can, so that you can live better. Is that greed? No, not in my opinion. Anybody's work could be driven by part greed, but at least their are checks and balances in the free market that limit extreme greed. Another description of greed is self interest, and in the free market, self interest is limited by the need and absolute requirement to please the customer by providing the best product possible for the price. If you don't, you go out of business, and businesses fail constantly, every day, so it is a constant process of cleansing the system of bad apples, or at least retaining the best ones. Unfortunately, the government and bureaucrats do not have the same curbs on their greed for power and profit.

0 Replies

okie, have you ever worked for an insurance company?

~~~

I've been working with and for insurers for 25 years now. It's about the money. That's it. That's all.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:
okie wrote:
maporsche wrote:
okie wrote:
Good, I'm glad. So doctors that happen to be paid for the services rendered are not by definition, greedy. Now I hope that point is established. Carry on.

Of course most of the individual doctors are not greedy.....but the health insurance companies are legally bound to be greedy.

Another patently ridiculous statement. Where do you people learn this stuff, in college nowadays?

Please tell me how I'm wrong. Health Insurance companies (at least the publically owned ones) ARE legally bound to work in the best interest of the shareholders...meaning they are requried to make as much money as possible (i.e. GREED). They are only operating in the interest of the patients in the interest of keeping them paying their policies, not medically.

Instead of me taking your word that this is a 'rediculous statement' please explain to me how that is.

If I am being rude, as ebrown says, I apologize, but I said it was a ridiculous statement, and I did not call you ridiculous. To suggest that health insurance companies are greedy makes no more sense than to suggest that the local roofing company is greedy, or the local pet groomer is greedy, or that your expectation to be paid for going to work every day is greedy. I repeat, it is patently ridiculous, and is a commonly stated mantra put out there constantly by liberals and leftists. I don't buy it and I suggest nobody needs to buy it, and all you need to do is simply put a little thought into the subject instead of repeating a line that you have probably been fed somewhere, perhaps in college, or in the media, or whatever.

Insurance companies provide a useful service, and they compete for your business on the open market, so the service they provide is competitive and fair, according to how their customers value their services, as compared to other companies offering the same service. It is no more greedy than you trying to make as much money per hour at a job as you can, so that you can live better. Is that greed? No, not in my opinion. Anybody's work could be driven by part greed, but at least their are checks and balances in the free market that limit extreme greed. Another description of greed is self interest, and in the free market, self interest is limited by the need and absolute requirement to please the customer by providing the best product possible for the price. If you don't, you go out of business, and businesses fail constantly, every day, so it is a constant process of cleansing the system of bad apples, or at least retaining the best ones. Unfortunately, the government and bureaucrats do not have the same curbs on their greed for power and profit.

Do you know what Due Dilligence is?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ehBeth, insurance companies are not my favorite sector of businesses, I admit to that, but they still have to be responsive to the market. It is about money, yes, but service and customer satisfaction are a large part of making money in the long run. You might emphasize the bottom line at the expense of the customer for a while, but eventually I think it spells disaster for a company. Bottom line is all important, however, the customer is still the most important asset of any insurance company over the long term. And if the company does not make money, it cannot pay out claims, so making money is part of overall customer service and longterm confidence by the customer. If a customer has no confidence that their insurance company is financially sound and might not be around tomorrow, they would not want them as their insurer.

I can cite one example. Take Hurricane Katrina, the insurance companies all tried to be the first on the scene to service their customers in the aftermath, as they knew this was crucial to pleasing the customer. Their was a huge bit of planning and decisions made in this regard by insurance companies to be responsive. Not quite so true for government entities, especially local and state government in their responsibility to prevent deaths in the path of the storm. It was FEMA's reponsibility to help the cleanup, which they have done, but not as responsively as the service provided by insurance companies, but this is not a surprise. This is normal and expected.

0 Replies

okie - if an unregulated free market model would be the best way to institute a health care system - wouldn't you think that more countries would choose to drop their mandatory health insurance systems and adapt that model? And wouldn't you think that the American model should work better than any of the other systems that provide universal health care?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie - if an unregulated free market model would be the best way to institute a health care system - wouldn't you think that more countries would choose to drop their mandatory health insurance systems and adapt that model? And wouldn't you think that the American model should work better than any of the other systems that provide universal health care?

OE, he thinks it does work better than all other government healthcare options.

This point will not convince him, as he disagrees with it already.

0 Replies

I think it does work better, but I think it can be improved, not by abandoning the current system, but by tweaking it.

0 Replies

Okie,

One problem with your point of view is that everyone needs health insurance.

In business there are "good" customers, and there are "bad" customers. You need to be very attentive to "good" customers... but customers who aren't so important to the business plan of the company can be ignored or dropped.

This is why in health care, we should be considered patients... not customers.

Customers are at a disadvantage when dealing with health insurance in several ways.

First, as soon as you get a long-term sickness you become a "bad" customer. This means that you are stuck with your current insurance provider (since no other company wants a sick "customer"). This also means that your insurance company doesn't need to treat you so well.

Second, when you are well... the insurance company is worried about making you "happy"... not about making you well. Everything they do will be about making more sales. This means that the popular decisions that will make a splash and look good in commercials will take place. This means that the things that they could do to improve general health... that don't look good on TV won't get done.

The best health care system will be run by people whose primary motivation is health-- not sales.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think it does work better, but I think it can be improved, not by abandoning the current system, but by tweaking it.

What do you base your opinion on? Have you been looking at data comparing different models?

0 Replies

I often wonder why so many doctors choose to go into specialty practices that emphasize elective surgery. You know plastic surgery, and the like.

Very few, if any insurance companies will cover elective surgery, yet those doctors do a nice, healthy practice. Is it because they care about the patients?

I also wonder if people like ebrown want health insurance to not only be socialized, but mandatory? Will people HAVE to sign up for health insurance whether they want it or not? Will rich people be stuck paying more taxes to make up for the poor who can not afford to be taxed to pay for nationalized health insurance?

What will happen to the thousands of people currently working for insurance companies? Will they be out of work? Will the government jobs require a civil service exam to work customer service? Will they pay employees as much as private insurance companies do?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I often wonder why so many doctors choose to go into specialty practices that emphasize elective surgery. You know plastic surgery, and the like.

Very few, if any insurance companies will cover elective surgery, yet those doctors do a nice, healthy practice. Is it because they care about the patients?

You said it: it's elective. If you don't have the money, you don't get plastic surgery. If you don't have the money to buy a car, you don't get a car.

But chances are you'll still need health care at one point in your life - even if you can't afford it.

McGentrix wrote:

I also wonder if people like ebrown want health insurance to not only be socialized, but mandatory?

What, exactly, do you mean by "socialized health insurance?" Is that the same as universal health care?

McGentrix wrote:

Will people HAVE to sign up for health insurance whether they want it or not? Will rich people be stuck paying more taxes to make up for the poor who can not afford to be taxed to pay for nationalized health insurance?

Well, you're already facing that dilemma. People can go to the emergency room, without having paid into health insurance. The resulting costs will be charged to other people who do pay into health insurance.

There are two solutions to this problem:

- don't treat people who don't have health insurance/don't pay for treatment at all
- make everybody pay into health insurance in the first place

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie - if an unregulated free market model would be the best way to institute a health care system - wouldn't you think that more countries would choose to drop their mandatory health insurance systems and adapt that model? And wouldn't you think that the American model should work better than any of the other systems that provide universal health care?

OE, he thinks it does work better than all other government healthcare options.

This point will not convince him, as he disagrees with it already.

Well. I think if the USA are ever to institute universal health care, it won't be a single payer system. And frankly, I don't really see the need for that. Many countries have realised universal health care systems by regulating a privately run system rather than by transforming it into a government run system.

0 Replies

The Government In Charge of Our Entire Health-Care System?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know