IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Like it or not, Cyclo, medcine and health care are FAR more complicated and "gray" than you either understand or are willing to admit.

See Walter's response. They do it in other countries, and they still have doctors and health care.

Your response basically boils down to 'the doctors don't want this.' Tough titty.

Cycloptichorn

Did you ever consider the fact that he could be talking about something specific?

Your comment like this are so irritating. You have such a poor understanding of health care and yet seem to think you have all the answers.

So suppose you are a physician (we're pretending here...) and you have a patient that comes in again for "back pain." Here other doctor prescribed her percocet (because she's allergic to tylenol, advil and naprexen) but she has lost her meds and she is here from out of town. Oh no! So she really wants a scrpit for 30x10mg percocet...

What would you do? Prescribe them or tell her no?

That's a completely different situation; the doctor is allowed to use his best judgment when prescribing medicine, and has several different options in this case.

My main point is that under a Universal system, doctors would not be allowed to turn people who use the universal system of payment based upon their system of payment. You can make it illegal to discriminate based upon method of payment.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Miller:
Don't forget, that there are many, many MDs who will not take Medicare or Medicaid insurance and in fact, some will take nothing but cash.

Have you ever wondered how an American physician can see 50-100 patients in a single day??

Me:
They won't be allowed to do this any longer.

I specifically said that doctors will not be allowed to refuse to take patients based upon their method of payment, IE Medicare or Medicaid.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I specifically said that doctors will not be allowed to refuse to take patients based upon their method of payment, IE Medicare or Medicaid.

Cycloptichorn

I hope this does not come to pass. It would be a clear violation of the right of doctors to freely contract with patients and set a price for their services. I doubt that such a requirement in the law would survive the first constitutional challenge brought against it.

I can imagine a scheme in which the law is written so that if a doctor accepts ANY medicare patients, he forgoes the right to deny service to others, based solely on price. However such a requirement would be meaningless and probably unenforceable, given the impossibility of determining just what was the motivation of the physician.

There is precedent; I'm almost 100% positive that it is illegal to discriminate on major purposes based upon the form of payment.

So, for example, a car dealership cannot discriminate against customers who wish to pay with cash or a credit card, instead of getting a lease - which is where they make their money. Same principle.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is precedent; I'm almost 100% positive that it is illegal to discriminate on major purposes based upon the form of payment.

So, for example, a car dealership cannot discriminate against customers who wish to pay with cash or a credit card, instead of getting a lease - which is where they make their money. Same principle.

Cycloptichorn

I'm quite sure that if you check the facts you will see that you are wrong. Credit cards extract a certain percentage of the sale from the seller as a service fee. Sellers of goods and services are entirely free to refuse to accept them and the forced payment they entail. The only form of payment that, by law, must be accepted as payment ("legal tender") for debts is cash = U.S. currency.

I'm quite sure that if you check the facts you will see that you are wrong. Credit cards extract a certain percentage of the sale from the seller as a service fee. Sellers of goods and services are entirely free to refuse to accept them and the forced payment they entail. The only form of payment that, by law, must be accepted as payment ("legal tender") for debts is cash = U.S. currency.

I hope this does not come to pass. It would be a clear violation of the right of doctors to freely contract with patients and set a price for their services.

In France it is an offence not to offer aid to a stricken person when it is deemed possible that such aid would not unduly place the rescuer at undue risk to life or limb.

A doctor has no rights when it comes to a stricken person other than self preservation.

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

George wrote-

Quote:

I hope this does not come to pass. It would be a clear violation of the right of doctors to freely contract with patients and set a price for their services.

In France it is an offence not to offer aid to a stricken person when it is deemed possible that such aid would not unduly place the rescuer at undue risk to life or limb.

Money is not considered to represent such a risk in France as husband beating is relatively rare there.

A doctor has no rights when it comes to a stricken person other than self preservation.

What happens in France if the Good Samaratan inadvertantly harms the victim in his inexpert attempt to render aid? Is he liable for the injury?

spendius wrote:

A doctor has no rights when it comes to a stricken person other than self preservation.
Is that a statement of your personal moral views, or is it the law in the UK???

The incidence of doctors attempting to blow up airports is also a good deal less here than in the UK.

Many doctors here are also businessmen. The two are by no means mutually exclusive.

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There is precedent; I'm almost 100% positive that it is illegal to discriminate on major purposes based upon the form of payment.

So, for example, a car dealership cannot discriminate against customers who wish to pay with cash or a credit card, instead of getting a lease - which is where they make their money. Same principle.

Cycloptichorn

I'm quite sure that if you check the facts you will see that you are wrong. Credit cards extract a certain percentage of the sale from the seller as a service fee. Sellers of goods and services are entirely free to refuse to accept them and the forced payment they entail. The only form of payment that, by law, must be accepted as payment ("legal tender") for debts is cash = U.S. currency.

Hmm, I'll have to look into it, but I swear that I remember this exact case being settled a while back...

Cycloptichorn

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

Miller wrote:

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

I thought that Aleeve was Percocet at half strength.

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

Miller wrote:

Percocet consists of acetaminophen + oxycodone

Tylenol is the Brand name for acetaminophen.

So...if the patient is allergic to tylenol, why would anyone with a brain Rx Percocet to the patient?

Also, this is classified as a CII drug and as such in most if not all up-to-date States of the United States, each and every pruchase of this Rx by an individual within a specific State would be red flagged in the State's central pharmacy computer.

The MDs then Rxing the med would be contacted
and legal action then initiated.

Oh... and about the schedule two drugs... Central computer?