IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@sstainba,

Quote:

As for physicians quitting... We're already mentioned that several times. That is happening NOW.

So.. where is your evidence to support that statement?

The only stats I can find show we have MORE Drs today than we did 10 years ago.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

Quote:

I didn't respond because it's ridiculous. You want them to charge the exact same price for every-single-person regardless of how ill they are or how expensive. That's not a business model, it's a death sentence. Insurance companies won't do anyone any good once they've been run into the ground by idiotic ideas like that.

Bullshit. Other countries insurance companies do exactly this and they sure don't seem to be going out of business. How do you account for this fact?

You haven't shown why it's idiotic at all, only asserted that it is. That is not convincing. Once again, Insurance companies entire business models are set up around having both patients which cost little-to-nothing, and those who cost more due to illness. The entire point is that the profits of one cover the costs of the other. That's how it works.

The PROBLEM is that it's hard to do that AND maintain ever-growing quarterly profits and share prices, which is all that a lot of insurers care about. I don't care about their profits one bit and if they were to go out of business, they would quickly be replaced with a cheaper and more efficient system administered by our government. There is no downside to what you are talking about whatsoever; unless you are a committed defender of the insurance industry, I suppose, as you seem to be.

Quote:

You're right that a lot of people don't need to see a doctor. Then again, most of them don't need medical attention either. The problem is that they think they are entitled to a doctor. Many patients get pissed if they only see a nurse or a PA. It doesn't matter if it's needed or not, they WANT it. And that's all that seems to matter in this country - I WANT.

Who gives a ****? This is immaterial to the question of rising costs in the new environment. Don't move the goalposts.

Quote:

I haven't swallowed an propaganda. But unlike you, I actually have first-hand knowledge of the health care system and how it works. All of your grand ideas are worth exactly jack **** because you have no clue how the system functions at all now.

Lots of people on the internet assert they have some special knowledge of things. You're hardly the first to do this. It doesn't make their arguments one whit more convincing, since you are basically Appealing to Authority with yourself as an authority. It's a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

If the UHC system is anything like medicare or medicaid is today, it will NOT represent a new revenue stream, it will represent a sinkhole.

Watch it! I don't think Cyclo is setting a trap, but there is a great big difference between revenue and income. There just might be a whole new stream of revenues. It will be accompanied by a great big stream of expenses. The little bookkeeper inside just had to point that out.

There is also an important point to be made about overhead expenses and operating expenses. A money losing patient or insurance plan will help defray the overhead if there is a hole in the doctor's schedule. Too many money losers and you will have great revenues, but end up losing money year after year - till you also lose the business.

1 Reply

@roger,

How dare you point out my traps before others fall into them! Laughing

One thing that hasn't been mentioned by opponents of the HC reform is the mandate; there will be a huge number of new people paying into the coffers of private health care insurers, the majority of which don't have previous conditions or expensive problems. This is yet another reason that pre-existing conditions should not be penalized with exorbitant costs.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

But unlike you, I actually have first-hand knowledge of the health care system and how it works.

Where did you ever made your experiences with health care in a mandatory system?

sstainba wrote:

You're right that a lot of people don't need to see a doctor. Then again, most of them don't need medical attention either. The problem is that they think they are entitled to a doctor. Many patients get pissed if they only see a nurse or a PA. It doesn't matter if it's needed or not, they WANT it. And that's all that seems to matter in this country - I WANT.

Well, nurses aren't allowed here to do physician's job and therefore we don't have PA's, too.
(A difference which is demonstrated in our emergency/accident service: emergency doctors mostly are specialists [anaesthetists, surgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and internists] in emergency medicine. When an ambulance is called in any life-threatening case - such as myocardial infarction or accidents with severe injuries - a specially equipped car manned with a driver and and emergency doctor is send as well. Paid by the insurance companies.)

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I didn't respond because it's ridiculous. You want them to charge the exact same price for every-single-person regardless of how ill they are or how expensive. That's not a business model, it's a death sentence. Insurance companies won't do anyone any good once they've been run into the ground by idiotic ideas like that.

Bullshit. Other countries insurance companies do exactly this and they sure don't seem to be going out of business. How do you account for this fact?

Other countries also aren't at a 64% obesity rate.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You haven't shown why it's idiotic at all, only asserted that it is. That is not convincing. Once again, Insurance companies entire business models are set up around having both patients which cost little-to-nothing, and those who cost more due to illness. The entire point is that the profits of one cover the costs of the other. That's how it works.

You assume that all countries have the same rate of illness which is not true. We have a ridiculously high percentage of fat people, premature births and a host of other issues that other countries can't match. Our population costs more because they are more unhealthy. THAT is why it's idiotic.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The PROBLEM is that it's hard to do that AND maintain ever-growing quarterly profits and share prices, which is all that a lot of insurers care about. I don't care about their profits one bit and if they were to go out of business, they would quickly be replaced with a cheaper and more efficient system administered by our government. There is no downside to what you are talking about whatsoever; unless you are a committed defender of the insurance industry, I suppose, as you seem to be.

Like it or not, it IS a business. A business cannot survive if it can't make money. What on Earth makes you think a government system would be cheaper or efficient? If there is a single thing that our government has shown us over and over, it is that the cost of any given program will FAR exceed the projected costs. I would be interested to know if you could come up with a single example of a large scale government program that actually cost the same or less than we were told it would.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
You're right that a lot of people don't need to see a doctor. Then again, most of them don't need medical attention either. The problem is that they think they are entitled to a doctor. Many patients get pissed if they only see a nurse or a PA. It doesn't matter if it's needed or not, they WANT it. And that's all that seems to matter in this country - I WANT.

Who gives a ****? This is immaterial to the question of rising costs in the new environment. Don't move the goalposts.

Ah... and see, this is why it pisses me off that you make all these dumb comments. In theory, I would agree with you - but this is reality. The PATIENTS give a ****. The HOSPITALS give a ****. Patient Satisfaction is just about the only thing that matters to most hospitals nowadays. And you don't get high scores by pissing off the patients.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I haven't swallowed an propaganda. But unlike you, I actually have first-hand knowledge of the health care system and how it works. All of your grand ideas are worth exactly jack **** because you have no clue how the system functions at all now.

Lots of people on the internet assert they have some special knowledge of things. You're hardly the first to do this. It doesn't make their arguments one whit more convincing, since you are basically Appealing to Authority with yourself as an authority. It's a logical fallacy.

Cycloptichorn

Fallacy or not, it's still true. You are making all sorts of comments and generalizations about a system of which you have just about no understanding. You don't know anything about the details of how things work.

3 Replies

@sstainba,

Quote:

What on Earth makes you think a government system would be cheaper or efficient?

Oh, perhaps the fact that other countries' governmental systems are all cheaper and more efficient than our for-profit system, and the fact that many studies have shown that a single-payer system in America would be cheaper and more efficient. Yaknow. Real-world examples and logical projections and stuff like that. I know that this isn't as strong evidence in your mind as your unsourced assertions, but hey.

Quote:

Ah... and see, this is why it pisses me off that you make all these dumb comments. In theory, I would agree with you - but this is reality. The PATIENTS give a ****. The HOSPITALS give a ****. Patient Satisfaction is just about the only thing that matters to most hospitals nowadays. And you don't get high scores by pissing off the patients.

Yeah, people used to get all huffy when they had to pump their own gas, too. Then times changed, the economics of the business changed and society changed with it. Your insistence that this is not possible is not reflected by reality.

Quote:

Fallacy or not, it's still true.

The entire point of a fallacy is that it isn't true. Did you really have to have that explained to you? Laughing

Anyway, rather then go around the bend with you more on this, I'll just state that I'm happy that the HC reform looks closer to passage now then at any time this year, which is a very positive thing for America indeed.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@sstainba,

Forgot to add this part-

Quote:

Other countries also aren't at a 64% obesity rate.

You're right about that, but then again, neither are we.

Quote:

About 34% of U.S. adults " almost 73 million people " were obese (roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight) in 2008, up from 31% in 1999.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-01-13-obesity-rates_N.htm

Don't feel bad though, you were only off by about double Laughing

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
What on Earth makes you think a government system would be cheaper or efficient?

Oh, perhaps the fact that other countries' governmental systems are all cheaper and more efficient than our for-profit system, and the fact that many studies have shown that a single-payer system in America would be cheaper and more efficient. Yaknow. Real-world examples and logical projections and stuff like that. I know that this isn't as strong evidence in your mind as your unsourced assertions, but hey.

Yes yes yes... other countries. Not this country. As I mentioned before, other countries don't have the degree of chronic illness that we do either. I guess you don't see that it matters though.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Ah... and see, this is why it pisses me off that you make all these dumb comments. In theory, I would agree with you - but this is reality. The PATIENTS give a ****. The HOSPITALS give a ****. Patient Satisfaction is just about the only thing that matters to most hospitals nowadays. And you don't get high scores by pissing off the patients.

Yeah, people used to get all huffy when they had to pump their own gas, too. Then times changed, the economics of the business changed and society changed with it. Your insistence that this is not possible is not reflected by reality.

I don't think you read anything I say. I never said it wasn't possible. But what YOU would have happen, would only make things worse.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Fallacy or not, it's still true.

The entire point of a fallacy is that it isn't true. Did you really have to have that explained to you?

Yeah, I suppose that could have been worded better. The point was that you can call it a logical fallacy if you like, but the fact remains that you are critiquing a system about which you know nothing. That's really easy when you don't actually have to consider the details or the actual effects if would have in the real world.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't feel bad. The rate of obesity in this country is incredible. The point is still valid.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cyclo-- are you arguing for a National Health Service on the UK model or not? Is Mr Obama arguing for that or not?

With lessons learned from our mistakes.

If not you're tinkering on the margins. It's a gut issue. As it is expert spokespersons from both sides will argue for ever.

1 Reply

@sstainba,

Quote:

Yeah, I suppose that could have been worded better. The point was that you can call it a logical fallacy if you like, but the fact remains that you are critiquing a system about which you know nothing. That's really easy when you don't actually have to consider the details or the actual effects if would have in the real world.

Well, we only have your assertion that I 'know nothing' about our system. On the other hand, there is the fact that I am someone who has lived in America all my life and used said system; what more, I've been studying it for years as part of my overall political education and knowledge. So perhaps you would admit that you are exaggerating somewhat when you state that I know nothing about our health care system, or the effects that changes would have in the real-world?

Certainly there's no reason that anyone would think you would know more about how it works. At least, you haven't displayed anything here that would lead people to that belief. Why do you assert that you are so much better at predicting the future outcome of events then others? What special knowledge do you possess that allows you to make better predictions then others?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Cyclo-- are you arguing for a National Health Service on the UK model or not? Is Mr Obama arguing for that or not?

With lessons learned from our mistakes.

If not you're tinkering on the margins. It's a gut issue. As it is expert spokespersons from both sides will argue for ever.

I would argue for exactly that, but I would settle for incremental change to bring that about. I have said before that you and I are in complete agreement on this issue - and this issue only Laughing

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@sstainba,

sstainba wrote:

I don't feel bad. The rate of obesity in this country is incredible. The point is still valid.

Yeah, I'm going to go with: not so much. You were off by an incredible amount. This robs validity from your point whether you admit it or not.

The UK for example has an obesity rate about 7% lower then ours; yet they seem to run their NHS without the dire consequences that you predict. How is that possible?

You are correct, though; we are a nation of fatasses. However, I don't see how LESS access to health care will help this, which is what you seem to be positing.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

spendius wrote:

Cyclo-- are you arguing for a National Health Service on the UK model or not? Is Mr Obama arguing for that or not?

With lessons learned from our mistakes.

If not you're tinkering on the margins. It's a gut issue. As it is expert spokespersons from both sides will argue for ever.

I would argue for exactly that, but I would settle for incremental change to bring that about. I have said before that you and I are in complete agreement on this issue - and this issue only

Cycloptichorn

I have a question: How is this bill going to get us anywhere closer to the stated goal? The main problem in our system is insurance companies. They are ******* us every which way but loose. If we could get rid of those fuckers, we'd be on our way to a better system. But just regulating the scum that sucks us dry, without a public option, isn't in any way an increment leading to that. Or is it?

2 Replies

It looks right now like a toss up on votes to pass the Senate HC bill in the House of Representatives.

Between discruntled progressives in the House; Democrat representatives opposed to the abortion language in the Senate Bill ; and other politically vulnerable and timid Democrat representatives, passage in the House is by no means a sure thing. Speaker Pelosi's announcement today that the House will not meet the President's proposed "deadline" is a clear indicator.

Another factor that may influence some members of the House is that they will have to first vote on the unmodified Senate Bill, with all its unsavory payoffs, and then trust the Senate and the reconciliation process to remove the opectionable provisions from it. There are complex parliamentary rules that limit what can be done by means of this procedure, and many opportunities for the, now very united, Republicans to delay and limit the action on the Senate floor.

I give this effort a 50% chance at best (though I am sticking to my prediction that the effort will fail).

Finally if this ill-conceived monstrosity does get through, the Republicans will be easily be able to prevent any subsequent modifications until after the November elections. The next Congress will involve significantly increased Republican strength in both Houses, and that will severely limited the promised/threatened expansion of the progran in follow on legislation. The Democrats will be left with a piece of legislation that will bring instant increased in existing health care insurance costs for everyone and numerous new taxes and fees - but no new benefits for several years. This apparently once looked like a clever way to manipulate the CBO estimated 10 year deficit effect. However, in practice it could bring about further erosion in already weak public support for the government takeover of our health care system and the party that created it. Democrat strategists may have outsmarted themselves on this one. Pity.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I'm still quite sure that the House will not sink their chances this November by letting the bill die. There is absolutely no reason for them to do so, as it guarantees their loss.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I would argue for exactly that, but I would settle for incremental change to bring that about. I have said before that you and I are in complete agreement on this issue - and this issue only

We are not in complete agreement Cyclo. Nowhere near. I'm for doing it. You are for piss-balling about in order to sound compassionate without any risk of it actually happening. "Incremental change" my arse. An inch per election. Some use that is to however many there are with no insurance and to however many there are with iffy insurance which is okay for getting a speck out of the eye but might go tits-up for a lifetime of serious need at your labour rates.

It seems to me that whilever you have the system you have China can laugh at your human rights pronouncements and are quite justified in claiming they are bullshit. Which I feel sure they do in private.

1 Reply

@kickycan,

I agree with kicky. Or at least up to his last three words. I have no doubt.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
I would argue for exactly that, but I would settle for incremental change to bring that about. I have said before that you and I are in complete agreement on this issue - and this issue only

We are not in complete agreement Cyclo. Nowhere near. I'm for doing it. You are for piss-balling about in order to sound compassionate without any risk of it actually happening. "Incremental change" my arse. An inch per election. Some use that is to however many there are with no insurance and to however many there are with iffy insurance which is okay for getting a speck out of the eye but might go tits-up for a lifetime of serious need at your labour rates.

It seems to me that whilever you have the system you have China can laugh at your human rights pronouncements and are quite justified in claiming they are bullshit. Which I feel sure they do in private.

I would personally vote for and support a nationalized universal health-care system, whether it be Single Payer or a complete socialized system like the NHS. I would support candidates that pushed for this.

BUT; it ain't going to happen right now, too many right-wingers in this country would faint at the very thought, and I'll SETTLE for whatever reform I can get.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know