Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE., just because everyone else does it...
Rating 4 V
Uronacid
post Sep 2 2009, 08:20 AM
Post #26


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 1 2009, 05:47 PM) *
p.s. the issue is finding a healthcare system that is best for everyone, and best for the country. that's the primary concern. not whether or not we have to raise taxes. personally, i have enough dedication to this country to want to see my taxes raised for a good cause. we are a society, a unit, a civilization that is designed to function together towards progress. it's good that we have a public school system, so that everyone has the opportunity to be educated. it's good that we have roads so that transportation can be made possible. it's good that we have a military so that our country can be defended. IF YOU PUT THE INDIVIDUAL BEFORE THE SOCIETY YOU LOSE ALL OF THIS. so the question is this: is the moral precedent so great that you would not collect taxes in order to give everyone a free public education? would you not collect taxes to build roads? would you not collect taxes to defend your homeland? would you not collect taxes to make your country healthier & happier?


Our public school system is FUBAR. I think we spend a bit too much considering the children who attend public school in other countries have better grades than we do. We could lower taxes here and still have the same "quality education".
Roads are necessary. Don't mind paying for it.
Military is necessary. Don't mind paying for it.

Anyway, you can also argue that putting health care in the government's hands is bad for society. The addition of a public option will destroy competition in the health system via the public options unfair competitive advantages. Investors will not invest their money in things that don't lead to a profit. If competition is removed then the strive for better health practices and technology through research will be slowed down due to a lack of private investors. After all, it is through health insurance that these industries get paid.

Yes, we pay more for our health care than other countries, but our health practices is also far more advanced than in other countries. People travel from all over the world to receive medical treatment in America for that very reason. In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.
 
drinksmokefuck
post Sep 2 2009, 06:38 PM
Post #27


Senior Member
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 820
Joined: Jun 2009
Member No: 733,315



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 2 2009, 09:20 PM) *
In the future, we will have a healthier America if we continue to support a private health care system.

You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM
Post #28


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 2 2009, 07:38 PM) *
You mean for the people that can afford it, but other than that, you're right, healthcare will go to shits, or we could both be wrong and every private health insurer decides to go all superman and trys to out perform one another.


Most people in America can afford it. Health insurers do try to out preform one another. That's the whole purpose of the competitive market. Businesses switch health insurers all the time to lower their rate.

Also, I want to make it very clear that I don't think our health care system is perfect. I definitely be leave that there are certain areas where the consumer is being taken advantage of. Mal-practice insurance for doctors is ridiculously high. People are robbed by price of prescriptions. These are major contributing factors to the price of insurance.
 
mipadi
post Sep 3 2009, 09:26 AM
Post #29


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 08:29 AM) *
Most people in America can afford it.


Insurance doesn't do any good if you can't afford the actual health procedures. Just because you're insured, doesn't mean that your health insurance company will actually pay anything. There're a lot of cases of people being suddenly dropped from insurance because they file for cancer treatment or another expensive procedure. There are also a lot of cases in which people are denied a claim and have to pay for a procedure on their own, even though they have insurance. And insurance companies don't usually cover potentially life-saving operations that they determine to be "experimental".

In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.

Hm. Did I just suggest that "health rationing" already takes place in America?
 
superstitious
post Sep 3 2009, 09:39 AM
Post #30


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 07:29 AM) *
Most people in America can afford it.

As someone who works in the health care industry, I strongly disagree. There are other industries that have affordable health care, like education based employers but for the most part, health benefit premiums are continuing to climb. That doesn't even take into consideration that points that Michael has brought up, regarding the procedure related services which could range anywhere from E&M (evaluation and management) visits to specialty visits.

There's also that nasty little "pre-condition/pre-cert" snag. Meaning, if you've been diagnosed with a chronic illness and you lose your job (and any benefits associated with that job), you're screwed. Sure you can attempt a non break in health insurance coverage to try to avoid being denied private insurance for pre-condition reasons, but you'd have to take out COBRA, which is absurdly expensive.

 
mipadi
post Sep 3 2009, 09:49 AM
Post #31


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(superstitious @ Sep 3 2009, 10:39 AM) *
There's also that nasty little "pre-condition/pre-cert" snag. Meaning, if you've been diagnosed with a chronic illness and you lose your job (and any benefits associated with that job), you're screwed. Sure you can attempt a non break in health insurance coverage to try to avoid being denied private insurance for pre-condition reasons, but you'd have to take out COBRA, which is absurdly expensive.


This brings up another point I wanted to make: Not only can insurance outside of employers' benefits be expensive, but there's no guarantee you'll even get it. A friend of mine graduated from college in '06, and didn't get a job that offered health insurance right away, so she had to purchase insurance on her own. She's a pretty healthy individual, but she has a chronic intestinal disease (Crohn's disease, I believe) that requires constant treatment. Needless to stay, no insurance provider would pick her up as a customer, even though she was otherwise healthy -- at least not at a fair, affordable rate.

So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.
 
superstitious
post Sep 3 2009, 10:01 AM
Post #32


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 09:49 AM) *
This brings up another point I wanted to make: Not only can insurance outside of employers' benefits be expensive, but there's no guarantee you'll even get it. A friend of mine graduated from college in '06, and didn't get a job that offered health insurance right away, so she had to purchase insurance on her own. She's a pretty healthy individual, but she has a chronic intestinal disease (Crohn's disease, I believe) that requires constant treatment. Needless to stay, no insurance provider would pick her up as a customer, even though she was otherwise healthy -- at least not at a fair, affordable rate.

So even if you can afford health insurance, you can't always get it.

I see situations like that far too often, especially with diabetes mellitus related diagnoses and there are ton of sub diagnoses to go along with DM (including retinopathy, polyneuropathy, vascular disease and so on). Better hope you can control your disease with diet and supplements because affording insulin without insurance is next to impossible for the average income earner.

Also, Crohn's management is tricky. I don't envy your friend's situation, at all.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 3 2009, 01:11 PM
Post #33


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 10:26 AM) *
In short, affording health insurance doesn't mean anything if the insurance company doesn't pony up the dough when you actually need it.


I don't understand why you might think government won't operate in a similar fashion? Currently the Gov't offers Medicare (which is going bankrupt). Also, many doctor's don't even accept medicare gov't doesn't pay as much and the paperwork is a bitch. In many cases, it just doesn't cover their operating costs.

Again, I don't think our system is perfect. I might believe it's among the best, but that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement. To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic. There are people out there that clearly need help, but giving control over to the gov't is not the way to solve this. I've seen a few different ideas thrown around. A few things that would reduce the bill:
  • Tort Reform to lower malpractice insurance
  • Group Insurance Plans to lower insurance premiums
  • Insurance Accounts that allow you to choose a carrier and stay with you from job to job
  • Make all medical expenses tax deductible
  • The list goes on...

There are plenty of ways to reduce the cost of Health Insurance without handing it over to the gov't.

 
mipadi
post Sep 3 2009, 01:24 PM
Post #34


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:11 PM) *
I don't understand what makes you think government won't operate in a similar fashion?


Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.

QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:11 PM) *
To expect the gov't to do a better job is ridiculous. The gov't is so unreliable it's pathetic.


And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 3 2009, 01:48 PM
Post #35


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 02:24 PM) *
Perhaps it will -- although I trust the government more than an insurance company. An insurance company can maximize profits when it takes in payments but doesn't pay for coverage; since a company's goal is to maximize profits, an insurance has a vested interest in denying coverage whenever possible.


The gov't doesn't have an endless supply of income either. The gov't will have the right to deny claims as well.

QUOTE
And insurance companies are any more reliable? You never know when an insurance company is going to deny a claim for arbitrary reasons.


And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.
 
mipadi
post Sep 3 2009, 02:02 PM
Post #36


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(Uronacid @ Sep 3 2009, 02:48 PM) *
And you never know when the govt's going to do it either. I'm not saying change shouldn't happen. There definitely needs to be change, however handing control over to the gov't is NOT the solution. Handing health care over to the gov't is a temporary fix that will result in big financial problems.

So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?

Anyway, aside from the feasibility and pros/cons of an entirely private, entirely public, or hybrid ("public option") plan, I think there was a really good point brought up by Nate that's hardly been discussed (I suspect mostly because it's not as easy to debate as the economics of various insurance plans), and that's the social morals of health care. Don't we, as a society, have a moral obligation to take care of our sick? Don't we have a moral obligation to help one another? That is the whole point of society. You can go back to the origins of the social contract theory for this idea. I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.
 
superstitious
post Sep 3 2009, 02:38 PM
Post #37


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 3 2009, 02:02 PM) *
So how do you suggest we make health care affordable for all Americans?

Here's one idea - stop the gratuitous spending by means of "overuse".

QUOTE
Overuse. Overuse occurs when a service is provided even though its risk of harm
exceeds its likely benefit—that is, when it is not warranted on medical grounds. A
more expansive definition would include cases in which the added costs of a more
expensive service did not exceed the added benefits it was expected to provide. A
number of studies have found, on the basis of after-the-fact reviews by independent
panels of doctors, that a sizable share of certain surgeries were performed despite
their being clinically inappropriate or of equivocal value; those findings held true
under various types of insurance plans.2

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/95xx/doc9567/07...e_Testimony.pdf

This isn't new news. Most of the noise regarding universal health care is just that, noise. The major part of the problem has occurred within the medical industry itself and no universal system, no big brother stepping in is going to solve the problem. The only thing it might do is drive people further into debt because physicians and facilities will continue to perform unnecessary tests, prescribe unnecessary medications and perform unnecessary procedures and the government will not reimbursement the patient for said services. They will deny these benefits for the lack of prior authorization, not medically appropriate and other such reasons.

You want to fix the problem, give the industry an enema. Flush out the crap and get back to practicing medicine. The best way to solve a problem, to diagnose a patient is through good history in-taking and preventative medicine. This takes time and too often people are in a rush to find the miracle cure that they end up fixing problems with bandaids instead of solving the problem through long term treatment.

For example - patient presents with strong family history of diabetes and heart disease. Patient is overweight, smokes and drinks heavily. Patient leads sedentary life.

Patient goes home, goes on about his life.

10 years later.

Patient presents with uncontrolled diabetes and is morbidly obese. Recommend diet and insulin training. Will write script for insulin. Consider gastric bypass.


Almost all of that last part could have been avoided. That patient is now considered high risk (interpreted as "expensive") to any health care entity.

I'm not at all accusing physicians of being alone in fault. It's the public too. We want to complain about health care costs when many individuals don't take the necessary steps in their own lives to prevent costly health care expenses later in life.

(I was typing this before I saw your more recent response, Michael so I'll wait for the social aspect of this for the time being)
 
mipadi
post Sep 3 2009, 03:06 PM
Post #38


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



Well, I think you (Rebecca) bring up a couple of more good points that are important to consider:
  1. There is a tendency to require unnecessary tests and treatments, and part of this is due to the horrendous malpractice issue in this country. Doctors often order unnecessary tests as a sort of "cover your ass" move to prevent malpractice suits. The thing that the general public needs to realize is that medicine is as much an art as it is a science, and doctors aren't right 100% of the time. Yeah, no one wants to die after going in for surgery...but unless a doctor is grossly negligent, I think we have to accept that mistakes will occasionally happen. Unnecessary treatments also result in our situation with antibiotics, in which antibiotics were so over-prescribed that many conventional antibiotics are now useless, resulting in the need for newer and more expensive medicines (although I'm sure pharmaceutical companies love that).
  2. We really should consider long-term treatment solutions, rather than "quick fixes". Americans often demand medicine to fix what could be solved by long-term lifestyle changes. Diabetes is a good example. Another is heartburn. There are tons of heartburn drugs on the market, when the solution to heartburn is pretty simple for most people: don't eat spicy food. But people want to be able to swallow a pill and eat as much chile as they can. Mental illness is another area in which we look to quick solutions. Depressed? Take Prozac. Anxious? Take Xanax. I'm not saying that medicine is never necessary for mental illness, but it is over-prescribed, in my opinion. A short anecdote: for about four months, I was treated for depression and anxiety. Both my therapist and I were reluctant to prescribe drugs, so we did it the "old-fashioned way": by talking. It probably cost a good deal more than drugs (and therapy sessions weren't covered under my old insurance plan), but in the long run, I think it's worked out better. It did take a lot more work on both our parts than just popping a pill, though.

    Hell, Brooke Shields is even advertising a pill to make your eyelashes longer now, for God's sake.

    Partly this solution could be improved with controls on pharmaceutical companies' advertising. I don't think drug companies should be pushing their drugs on TV. Doctors, not the general public, should decide what drugs are necessary.
 
drinksmokefuck
post Sep 3 2009, 05:08 PM
Post #39


Senior Member
*****

Group: Member
Posts: 820
Joined: Jun 2009
Member No: 733,315



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 4 2009, 03:02 AM) *
I believe it was Hobbes (among others) who suggested that humans derived great benefit from joining in society, rather than staying in the "jungle", but as a result, man has to give up certain privileges (such as the unchecked accumulation of wealth -- i.e., the freedom from taxation) in order to reap the benefits of society. There's no doubt that joining society gives man great benefits, but those benefits are not without cost, and part of that cost is putting the needs of others above your own. I feel that the capitalist ideal, which is essentially "every man for himself", runs completely counter to the notions of society.

Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?

Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?
 
SuckDickNSaveLiv...
post Sep 3 2009, 09:10 PM
Post #40


Drank wit your boy
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,711
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 649,997



QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 3 2009, 05:08 PM) *
Correct, this "jungle" was something he called a state of nature, and since no rational man wanted to live in it, he said f*ck it, lets make some laws. But, the whole moral obligation was more Locke. Which brings me to my question. Do you think its worth it? Are you willing to risk the jobs of doctors, further research into medical science, and technological advances so a few million more people can get health insurance?

Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?

See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money? A lot of times doctors misdiagnose people because they just don't care. I recently read an article where they use race to determine a diagnosis which in return leads to a misdiagnosis.
 
Insurmountable
post Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM
Post #41


Cornflakes :D
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,541
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 322,923



QUOTE(IamLegend @ Sep 3 2009, 10:10 PM) *
See this is the thing that worries me about today's doctors. If they really wanted to make advances in medical science, wouldn't they do it for the people and not for the money?


If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living. Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.
 
NoSex
post Sep 4 2009, 03:08 AM
Post #42


in the reverb chamber.
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 4,022
Joined: Nov 2005
Member No: 300,308



QUOTE(Insurmountable @ Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM) *
I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.


under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."

also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.

canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.

lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."


we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [1]

to be as perfectly clear as i can be: MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.
 
Uronacid
post Sep 4 2009, 09:18 AM
Post #43


Senior Member
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,574
Joined: Aug 2007
Member No: 555,438



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 4 2009, 04:08 AM) *
under a universal systems, doctors are still likely to be significant high income earners. it's just the the difference between one awesome sports car, or two. i think it's fair to say that one awesome sports car constitutes a "decent check."

also, as another point, there is no good reason to believe that medical research will necessarily be hindered by universal medicine:
1. a private industry will still exist.
2. a social program can create incentives towards research.

canada has pioneered many procedures and experimental medicines under a universal system.

lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

"'It is startling to see the U.S. falling even farther behind on this crucial indicator of health system performance,' said Commonwealth Fund Senior Vice President Cathy Schoen. "By focusing on deaths amenable to health care, Nolte and McKee strip out factors such as population and lifestyle differences that are often cited in response to international comparisons showing the U.S. lagging in health outcomes. The fact that other countries are reducing these preventable deaths more rapidly, yet spending far less, indicates that policy, goals, and efforts to improve health systems make a difference'."


we rank 24th in life expectancy & we have the 2nd highest health expenditure (as a % of g.d.p). [1]

to be as perfectly clear as i can be: MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.


First, doctors deserve an awesome check. It's that awesome check that attracts the brightest people in the world to peruse a medical career in America. I want those people working in America.

Second, people tote the life expectancy rate around like it has some direct correlation to health care and it doesn't. There are many factors that have nothing to do with health care and bring down the life expectancy rate in America. Such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco, and even abortion (in other countries the parents of mental challenged children often opt to have an abortion rather than give their babies a life).

Third, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to how much money we spend on our health care system, however there are many ways to lower the cost of health care without placing health care into gov't hands. I think that Reb makes a good point when she refers to doctors being forced to preform test after test just to cover their asses. They spend more time avoiding law suites then helping patients.
 
superstitious
post Sep 4 2009, 10:33 AM
Post #44


Tick tock, Bill
*******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 8,764
Joined: Dec 2005
Member No: 333,948



QUOTE(NoSex @ Sep 4 2009, 03:08 AM) *
lastly, i would like to reiterate a point that seems to uniformly ignored: consumer approval ratings of the services provided by public insurance (like medicare and medicaid) is higher than consumer ratings of private insurance. lastly, the quality of care in other countries, which spend much less in healthcare than us & have all persons insured and covered, is, in most cases, equal to or greater than our own. in fact, the world health organization has ranked the u.s. system as 37th, under 36 over-performing countries with socialized medicine. even worse, the united states ranks 11th in "mortality amenable to health care," meaning that preventable death is serious in america.

It isn't uniformly ignored. I've merely pointed out that the problem of health care isn't exclusive to private insurance companies. It's the industry as a whole.

Rankings and statistics are good and by no means am I saying that your points are not valid. I have a strong opinion that before any type of decision can be made regarding universal health care, a thorough analysis of the day to day practices and costs per patient, per diagnosis needs to be performed. I know for a fact that this already being implemented and that many private insurance entities are being scrutinized right now for that very reason.

I also do not believe that the future of health care should consist of any one particular insurance group - be it public or private. I think that options are good and that competition between insurance types is healthy. I'm down with both, not one or the other.

Also, the "cya" excuse isn't 100% valid. Part of the excessiveness is due to many physicians not wanting to take the time necessary to counsel patients in long term and preventative care. Also, many patients are not innocent either. The quick fix is attractive to both physicians and patients.

QUOTE
MANY SYSTEMS OUT-PERFORM AMERICA'S and WE PAY MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE FOR HEALTH CARE.
HEALTH, in general, is better in other countries as well. You can't totally blame "America's" system for the lack of positivity in system ranking/performance. The idea that further bureaucratic decision making is going to completely solve the issue of health care is a little misguided. I mean this with no disrespect. Change needs to occur from the patient and physician level in conjunction with any change in overall health care policies.
 
brooklyneast05
post Sep 4 2009, 11:59 AM
Post #45


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



i thought of you this morning rebecca when i was reading this david brooks column in the paper. i don't know it just reminded me of stuff you've said in this thread about getting down to the real problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion
 
SuckDickNSaveLiv...
post Sep 4 2009, 10:45 PM
Post #46


Drank wit your boy
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 1,711
Joined: May 2008
Member No: 649,997



QUOTE(Insurmountable @ Sep 3 2009, 10:29 PM) *
If money wasn't involved than many of the intelligent individuals who are doctors today would spend their time in college investing in another career. Doctors spend years in college and in return make decent living.

I'm aware of this and I agree.

QUOTE
Just because a doctor does a job that keeps you alive doesn't take away the fact that he's doing a job. It shouldn't bother you that people do things for money. That intelligent doctor who saves your life one day may have become something else if it wasn't worth his time. I'm not suggesting that all doctors are perfect or that there aren't doctors with a passion for helping people. I'm only suggesting that doctors are usually smart people who invest a lot of time and money in quality schooling and deserve a decent check.

Of course it doesn't bother me that people do things for money. I understand that concept, but when it comes to my health and well being, I think I have every right to be concerned about who I'm putting my trust in. When you're putting someone's life on the line, if you're going into the medical field you shouldn't just be in it for the money. Do you honestly think the best doctors are the ones who got in it for the money or the ones who actually have the passion for it? Sometimes the doctors don't know anymore than the person they're supposed to help. Point and case ( This happened to a relative of mine):

*Doctor prescribes pills
*Paitent doesn't feel good taking the pills but the doctor insists that it's just a side effect, no harm will be done*
*Patient refuses, goes to another doctor
*A year later, major recall on the pills, because they cause heart attack, blood clots, stroke, and even death

So tell me who knew more in this situation? The patient or the intelligent doctor who has a degree? But you don't think I should be concerned when this happens all too often?
 
brooklyneast05
post Sep 5 2009, 01:23 PM
Post #47


I'm Jc
********

Group: Mentor
Posts: 13,619
Joined: Jul 2006
Member No: 437,556



another good article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200909/health-care


long as hell, but i think pretty much everybody in the debate can agree with at least some parts of this. worth the read.
 
mipadi
post Sep 9 2009, 11:57 AM
Post #48


Senior Member
******

Group: Administrator
Posts: 2,647
Joined: Apr 2008
Member No: 639,265



QUOTE(drinksmokef*ck @ Sep 3 2009, 06:08 PM) *
Also just as a side note, I already know what your answer is, but was your decision from trying to help others? or rather feeling happy that you're trying to help others?


This sentiment is what I think is a bit ridiculous about this debate. A person can argue that a single-payer system (or at least a public option) would be bad for the United States, and no one asks questions like, "Hey, is your decision based on facts, or are you just trying to protect your cronies in the health care industry?" Or someone can argue that it'll cost too much money, and no one asks, "Are you just arguing against universal health care because you get health insurance from your employer, and don't care about anyone but yourself and your own family?" But if a person (e.g., me) argues about both the moral implications of not helping those less fortunate, or the pragmatic implications of not doing so, it immediately raises questions like this.

In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.

So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.
 
queen
post Sep 9 2009, 02:14 PM
Post #49


‹(. .)›
******

Group: Official Member
Posts: 2,367
Joined: Jun 2004
Member No: 20,089



i currently don't have health insurance, but i don't believe in someone else paying for it either. i'd rather do without and get billed a quarter million if i ever find myself in intensive care (this actually happened to a friend of mine). that's just how i believe it should work; if you want something, PAY for it.

my friends who currently get free health coverage whether through their parents or for having low income annoy the f*ck out of me. why should they be able to get free/cheap lasik or braces while at the same time are able to satisfy their materialistic and superficial needs, with iphones, ps3s, 360s, computers up the wazoo. it reminds me of all these people living in the projects who pull bmws and range rovers out their asses. it's bullshit. if you can't afford it, i'd rather you look like it. i guess i am heartless ;o
 
iRapediCarly
post Sep 9 2009, 08:13 PM
Post #50


Senior Member
*****

Group: Official Member
Posts: 706
Joined: Sep 2009
Member No: 745,302



QUOTE(mipadi @ Sep 9 2009, 09:57 AM) *
This sentiment is what I think is a bit ridiculous about this debate. A person can argue that a single-payer system (or at least a public option) would be bad for the United States, and no one asks questions like, "Hey, is your decision based on facts, or are you just trying to protect your cronies in the health care industry?" Or someone can argue that it'll cost too much money, and no one asks, "Are you just arguing against universal health care because you get health insurance from your employer, and don't care about anyone but yourself and your own family?" But if a person (e.g., me) argues about both the moral implications of not helping those less fortunate, or the pragmatic implications of not doing so, it immediately raises questions like this.

In other words, why are people so suspicious of those who are trying to help others? I think that has been the greatest success of America's capitalist machine: it's actually managed to convince lower- and middle-class individuals that the "captains of industry" are trying to look out for them, and that they should be suspicious of anyone trying to help the poor. Poor people all over the world get screwed over by the rich; the difference is that in places like central America, poor people know they're being screwed, and actively try to fight the oppression as best they can; in America, poor people are convinced that they're not being screwed over by the rich. Our corporate-owned media has clearly done its job of placating the masses and diffusing blame.

So no, my motivation comes from a desire to level the playing field. Would I be happy if we got universal health care in America? Yes, very. Would I be happy knowing that I helped others? Yes, very -- who isn't happy when they can make others' lives better? But is my whole motivation born out of a desire to assuage my own guilt by helping others (as you seem to suggest)? No -- I'd rather just fix the system than sit around smugly content that I was doing a little bit to help.

I'm so sorry.

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/us...tory?id=4457611

I didnt know you had so many fans.
 

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: