That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.
also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.
and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.
end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...
also, do you not think that even in a UHC environment, there is no profit in the medical field whatsoever? i am sure corporations still exist in the UK, canada and the like...developing drugs and devices and the like.....and then sell em to the government for use. thing is, they don't make them prohibitively expensive to buy...and yet...still turn a profit. we alone, as a private insurer country, do not make all the medical breakthroughs in the world.....they are made also in many UHC countries as well. i do not believe it would change the quality or pace of research, at all. in fact, perhaps more government $$4 would make it towards research if we have a better/stronger taxbase funding our healthcare/medicine. it is possible...
"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay MAY dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you MAY discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."
I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?
In addition, you're still operating under the assumption that doctors would operate like public school teachers. Single-payer doesn't necessarily dictate that. The doctors are not employed by the government, they can be self employed, they're just paid by the government instead of an insurance company. It's not that dramatic a difference. And top doctors will have full waiting rooms and lists to get in just as they do now, while bad doctors will have trouble attracting patients, period. You don't get paid if you provide no services.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.
also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.
and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.
end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...
You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?
I think it is something to think about, and I admit I don't know enough to know what the effect may or may not be, hence the question. But profit is the reason for many of the great and wonderful advancements we enjoy today so I believe it's a fair question.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.
I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?
In addition, you're still operating under the assumption that doctors would operate like public school teachers. Single-payer doesn't necessarily dictate that. The doctors are not employed by the government, they can be self employed, they're just paid by the government instead of an insurance company. It's not that dramatic a difference. And top doctors will have full waiting rooms and lists to get in just as they do now, while bad doctors will have trouble attracting patients, period. You don't get paid if you provide no services.
sounds promising. but I'm not that quick to trust the government just yet.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.
also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.
and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.
end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...
You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?
I think it is something to think about, and I admit I don't know enough to know what the effect may or may not be, hence the question. But profit is the reason for many of the great and wonderful advancements we enjoy today so I believe it's a fair question.
you do realize...that is your inference and not my intent?
you asked, i was merely providing some insight. mea culpa if that is not what you were requesting or if my delivery in someway was subpar in your opinion. i was merely pointing out just how much our government, and governemetns within UHC environments DO already fund the ground-breaking, innovative research.
it IS a fair question, of course...i was not discounting that. however, if you think of the bulk of the great discoveries, most were motivated firstly by desire to do something more.....not merely money. profit has been a great side benefit of innovation, but most of the great minds who actually DO the innovators do so for the actual satisfaction of the discovery, it's implications, etc. not to say i 'know' why people do what they do...but history does illustrate that it is more likely for the that than merely the financial rewards. most nobel laureates seem to illustrate that pretty well.
jlew....you're very amusing.
if that's the case, all i can say is pot meet kettle. and i shall leave it at that.
I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?
thats an interesting point. I did not know that.
i do recall the last healthcare thread, that soulsinging actually provided this very same information for you, to your very same response.
money is absolutely a motivator, but if you think the vast nmajority of our doctors and nurses and all medical staff would just poof disappear with UHC, i think you may well be pleasantly surprised. and again, they still would be well paid. i know redrock pointed out that doctors in france are quite well paid, live good lifestyles, etc....so it's not all doom and gloom for the prospects of still persuing becoming a doctor.
I'm far from perfect but just look at the way you answered his valid question. he's just telling you the way it came across, and I agree.
jlew..i have turned a blind eye numerous times to your condescension to my posts and many others.....and i usually do turn a blind eye to other's condesceion - usually - simply b/c it is irrelevant to the topics at hand.
that said, i reread my post and i honestly do not see it as condescending. obviously, cincybearcat took it as such, but again, it was not my intent. it reads a-ok to me, obviously, and so it goes. however, it is not about my posting style and about content...and i was genuinely trying to provide some context and content. and that is as far as i will bother addressing my posting style.
i fail to see what it has to do with being open-minded...i was trying to answer your question. you infer much i think...but again.....none of this has to do with the topic. if you would like to do so , feel free...but it really has no place here on the board, on this thread, etc.
anyhoo....my apologies. it was not intended to be condescending. even in conversation i more than likely would've aid it as such, but in person, perhaps it would not be inferred as it has here...or maybe it would be, idk. but i think tone of voice, posture, etc...helps often on such issues.
sounds promising. but I'm not that quick to trust the government just yet.
That's healthy, they certainly haven't earned it But in this case, I just see the long-term benefits, even taking into account the potential problems and obstacles, as far outweighing the costs. And I think it can be done in a manner that both rewards good doctors and allows them to prosper, as well as giving consumers more protection and choices. Our current system is just not working and I personally think it is morally troubling... like I said, I'm not comfortable with profit being the driving force behind human health services or social justice. And it's not that profitable anyway, I recall reading an article about the real "medical" money being in elective surgeries, not real health care.
And I don't say this as a big government advocate. I'm all for axing a lot of spending... the dept of education (which I believe you mentioned earlier) being at the forefront. But I think this is a manageable undertaking. The biggest impediment I see is special interest protectionist tinkering to render any solution so ridden with holes as to be utterly ineffective and inefficient. You can keep taxes at current levels, eliminate medicare, medicaid, and a huge chunk of social security and roll it into one comprehensive program, and push a lot of preventative care, which would be a huge saver in its own right when you think of the problems that could be solved before they require massive surgery because people figure they can put off a doctor's visit and just tough things out because they have no insurance or can't even afford the co-pay under their current coverage. It will take money, no doubt. But I think if we make it a priority we can find ways to do it without destroying health care or bankrupting the country.
This is the country that built the premier space program in a few years when we wanted it, that has created one of the most powerful industries in the world (for better or worse) in the arms/defense industry, which relies entirely on government funding, and that invented baseball. I have the utmost faith we can find a way to tackle health care.
That might be where we reach an impasse. To my mind, the best possible solution is the extinction of the private, for-profit health insurance industry. I think it's unethical and exploitative and the chief source of all our woes, because it inevitably places health care behind profit in terms of priority. I have the same issue with a large segment of the legal profession. Profit motive makes sense for industry. But I don't think health care and justice should be ideals that are compromised by the individual desire to profit from the misfortunes of others.
I gotta say, that is a good argument.
Without the ability to make profit, do you still think we'd see advances in medicine and medical devices? At what pace?
Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.
thereya go...another voice, perhaps saying similar things in a more acceptible way.
i agree, there definitely is still room for profit in there, and innovations would continue at the same pace. government grants are currently a HUGE part of research. there are a few people right on this very board directly and indirectly involved in such...and many will say the same, government funding is crucial, even in our current healthcare climate.
Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.
While we're eliminating the insurance companies from Health Care, can we get rid of your brotheren as well? That'd be terrific.
The system has to change, it doesn't work for most people. It's a system that turns it's back on people when they need it the most. I am worried, however, of turning it over to the gov't, which doesn't turn it's back on people often but buries them in red tape. If the gov't pays thousands of dollars for a hammer, how much will a MRI machine cost? Perhaps you are right in that industry has much profit to gain.
Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.
While we're eliminating the insurance companies from Health Care, can we get rid of your brotheren as well? That's be terrific.
The system has to change, it doesn't work for most people. It's a system that terns it's back on people when they need it the most. I am worried, however, of turning it over to the gov't, which turns doesn't turn it's back on people often but buries them in red tape. If the gov't pays thousands of dollars for a hammer, how much will a MRI machine cost? Perhaps you are right in that industry has much profit to gain.
Hey, I've been including my profession in this argument since it started. There are serious problems within the legal profession that need to be addressed as well. There have already been steps taken to that end, especially with respect to tort reform and limits on "emotional pain" and whatnot.
As to red tape, I think a lot of people would tell you that things aren't exactly running smoothly now. Have you ever had to fight with an insurance company? It's a nightmare. It's also interesting that the government run medicare/medicaid programs have higher customer satisfaction than private companies. Sounds like they're not exactly leaders in making easily navigable bureacracy. Someone further up posted the soaring costs of administration. And the burden on individual doctors is out of control. I have a doctor friend that said once they basically have to hire one person for ever insurance company they work with because the forms and requirements are so byzantine there's no way anyone can make sense of it without basically devoting their entire working life to figuring out who needs what to get claims approved. They have people on the phone with insurance agents all day as the investigators search for reasons not to pay for procedures they can find some way to argue are unnecessary.
But you're spot on with the thousand dollar hammer thing. There is going to potential for fraud and abuse. That is something that needs a solution before any such program is enacted. It's bad enough with the defense industry.
cutting admin costs are nice. but the government is NOT going to eliminate administration expenses. will the be lower? probably. but they will still exist and by a tax payer expense.
Of course they would never get down to absolute zero administrative costs, and no one says they would - or would want to. You have to have SOME administrtive costs. But don't you think reduction from 30% to 3% (that's a 90% reduction) in administrative costs is significant? 2-3% is what Medicare spends on administrative costs.
second of all, everyone keep treating "profit" like some swear word. profit for the insurance industry isn't very necessary but it is a great motivator in the healthcare industry.
Profit is like a leak in your bank account. People stop leaks.
wrong. not everyone pays for it. we have choices whether we want health insurance. its not a expense some see. but with UHC, we'll be billed for it.
With all your talk about how people shouldn't have to pay for the healthcare of others, I really don't understand how you think this is fair. You said before that you have given up your insurance in the past because you were healthy. That's irresponsibly short-sighted. All it takes is one little accident for someone who CHOSE not to pay for health insurance to rack up a bill that the rest of the taxpayers will likely have to pay for. That's why they should have to pay into it if they can afford to do so. No one's health is guaranteed. And practically no one can be certain that they would be able to afford whatever giant hospital bill they could incur at a moment's notice. That's why the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses.
"Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency."
We've discussed this numerous times, so I'm not sure why you're still making these claims. Having the government PAY FOR healthcare will not make all doctors government employees. There will be NO loss of private practice options.
With all your talk about how people shouldn't have to pay for the healthcare of others, I really don't understand how you think this is fair. You said before that you have given up your insurance in the past because you were healthy. That's irresponsibly short-sighted. All it takes is one little accident for someone who CHOSE not to pay for health insurance to rack up a bill that the rest of the taxpayers will likely have to pay for. That's why they should have to pay into it if they can afford to do so. No one's health is guaranteed. And practically no one can be certain that they would be able to afford whatever giant hospital bill they could incur at a moment's notice. That's why the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses.
hey scb...thanks for putting it so succinctly!
"irresponsibly short-sighted"...yes!
i think i compared it to playing roulette with your health, but i think you 've summed it up far better.
also, in my mind, this IS why EVERYone should have healthcare, and probably why i don't *get* the desire of "choice" to have NO health coverage....b/c it may be cheaper for you, individually, today....but come tomorrow....we ALL may be paying for it. that's why it always made sense to me, on the individual and community level, that everyone have health coverage b/c LONG-term, it would save us all $$$. even completely "healthy" people need regular, preventative care...check-ups, tests, b/c you never know what is lurking. i think it's been said over and over, that preventative medical care is one of the most cost-effective methods out there.....increases longevity right along with savings....and having healthcare is really the only way people go about getting that. w/o insurance, most wait until health really deteriorates before seeking medical intervention, and that is why it gets so damn costly... it's in ALL our OWN best interest, to have healthcare for all, for life.
this is one of those situations that I would support 100%, government subsided care for pregnant women and children. (up to what age, I dont know). and to fund it, I'd shred 25% of our military budget.
there are many many sides to this debate.........but I can tell you one thing.............doctors and nurses as a whole are overpaid! They are public servants and thus pay should reflect this to an extent..........
Now I'm not saying they should make minimum wage. I am very aware they we need these people and they have to be highly trained. But overall I think the salaries have really gotten out of hand.
there are many many sides to this debate.........but I can tell you one thing.............doctors and nurses as a whole are overpaid! They are public servants and thus pay should reflect this to an extent..........
Now I'm not saying they should make minimum wage. I am very aware they we need these people and they have to be highly trained. But overall I think the salaries have really gotten out of hand.
you think NURSES are overpaid?!
seriously?
i can think of a whole host of other careers i may think overpaid...nursing is not one of em.
and sure, doctors are well paid....but look at the hours...the training.....the student loans......and the lifetime of continued learning, and yea...the importance of said jobs, especially specialists such as brain surgeosn, etc...and i just don't know. i look at what some CEOS take home - like in the healthcare industry for example? and it makes doctors look uinderpaid in comparison for the work they do. this is not to say that i don't think salaries of doctors could not be less, but i would not go so far as to say 'overpaid' either.
there are many many sides to this debate.........but I can tell you one thing.............doctors and nurses as a whole are overpaid! They are public servants and thus pay should reflect this to an extent..........
Now I'm not saying they should make minimum wage. I am very aware they we need these people and they have to be highly trained. But overall I think the salaries have really gotten out of hand.
Or maybe other public servants just need to be paid more.
Yeah screw it if teachers can make the kind of money they can and get like 12-14 weeks off a year why shouldn't nurses who work all year?
Major reforms need to happen and if we socialize health care like britain, france or canada the world won't end. I would settle for socialized health care, european vacation benefits (4-6 weeks off) and the french work week (35 hours) They may be onto something.
Comments
you do realize, our government....governments throughout the world, ya know...in countries with UHC.....spend vast sums of money in government grants, annually, for medical research, yes? in fact, many, many leading researchers right here at home depend far more heavily on government grants for their research.
also, doctors and nurses and the like...in all these countries with UHC, aren't exactly poor either. they still make very good living according to those who live in said countries.
and again, i do believe often enough you see england and france and canada...and their many medical studies/breakthroughs...all in an environment of UHC.
end of profits for some corproation does not equate the end of innovation for medicine. not at all...
also, do you not think that even in a UHC environment, there is no profit in the medical field whatsoever? i am sure corporations still exist in the UK, canada and the like...developing drugs and devices and the like.....and then sell em to the government for use. thing is, they don't make them prohibitively expensive to buy...and yet...still turn a profit. we alone, as a private insurer country, do not make all the medical breakthroughs in the world.....they are made also in many UHC countries as well. i do not believe it would change the quality or pace of research, at all. in fact, perhaps more government $$4 would make it towards research if we have a better/stronger taxbase funding our healthcare/medicine. it is possible...
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I capitalized the two key words in that little blurb... which is all pure speculation. I can speak to the legal profession... most of our best students have NO interest in private practice. Financially, it is infinitely more desirable, but even though government work pays far less, competition is MUCH higher for those jobs because they are infinitely more rewarding in terms of the value of the work and the lifestyle. This means a lot to people, even doctors. Hell, I would have gone into public interest, but my grades are nowhere near good enough. Isn't that odd that it's easier to get a 6-figure corporate gig than a miniscule government job? That those with the best qualifications and talent are going into the public sector, NOT the private?
In addition, you're still operating under the assumption that doctors would operate like public school teachers. Single-payer doesn't necessarily dictate that. The doctors are not employed by the government, they can be self employed, they're just paid by the government instead of an insurance company. It's not that dramatic a difference. And top doctors will have full waiting rooms and lists to get in just as they do now, while bad doctors will have trouble attracting patients, period. You don't get paid if you provide no services.
You do realize how patronizing you are being for me asking a question? You do realize it, right?
I think it is something to think about, and I admit I don't know enough to know what the effect may or may not be, hence the question. But profit is the reason for many of the great and wonderful advancements we enjoy today so I believe it's a fair question.
Absolutely. There is still plenty of room for profit. Much medical research is government funded anyway, and those creating innovations are doing it on the industry side anyway, not the direct services side. If you design an excellent MRI machine, doctors will buy it, just as they do now. If you find a life-saving drug, you still make money selling it to consumers. All we're talking about here is cutting out the middleman... the insurers. Rather than them setting prices and either forcing the developers to conform or denying patients access to that drug, it would be based on drug effectiveness and consumer desire, NOT how well you can sweet talk an insurance company into promoting and including your drug on their plan.
thats an interesting point. I did not know that.
sounds promising. but I'm not that quick to trust the government just yet.
no, I don't believe she does. its makes debating this really difficult sometimes.
you do realize...that is your inference and not my intent?
you asked, i was merely providing some insight. mea culpa if that is not what you were requesting or if my delivery in someway was subpar in your opinion. i was merely pointing out just how much our government, and governemetns within UHC environments DO already fund the ground-breaking, innovative research.
it IS a fair question, of course...i was not discounting that. however, if you think of the bulk of the great discoveries, most were motivated firstly by desire to do something more.....not merely money. profit has been a great side benefit of innovation, but most of the great minds who actually DO the innovators do so for the actual satisfaction of the discovery, it's implications, etc. not to say i 'know' why people do what they do...but history does illustrate that it is more likely for the that than merely the financial rewards. most nobel laureates seem to illustrate that pretty well.
jlew....you're very amusing.
if that's the case, all i can say is pot meet kettle. and i shall leave it at that.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
i do recall the last healthcare thread, that soulsinging actually provided this very same information for you, to your very same response.
money is absolutely a motivator, but if you think the vast nmajority of our doctors and nurses and all medical staff would just poof disappear with UHC, i think you may well be pleasantly surprised. and again, they still would be well paid. i know redrock pointed out that doctors in france are quite well paid, live good lifestyles, etc....so it's not all doom and gloom for the prospects of still persuing becoming a doctor.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
No kidding. The open-minded, eh?
jlew..i have turned a blind eye numerous times to your condescension to my posts and many others.....and i usually do turn a blind eye to other's condesceion - usually
that said, i reread my post and i honestly do not see it as condescending. obviously, cincybearcat took it as such, but again, it was not my intent. it reads a-ok to me, obviously, and so it goes. however, it is not about my posting style and about content...and i was genuinely trying to provide some context and content. and that is as far as i will bother addressing my posting style.
i fail to see what it has to do with being open-minded...i was trying to answer your question. you infer much i think...but again.....none of this has to do with the topic. if you would like to do so , feel free...but it really has no place here on the board, on this thread, etc.
anyhoo....my apologies. it was not intended to be condescending. even in conversation i more than likely would've aid it as such, but in person, perhaps it would not be inferred as it has here...or maybe it would be, idk. but i think tone of voice, posture, etc...helps often on such issues.
that said.....back to healthcare?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
That's healthy, they certainly haven't earned it
And I don't say this as a big government advocate. I'm all for axing a lot of spending... the dept of education (which I believe you mentioned earlier) being at the forefront. But I think this is a manageable undertaking. The biggest impediment I see is special interest protectionist tinkering to render any solution so ridden with holes as to be utterly ineffective and inefficient. You can keep taxes at current levels, eliminate medicare, medicaid, and a huge chunk of social security and roll it into one comprehensive program, and push a lot of preventative care, which would be a huge saver in its own right when you think of the problems that could be solved before they require massive surgery because people figure they can put off a doctor's visit and just tough things out because they have no insurance or can't even afford the co-pay under their current coverage. It will take money, no doubt. But I think if we make it a priority we can find ways to do it without destroying health care or bankrupting the country.
This is the country that built the premier space program in a few years when we wanted it, that has created one of the most powerful industries in the world (for better or worse) in the arms/defense industry, which relies entirely on government funding, and that invented baseball. I have the utmost faith we can find a way to tackle health care.
thereya go...another voice, perhaps saying similar things in a more acceptible way.
i agree, there definitely is still room for profit in there, and innovations would continue at the same pace. government grants are currently a HUGE part of research. there are a few people right on this very board directly and indirectly involved in such...and many will say the same, government funding is crucial, even in our current healthcare climate.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Have at it, you've got it all figured out.
While we're eliminating the insurance companies from Health Care, can we get rid of your brotheren as well? That'd be terrific.
The system has to change, it doesn't work for most people. It's a system that turns it's back on people when they need it the most. I am worried, however, of turning it over to the gov't, which doesn't turn it's back on people often but buries them in red tape. If the gov't pays thousands of dollars for a hammer, how much will a MRI machine cost? Perhaps you are right in that industry has much profit to gain.
Hey, I've been including my profession in this argument since it started.
As to red tape, I think a lot of people would tell you that things aren't exactly running smoothly now. Have you ever had to fight with an insurance company? It's a nightmare. It's also interesting that the government run medicare/medicaid programs have higher customer satisfaction than private companies. Sounds like they're not exactly leaders in making easily navigable bureacracy. Someone further up posted the soaring costs of administration. And the burden on individual doctors is out of control. I have a doctor friend that said once they basically have to hire one person for ever insurance company they work with because the forms and requirements are so byzantine there's no way anyone can make sense of it without basically devoting their entire working life to figuring out who needs what to get claims approved. They have people on the phone with insurance agents all day as the investigators search for reasons not to pay for procedures they can find some way to argue are unnecessary.
But you're spot on with the thousand dollar hammer thing. There is going to potential for fraud and abuse. That is something that needs a solution before any such program is enacted. It's bad enough with the defense industry.
Of course they would never get down to absolute zero administrative costs, and no one says they would - or would want to. You have to have SOME administrtive costs. But don't you think reduction from 30% to 3% (that's a 90% reduction) in administrative costs is significant? 2-3% is what Medicare spends on administrative costs.
Profit is like a leak in your bank account. People stop leaks.
With all your talk about how people shouldn't have to pay for the healthcare of others, I really don't understand how you think this is fair. You said before that you have given up your insurance in the past because you were healthy. That's irresponsibly short-sighted. All it takes is one little accident for someone who CHOSE not to pay for health insurance to rack up a bill that the rest of the taxpayers will likely have to pay for. That's why they should have to pay into it if they can afford to do so. No one's health is guaranteed. And practically no one can be certain that they would be able to afford whatever giant hospital bill they could incur at a moment's notice. That's why the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical expenses.
We've discussed this numerous times, so I'm not sure why you're still making these claims. Having the government PAY FOR healthcare will not make all doctors government employees. There will be NO loss of private practice options.
hey scb...thanks for putting it so succinctly!
"irresponsibly short-sighted"...yes!
i think i compared it to playing roulette with your health, but i think you 've summed it up far better.
also, in my mind, this IS why EVERYone should have healthcare, and probably why i don't *get* the desire of "choice" to have NO health coverage....b/c it may be cheaper for you, individually, today....but come tomorrow....we ALL may be paying for it. that's why it always made sense to me, on the individual and community level, that everyone have health coverage b/c LONG-term, it would save us all $$$. even completely "healthy" people need regular, preventative care...check-ups, tests, b/c you never know what is lurking. i think it's been said over and over, that preventative medical care is one of the most cost-effective methods out there.....increases longevity right along with savings....and having healthcare is really the only way people go about getting that. w/o insurance, most wait until health really deteriorates before seeking medical intervention, and that is why it gets so damn costly... it's in ALL our OWN best interest, to have healthcare for all, for life.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
My 2cents: http://www.ivykennedy.com/chat/sicko.htm
this is one of those situations that I would support 100%, government subsided care for pregnant women and children. (up to what age, I dont know). and to fund it, I'd shred 25% of our military budget.
Now I'm not saying they should make minimum wage. I am very aware they we need these people and they have to be highly trained. But overall I think the salaries have really gotten out of hand.
you think NURSES are overpaid?!
seriously?
i can think of a whole host of other careers i may think overpaid...nursing is not one of em.
and sure, doctors are well paid....but look at the hours...the training.....the student loans......and the lifetime of continued learning, and yea...the importance of said jobs, especially specialists such as brain surgeosn, etc...and i just don't know. i look at what some CEOS take home - like in the healthcare industry for example?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Or maybe other public servants just need to be paid more.
Major reforms need to happen and if we socialize health care like britain, france or canada the world won't end. I would settle for socialized health care, european vacation benefits (4-6 weeks off) and the french work week (35 hours) They may be onto something.