So, a patient just called me...

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

And nothing about single payer necessarily dictates this. You don't tell doctors they can't practice under a single payer system. However, the private insurance approach DOES dictate this.

it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.

good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:

The power of logic and persuasion I note the keyword in your response is MIGHT. Sure it might. Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying airplanes no longer need wings that might cause a lot of crashes. The fact that it might happen is not an argument against the system itself, it's an argument to make sure that the system is aware of and addresses that problem if it decides to adopt this approach.

jlew24asu wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

it certainly might. the government would be paying the bills. they can dictate whatever they want.

good lord. you have a yesman following practically every one of your posts :roll:

The power of logic and persuasion I note the keyword in your response is MIGHT. Sure it might. Congress might pass a law tomorrow saying airplanes no longer need wings that might cause a lot of crashes. The fact that it might happen is not an argument against the system itself, it's an argument to make sure that the system is aware of and addresses that problem if it decides to adopt this approach.

well of course I have to say might. it hasnt happened yet. that doesnt make the problem go away. Congress has no problem dictating where costs go. they can put in a few cost controls and budget cuts and my choice of circuit city is gone. or the MRI on my knee that i might need.

soulsinging wrote:

The problem can't "go away" because it's not a problem in existence. You're arguing that just because something might happen, it inevitably will happen. Because there is a potential for this one particular problem we should just shelve any discussion of the whole system rather than talking about ways to make sure this problem does not occur in the system? That makes no sense.

soulsinging wrote:

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Under the system I'm proposing, doctors are not employees of the state, so the government can't just close down their offices to save money because they don't pay their salary anyway. Hospitals and doctor's offices would have whatever equipment they can afford based on the income they attract by getting a reputation that encourages people to choose them. How is that different from what we have now? If you run a shit doctor's office and nobody comes, you go out of business. The only difference is that instead of paying money to an insurance company, you pay it via taxes. And instead of having your choice of doctors and the costs of procedures dictated by the deals that insurance company can secure to guarantee their profits, you go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures they recommend, and you send the bill to the single payer office, which sends money from the fund to the doctor. Closing doctor X is not an option for saving money because the government would just be paying doctor Y instead and it saves nothing. Consumers dictate who gets paid via their patronage. Denying an MRI machine to hospital Y is not an option because the hospital runs itself and buys whatever equipment it thinks it needs and can afford based on its ability to attract patients via reputation for good work. The only role of the government is that when the hospital provides a service, the bill is sent to the single-payer fund, instead of to the private insurance company.

scb wrote:

:? :? :?

It's not HIS proposal; it's THE proposal. Show me one proposal where anyone has ever suggested that the government actually run the healthcare delivery systems.

soulsinging wrote:

Under the system I'm proposing,

jlew24asu wrote:

so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.

and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.

soulsinging wrote:

its a shame your proposals don't mean shit

you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.

soulsinging wrote:

jlew24asu wrote:

so potential problems don't exist in your world? man I wanna live there.

and of course we shouldn't shelve the discussion. the system need reform, no question about it.

No, I'm saying a problem can't "go away" if it doesn't exist currently. My flu can't go away if I never had a flu to begin with. A potential problem simply means it is something that needs to be considered before pursuing a course of action... ie. I could potentially get a flu if I come to Chicago in winter, but does that mean I should skip all the benefits of going to Chicago just because one potential problem might arise? Or that I should dress warm and make sure I get vitamin c and wash my hands when I do go to Chicago?

soulsinging wrote:

its a shame your proposals don't mean shit

you are assuming the government will have a very hands off approach to this whole this if there is a single payer system. I disagree.

Indeed it is, but the same can be applied to your arguments against health care reform. I assume nothing. I am saying that this is what we should do and how it should be done. I don't know the future so I can't say how it would play out. What I can say is that that is a workable system that would benefit us all, assuming we are willing to work towards it and hold our reps accountable. But that requires sustained interest and attention, which doesn't work for most Americans. There's NASCAR on.

soulsinging wrote:

And JLEW is the out-of-the-box thinker here?

soulsinging wrote:

He's been advocating small scale tinkering under the same broken system since this debate started. Cover the uninsured, but leave the rest intact. Private health care is fine, just add the uninsured to unemployment benefits and tell people with jobs to buy health care on their own. I'm here saying outlaw private insurance, make doctors answerable to patients and create a national health care fund that covers everyone while still operating on free market principles on the individual transaction level... and you say HE is the one thinking out-of-the-box? My whole argument against jlew this whole time has been that he's only proposing ideas that treat the symptoms, not the underlying issues of our health care system... which is a for-profit industry dictating costs and coverage that leaves citizens and doctors at the mercy of people who have no interest in providing good care, only maximizing their profit.