U.S. health care reform

Pages: 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 19

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
U.S. health care reform

2011-12-20 14:26:56

#301

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Cybargs wrote:
Uzique wrote:
but we wouldn't simply starve without the farmer.
lol...

you do realise how basic our dietary needs actually are for 'survival', right? i already said (even though it is completely tangential) that it would mean a complete changing of lifestyle and likely an overhaul of the markets. but to suggest that every single individual is doomed if we don't have mass agriculture is a bit of a "wat" statement. sure, the planet could probably support less people... sure, you wouldn't be eating duck l'orange every night with wine from australia... but surviving using your own produce is not an impossibility.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-20 15:17:26

#302

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7014|Noizyland

To me it seems that the ultimate healthcare plan in America is "don't get sick", (unless you're in pharmaceuticals in which case it's "you are sick and here take these".)

Love how in America corporations are "the people" and government is "the others". Can't remember who said it but it seems true that the statement that causes the most fear in an American is "I'm from the government and I'm here to help".

I think the problem is that people assume that healthcare is welfare or in their terminology, "just another hand-out" to the undeserving. Like somehow if you get injured or sick you are no longer one of the hard-working red-blooded Americans and become a social pariah. I don't know if any of you remember the protests for and against healthcare reforms where a man suffering Parkinson's sat and took abuse from people who were calling him a communist and abusing him for "looking for hand-outs". That man was a 60 year-old doctor of nuclear engineering and they were abusing him because he had the audacity to get sick.

Another thing seems to be the fear that having public option healthcare would mean a cut in quality or a decrease in how doctors are valued. It's like Americans assume that if they get sick it's going to be just like House with five to ten experts for each patient. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that the healthcare received in America isn't even close to this. In fact I'm going to go further and judge by the prevalence of medical litigation that American healthcare falls behind that of many other developed nations in a number of key areas.

Really though the quality is there, the value not so much. This is all from forcing a supply and demand economic model on something that doesn't really fit it. A patient generally doesn't come to a doctor to request a whole bunch of tests and procedures, they come for advice and to receive treatments for the ailments they have. The ability to provide what is needed speaks to the quality of a country's healthcare, not the ability to offer a smorgasbord of options for those who want to try them. Now there is a place for this kind of thing; generally in the area of cosmetic surgery, but we're talking about making sick or injured people well again. Supply and demand is irrelevant here, the important thing is being able to provide a service and the US system fails at this, plain and simple. People in the US can go bankrupt or die because they can't afford medical treatment. That is a fundamental failing of US healthcare in every single sense. Do American's really think they're getting everything they could out of healthcare? It's like they're willing to suffer any pain imaginable as long as it's someone else's.

The American Journal of Public Health found in a Harvard study that every year around 44,700 American people die because they don't have insurance and can't afford healthcare. More probably die when they have insurance but their insurance refuses to pay for whatever reason. Here, and in other nations with public option healthcare, no-one does. Make of that what you will.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2011-12-20 15:30:10

#303

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

No but we have Medicare and Medicaid. It's our version of socialized healthcare . It may or may not cover you, amd may or may not cover all your expenses, and hospitals may or may not take you, but gosh darn it that's your fault.

Now please you decrepit old man, don't look me in the eye as I pass by your decaying corpse on the way to my cocktail hour.

2011-12-20 15:33:07

#304

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

And stay away from my tax money. I need to make sure lockheed Martin has enough capital funding to build the next laser guided bomb targeting an adobe building in the middle of nowhere.

2011-12-20 15:34:13

#305

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
And stay away from my tax money. I need to make sure lockheed Martin has enough capital funding to build the next laser guided bomb targeting an adobe building in the middle of nowhere.

Do you want another 9/11?

2011-12-20 15:41:54

#306

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

No but I would take advantage of it in every way possible. How else would I justify the need to build more of those bombs, plus develop another bomb that will go 500 feet into the ground to kill those people left over after the first bombing run??

I would also use it to staff cretins in yellow jackets at all airports to prod and poke the general population before getting on an airplane. That's how you create jobs and move toward smaller government!

Perhaps use those new powers gained under auspices of anti-terrorism to spy domestically in ways that are otherwise illegal. Maybe even hold a guy or two without charge for an indefinite amount of time.

ok im done.

2011-12-20 16:25:40

#307

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

this thread is starting to make me feel unwell

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-20 16:30:24

#308

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6977|Cinncinatti

good thing you can see a doctor for free

2011-12-20 17:10:26

#309

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

i've had 22 years of frequent, top-quality healthcare for the price of about 6 month's total income tax (which only contributes fractionally towards healthcare, anyway).

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-20 17:29:28

#310

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

My father was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2002, received quality treatment and palliative care but due to the nature of the aggressive and rapid brain tumour he had (glioblastoma) they had already given him a 2% chance of living past 12 months. Despite daily radiotherapy (I went with him each time) it did little to reduce the tumour and he unfortunately died three months after diagnosis.

My mother isn't wealthy, far from it. After his death she sold the block of land they had for a modest sum, and combined with my father's life insurance she was able to purchase a small house for herself outright, and a newer car (which she really needed too). If we did not have the health system as we do, she would have been foot with a massive bill that would've cleaned her out and she would instead would be struggling in a rental on a widow's pension (it doesn't pay a lot, far from it) just to get by.

Based on these experiences and consequences, I firmly believe our health care system is a blessing.

2011-12-20 17:37:55

#311

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
My father was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2002, received quality treatment and palliative care but due to the nature of the aggressive and rapid brain tumour he had (glioblastoma) they had already given him a 2% chance of living past 12 months. Despite daily radiotherapy (I went with him each time) it did little to reduce the tumour and he unfortunately died three months after diagnosis.

My mother isn't wealthy, far from it. After his death she sold the block of land they had for a modest sum, and combined with my father's life insurance she was able to purchase a small house for herself outright, and a newer car (which she really needed too). If we did not have the health system as we do, she would have been foot with a massive bill that would've cleaned her out and she would instead would be struggling in a rental on a widow's pension (it doesn't pay a lot, far from it) just to get by.

Based on these experiences and consequences, I firmly believe our health care system is a blessing.

So you're saying that if you didn't live in a NHS system your parents would not have bought health insurance? My fiancee's mom had breast cancer a few years ago and she received top notch care. Chemo, gene therapy, you name it. The health insurance even covered alternative medicine like acupuncture. For all that I think she paid a few thousand dollars. The horror.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-12-20 17:39:33

#312

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,979|6871|949

you can only afford that health care because government interference artificially suppresses wages and overall cost. Meanwhile in our version of health care, any government interference actually causes overall cost to go up and results in doctors here getting paid more than anywhere else. But that's because we have the bestest health care practitioners in the world with the bestest service available.

2011-12-20 17:42:22

#313

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
you can only afford that health care because government interference artificially suppresses wages and overall cost. Meanwhile in our version of health care, any government interference actually causes overall cost to go up and results in doctors here getting paid more than anywhere else. But that's because we have the bestest health care practitioners in the world with the bestest service available.

I don't know whether to love you or hate you.

2011-12-20 18:21:24

#314

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Uzique wrote:
uuum, of course we do. one of my earlier posts on this page mentions a specialist. what does that have to do with anything? becoming a specialist is responding to supply and demand? you really believe a doctor decides to become a neurosurgeon or a heart surgeon because demand outstrips supply, and he can make more money? you really think that's the prime motivating factor? that simply isn't the case for the medical profession here. it's not viewed with the same 'how can i make the most money' sorta lucrative-mindset.

You just love jumping to conclusions, don't you (for this lovely bit as well as the bit below)?

You jump to the lowest common denominator most times, as well...instead of assuming one might actually put some thought into their question. But then, I guess you are the only one who ever puts any thought into anything here, aren't you? You are the only one here who isn't an "obtuse mong" when they ask questions, right? Get the fuck over yourself, Uzique. You're nothing special.

In fact, my question wasn't focused on the monetary aspect of supply and demand, but rather the market demand aspect of supply and demand. But I guess if you weren't being so obtuse and put some thought into the question asked, and sought to understand--rather than to come back with a snarky response--you would have realized that. But I know that's far too much to ask...

you wrote:
doctors do none of those things in the UK.

you wrote:
a doctor doesn't enter the profession because he speculates that there are a lot of ill people, or that a lot more people will be getting ill, thus it will be a lucrative choice. a doctor doesn't alter his hourly rates or his fees according to the demand on his 'service'. a doctor's service is not elastic (even calling it inelastic seems unwieldy and nonsensical).

These two tidbits speak to how contradictory your thought process and understanding of reality actually is. Doctors don't enter the medical profession because they don't think there will be sick people? Really? I guess they enter the medical profession to heal people who are perfectly healthy then! Makes perfect sense. In fucking bizarro world.

Which leads to the subject of specialists and sub-specialists. They enter those fields because there is a need: a demand. And normally there is a lack of them, thus a dearth of supply. And they usually get paid more for their specialized skillset...again meeting the laws of supply and demand. Cardiologists in the UK get paid more than GPs, I'm willing to bet. And pediatric neurosurgeons get paid even more (sub-specialists). All of which meets the law of supply and demand. Yes, there's some altruism involved--they truly want to help their patients. But you can bet your next 10 years of paychecks they wouldn't do it for free, either.

Uzique wrote:
you'd do well to actually read the discussion going on next time as well, instead of jumping in with the questioning of an obtuse mong.

You'd do well to quit being such an obtuse cauc and not assume that someone who asks a question in a thread hasn't actually been reading it. My questioning was spot on. Your comprehension is what was lacking.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-12-20 18:37:06

#315

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7014|Noizyland

I think what Uzique is saying is that when people make the decision to become medical doctors the supply/demand aspect is irrelevant. For one there will always be a demand for doctors and for two people will always get sick and injured. Remuneration is another matter that I think is pretty minor in peoples' decisions to become doctors. Doctors are paid well as they should but really if money was the driving factor there are easier ways to get it. A doctor may later chose to specialise in a more lucrative area of health, then money may be a deciding factor, but again their individual deciding factors are their own and would be very very rarely influenced or determined by market economics. Talk to any specialist you want about why they decided to get into their chosen area of expertise, I bet you'll get a variety of reasons with "money" being a pretty minor one.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2011-12-20 18:44:02

#316

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Ty wrote:
I think what Uzique is saying is that when people make the decision to become medical doctors the supply/demand aspect is irrelevant. For one there will always be a demand for doctors and for two people will always get sick and injured. Remuneration is another matter that I think is pretty minor in peoples' decisions to become doctors. Doctors are paid well as they should but really if money was the driving factor there are easier ways to get it. A doctor may later chose to specialise in a more lucrative area of health, then money may be a deciding factor, but again their individual deciding factors are their own and would be very very rarely influenced or determined by market economics. Talk to any specialist you want about why they decided to get into their chosen area of expertise, I bet you'll get a variety of reasons with "money" being a pretty minor one.

Because it's not polite to mention it.

In America, it's a path to respectability. Working and middle class families across the country push their kids to become doctors or lawyers. There's a prestige attached to it, and a lot of money. To say that money doesn't factor in is ridiculous. We all work for money. If they weren't after money they could perform the same job as a nurse or PA, and with less responsibility. Altruism has very little to do with any decision anyone in the world makes. Even those bored upper class fools tutting about the meaninglessness of money work those 'altruistic jobs' because it makes them less bored and lets them feel less guilty about being born rich.

Idealism in any job goes out the window after the first year or so. It certainly disappears by the time a person is a parent. Altruism and thoughts of society are principles of the young. It's why the only old liberals you see are burnt out shells

2011-12-20 19:10:25

#317

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7014|Noizyland

Is that seriously how you see it? When the chips are down money is the only reason anyone does anything? It seems to be this libertarian notion that everything will work out by the simple rules of market economics because people are predictable. People are not predictable at all. I know a man who became a doctor and decided that it wasn't what he really wanted to do - so he became an airline pilot. I know another person who studied law and politics but decided upon the completion of his studies that he would prefer a career in design and animation. My sister studied to be in the world of advertising and even joined a huge advertising firm. She is currently teaching in South Korea. It doesn't seem to register with some that people's decisions can be influenced by a huge amount of factors and money is only one of these. That's not to say money has no influence but its influence will always differ from person to person.

You say being a doctor or lawyer is a path to respectability then say that if it wasn't for money people would just work low-intensity jobs. Respectability and money aren't inextricably linked, otherwise we'd all be looking at currency traders with more respect than we do doctors or the Prime Minister of Australia would be more respected than the President of the United States.

Anyway we're kind of getting off topic here.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2011-12-20 19:34:38

#318

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

No, actually, libertarians revel in the unpredictable. The market is chaotic, and people do stuff for batshit crazy reasons sometimes. Instead of trying to fight it, we embrace it. [What happens every time some outlier 'tragedy' occurs. Legislators, predictably, pass laws to eradicate this harmful behavior that happened one time but zomg it might happen again so we better make it extra illegal. A libertarian would shrug their shoulders and say the law is the law and people will break it anyway, punish them when they do.] People don't always follow the money trail. They don't always make their decisions based on what nets them the most. Other things factor in: job satisfaction, kids, hobbies, where they want to live etc. Doesn't matter.

I never said that helping people didn't factor into what motivated doctors to become doctors, it does, it's just one of the factors though. Medical students go through hell here: Four years undergrad study, four years of medical school, three years of residency. You better believe that they expect to get paid, and paid well, once they graduate. So, while it might not be a primary motivator, it does motivate their decision.

2011-12-20 19:45:50

#319

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6710

Ty wrote:
I think what Uzique is saying is that when people make the decision to become medical doctors the supply/demand aspect is irrelevant. For one there will always be a demand for doctors and for two people will always get sick and injured. Remuneration is another matter that I think is pretty minor in peoples' decisions to become doctors. Doctors are paid well as they should but really if money was the driving factor there are easier ways to get it. A doctor may later chose to specialise in a more lucrative area of health, then money may be a deciding factor, but again their individual deciding factors are their own and would be very very rarely influenced or determined by market economics. Talk to any specialist you want about why they decided to get into their chosen area of expertise, I bet you'll get a variety of reasons with "money" being a pretty minor one.

this. supply:demand is an arbitrary thing to try and impose on a humanism.

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-12-20 21:51:56

#320

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Supply:Demand is an instantiation of humanism. When there is a gap, man tries to fill it (in so many ways )--it is human nature.

When it comes to compensation, those things that are in high demand (and thus low supply) are compensated at a higher rate. The two are linked, but that is not the crux of the issue I was raising. Thus, supply/demand is anything but irrelevant. It is the central, driving factor in why physicians do what they do. Society needs people to heal its sick (demand). People feel the need to meet that demand (supply). Whether it be for altruistic or monetary reasons is what is irrelevant to the discussion, tbh.

2011-12-21 00:13:40

#321

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5418|Sydney

Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
My father was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2002, received quality treatment and palliative care but due to the nature of the aggressive and rapid brain tumour he had (glioblastoma) they had already given him a 2% chance of living past 12 months. Despite daily radiotherapy (I went with him each time) it did little to reduce the tumour and he unfortunately died three months after diagnosis.

My mother isn't wealthy, far from it. After his death she sold the block of land they had for a modest sum, and combined with my father's life insurance she was able to purchase a small house for herself outright, and a newer car (which she really needed too). If we did not have the health system as we do, she would have been foot with a massive bill that would've cleaned her out and she would instead would be struggling in a rental on a widow's pension (it doesn't pay a lot, far from it) just to get by.

Based on these experiences and consequences, I firmly believe our health care system is a blessing.
So you're saying that if you didn't live in a NHS system your parents would not have bought health insurance? My fiancee's mom had breast cancer a few years ago and she received top notch care. Chemo, gene therapy, you name it. The health insurance even covered alternative medicine like acupuncture. For all that I think she paid a few thousand dollars. The horror.

No. My parents were fairly poor (mum still is but gets by). They couldn't afford braces when I was a teenager, as an example. After my father passed my mum all of a sudden had quite a lot of money, ie. no longer poor. Around the same time it would be reasonable to assume a hefty medical bill would've been presented.

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-12-21 00:15:59)

2011-12-21 00:26:45

#322

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:
you think that has ever been said once in the UK? you're delusional. .... if someone needs treatment they get it, there is no risk-analysis or cost-value evaluations or time taken to draft up repayment plans.

nice post though!

Its perfectly true, if you're old at any rate.

In my case the doctor explained that he would never sign off on the test I felt I needed, but as I had BUPA he would recommmend it right away.

Health care is rationed by waiting lists, especially for old people. Except in theory the care is not rationed, just the wait to see a consultant to sign off on it.

Do 90 year olds get 100k of chemotherapy, heart transplants and so on? No, unless they have insurance or want to pay themselves in which case the sky is the limit.

The only exception is acute injury or immediately life-threatening illness.

I'd still prefer this system over wondering whether I really would be treated having paid into insurance, or if the loss adjuster could find a piece of small print or a carelessly filled form which would leave me on the street.

Fuck Israel

2011-12-21 00:28:32

#323

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Ty wrote:
I think what Uzique is saying is that when people make the decision to become medical doctors the supply/demand aspect is irrelevant.

Most of the people I knew at school or uni did it for the money, and the ego trip of holding other people's lives in their hands.

Fuck Israel

2011-12-21 04:53:55

#324

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
My father was diagnosed with terminal cancer in 2002, received quality treatment and palliative care but due to the nature of the aggressive and rapid brain tumour he had (glioblastoma) they had already given him a 2% chance of living past 12 months. Despite daily radiotherapy (I went with him each time) it did little to reduce the tumour and he unfortunately died three months after diagnosis.

My mother isn't wealthy, far from it. After his death she sold the block of land they had for a modest sum, and combined with my father's life insurance she was able to purchase a small house for herself outright, and a newer car (which she really needed too). If we did not have the health system as we do, she would have been foot with a massive bill that would've cleaned her out and she would instead would be struggling in a rental on a widow's pension (it doesn't pay a lot, far from it) just to get by.

Based on these experiences and consequences, I firmly believe our health care system is a blessing.
So you're saying that if you didn't live in a NHS system your parents would not have bought health insurance? My fiancee's mom had breast cancer a few years ago and she received top notch care. Chemo, gene therapy, you name it. The health insurance even covered alternative medicine like acupuncture. For all that I think she paid a few thousand dollars. The horror.
No. My parents were fairly poor (mum still is but gets by). They couldn't afford braces when I was a teenager, as an example. After my father passed my mum all of a sudden had quite a lot of money, ie. no longer poor. Around the same time it would be reasonable to assume a hefty medical bill would've been presented.

Did they work full time? If so, their employer would've undoubtedly provided insurance for them. The only people who really have no coverage in this country are the self employed, those that work 'off the books', and those that work part time or are unemployed. Even in those listed situations, the employer covers the spouse as well, so both of your parents would've had to have fit within those categories. Or, if they were as poor as you say, they would've qualified for Medicaid or Medicare. Your parents would've been just fine in America.

2011-12-21 05:19:45

#325

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6392|what

Unless the healthplan offered by the employer didn't cover your illness. Or pre-existing condition.

Pages: 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 19

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
U.S. health care reform

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums U.S. health care reform

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

you wrote:

you wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ty wrote:

Ty wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Ty wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Board footer