Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5991|College Park, MD
Like watching a slow train crash, Obama's latest speech wasn't exactly his best. Lots of stuttering... did he have his teleprompter?

Anyhoo, I found this gem that made me chuckle and cry on the inside:

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/RItWlOt-O-tonsils

In the first part, he claims that by "removing the profit motive" that private healthcare providers will provide better service. Yeah, because doctors love earning less money. To justify his claim, later on in the video (around 2:25) he gives a ludicrous hypothetical situation of a person going to a doctor's office with a kid who has a sore throat, and instead of giving the kid allergy medicine the doctor takes his tonsils out because "he could make more money that way."

I wouldn't be surprised if some doctor's are greedy assholes, but the pay isn't always THAT great and a lot of them do it for the love of medicine. I highly doubt doctors everywhere are ripping out tonsils instead of administering medicine. Maybe they RAN TESTS and found the kid had tonsillitis. But what do I know, right? After all he is the One, well-versed in not only politic but medicine as well.

If Obama wants to rally up support for this health care plan he probably shouldn't be lambasting doctors. The last thing you want is a lack of good doctors available when you're trying to give your new health care program a good image.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-07-22 23:21:47)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5875

I know a huge amount of people who are getting in the medical field to help people, never heard a single one say "because it pays motherfucker"

Taking away the incentive to make money lowers the quality of the work done in any case, field, or profession though.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6442|what

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Like watching a slow train crash, Obama's latest speech wasn't exactly his best. Lots of stuttering... did he have his teleprompter?
He's certainly no Bush Jnr...


What you need is for doctors university fees to be lower. If only the rich can become doctors you're cutting off a huge resource in others who could make it, but would rather earn a degree that takes less time and costs less (I agree that to become a doctor you need more than just 3/4 years study however).
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

If anyone would like to read the transcript or watch the entire video from Obama's Fifth News Conference it can be found here.

Video Only
I didn't see a stuttering idiot up there.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5991|College Park, MD
And still the elephant in the room that the dems don't want to acknowledge is that Congress doesn't want to put itself onto its master plan.

edit: I never said stuttering IDIOT, but I did notice some parts where he stuttered. Not a big deal really.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-07-22 23:41:49)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Not a big deal really.
I agree, and I was not saying that you said he sounded like a stuttering idiot. I was just being illustrative with my remark.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Zombie_Affair
Amputee's...BOOP
+78|6105|Fattest Country in the world.
You have the right to deny a practioners Medical Advice, if they want to take your tonsils and you don't think that's the right answer, go somewhere else, get a second or third opinion.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6700|'Murka

Zombie_Affair wrote:

You have the right to deny a practioners Medical Advice, if they want to take your tonsils and you don't think that's the right answer, go somewhere else, get a second or third opinion.
We have that right...now.
“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
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6938

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

To justify his claim, later on in the video (around 2:25) he gives a ludicrous hypothetical situation of a person going to a doctor's office with a kid who has a sore throat, and instead of giving the kid allergy medicine the doctor takes his tonsils out because "he could make more money that way."
No, it's more a case of them taking the tonsils out first time they get tonsillitis rather than just treating it. You only take tonsils out if you get it repeatedly. I guess he didn't think that example through too well.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

ghettoperson wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

To justify his claim, later on in the video (around 2:25) he gives a ludicrous hypothetical situation of a person going to a doctor's office with a kid who has a sore throat, and instead of giving the kid allergy medicine the doctor takes his tonsils out because "he could make more money that way."
No, it's more a case of them taking the tonsils out first time they get tonsillitis rather than just treating it. You only take tonsils out if you get it repeatedly. I guess he didn't think that example through too well.
It's quite a good example tbh.

The US has a very high rate of tonsil removal compared to other countries, it could well be that it is profit driven....
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6938

Yes, but you're more likely going to be an honest doc and do the proper surgery for the problem, but just prematurely rather than be a dishonest doc and take them out because poor little George has the sniffles.
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
They need to jam this through before the August recess without even reading it... If not they will get bombarded with people that are against it while they are on vacation in their home states. We need real healtchare reform not socialized medicine.  I think he screwed up by slamming through the bullsh@t 787 billion dollar stimulus bill that has done nothing...  He is like the boy who cried wolf now...his numbers are dropping as the ether of hope and change(meaning the govt takeover of banks/car dealers and anything else they can) wears off.
Love is the answer
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

ghettoperson wrote:

Yes, but you're more likely going to be an honest doc and do the proper surgery for the problem, but just prematurely rather than be a dishonest doc and take them out because poor little George has the sniffles.
I'm not saying it's being done dishonestly or anything remotely like that. Just that the rate is higher than elsewhere. Since it is alleged that this is profit driven, one can only assume that the doctors make more money from such a procedure - which is a perfectly valid treatment, but in many cases may be a little over the top - costing the taxpayer more money and having a greater risk of complications for the patient. The doctors are not being dishonest, they are administering a treatment that will resolve the problem. Them choosing the treatment that makes them the most money is perfectly understandable. It is also perfectly understandable to have systems in place to prevent this sort of over the top treatment for greater profits, if that does indeed occur - which the comparative rates seem to suggest.
13rin
Member
+977|6768
Nothing new here... Typical Obama.  Villify then takeover.  Just the same as he villified the evil corporate execs, bankers, stock brokers, doctors are next.  It astounds me as people still fall for his BS.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
imortal
Member
+240|6954|Austin, TX
Ok, the sad part is that I can see his point at some level.  However, not at the level of the individual health care worker.  I will admit that capitalism does not always work.  At the health insurance level, it may make some sense to have a company concentrate more on 'member services' than it does on company profit.  My question is, how can we accomplish that without going overboard?  A suggestion would be to not allow medical insurance companies from being publicly traded on the stock market.  If a company doesn't have to watch a stock price, then maybe, just maybe, it could help.

Cutting healthcare workers pay is a bad idea in several ways.  A patient needs access to 4 things in healthcare.  You need access to: 1) a medical facility, 2) medical equipment, 3) medications, and 4) people with medical knowledge.  You can't negotiate with the first three, but you have to with the last.  If you buy a building, it is there.  If you pay for an MRI machine, it stays in its room.  But a doctor or nurse, tech or aid, you have to pay them and pay them, or they will walk out the door.

Healthcare is a pretty tough job.  The hours are rough (especially in EMS or in a hosptial), it is emotionally draining, and you always have student loans to pay back.  Unless a student is indipendantly wealthy (and few of us are), someone going through medical school can build up more than $120,000 in debt.  That is like having an additional house payment.  Nurses have it easier to start.  A new RN can expect to have the equivilant of an additional car payment to make.   Healthcare workers will balk at the government controlling costs through controlling workers salaries.  Now, the 'better' a doctor is, or the more experienced, they more money they make.  If you take that away, a lot of them will leave (if they can).
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
Ann Coulters take on govt run healtcare... you might hate her but it's hard to argue with her logic...

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer … rticle=322

TAKE TWO ASPIRIN AND CALL ME WHEN YOUR CANCER IS STAGE 4
by Ann Coulter
July 22, 2009

All the problems with the American health care system come from government intervention, so naturally the Democrats' idea for fixing it is more government intervention. This is like trying to sober up by having another drink.

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!

We already have near-universal health coverage in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' hospitals, emergency rooms and tax-deductible employer-provided health care -- all government creations.

So now, everyone expects doctors to be free. People who pay $200 for a haircut are indignant if it costs more than a $20 co-pay to see a doctor.

The government also "helped" us by mandating that insurance companies cover all sorts of medical services, both ordinary -- which you ought to pay for yourself -- and exotic, such as shrinks, in vitro fertilization and child-development assessments -- which no normal person would voluntarily pay to insure against.

This would be like requiring all car insurance to cover the cost of gasoline, oil and tire changes -- as well as professional car detailing, iPod docks, leather seats and those neon chaser lights I have all along the underbody of my chopped, lowrider '57 Chevy.

But politicians are more interested in pleasing lobbyists for acupuncturists, midwives and marriage counselors than they are in pleasing recent college graduates who only want to insure against the possibility that they'll be hit by a truck. So politicians at both the state and federal level keep passing boatloads of insurance mandates requiring that all insurance plans cover a raft of non-emergency conditions that are expensive to treat -- but whose practitioners have high-priced lobbyists.

As a result, a young, healthy person has a choice of buying artificially expensive health insurance that, by law, covers a smorgasbord of medical services of no interest to him ... or going uninsured. People who aren't planning on giving birth to a slew of children with restless leg syndrome in the near future forgo insurance -- and then politicians tell us we have a national emergency because some people don't have health insurance.

The whole idea of insurance is to insure against catastrophes: You buy insurance in case your house burns down -- not so you can force other people in your plan to pay for your maid. You buy car insurance in case you're in a major accident, not so everyone in the plan shares the cost of gas.

Just as people use vastly different amounts of gasoline, they also use vastly different amounts of medical care -- especially when an appointment with a highly trained physician costs less than a manicure.

Insurance plans that force everyone in the plan to pay for everyone else's Viagra and anti-anxiety pills are already completely unfair to people who rarely go to the doctor. It's like being forced to share gas bills with a long-haul trucker or a restaurant bill with Michael Moore. On the other hand, it's a great deal for any lonely hypochondriacs in the plan.

Now the Democrats want to force us all into one gigantic national health insurance plan that will cover every real and mythical ailment that has a powerful lobby. But if you have a rare medical condition without a lobbying arm, you'll be out of luck.

Even two decades after the collapse of liberals' beloved Soviet Union, they can't grasp that it's easier and cheaper to obtain any service provided by capitalism than any service provided under socialism.

You don't have to conjure up fantastic visions of how health care would be delivered in this country if we bought it ourselves. Just go to a grocery store or get a manicure. Or think back to when you bought your last muffler, personal trainer, computer and every other product and service available in inexpensive abundance in this capitalist paradise.

Third-party payer schemes are always a disaster -- less service for twice the price! If you want good service at a good price, be sure to be the one holding the credit card. Under "universal health care," no one but government bureaucrats will be allowed to hold the credit card.

Isn't food important? Why not "universal food coverage"? If politicians and employers had guaranteed us "free" food 50 years ago, today Democrats would be wailing about the "food crisis" in America, and you'd be on the phone with your food care provider arguing about whether or not a Reuben sandwich with fries was covered under your plan.

Instead of making health care more like the DMV, how about we make it more like grocery stores? Give the poor and tough cases health stamps and let the rest of us buy health care -- and health insurance -- on the free market.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106
Love is the answer
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

The reason seeing a doctor is already more like going to the DMV, and less like going to the Apple "Genius Bar," is that the government decided health care was too important to be left to the free market. Yes -- the same free market that has produced such a cornucopia of inexpensive goods and services that, today, even poor people have cell phones and flat-screen TVs.
lol @ mentioning Apple Genius Bar and inexpensive goods and services in the same paragraph....


That bit however, is a good analogy - unlike the rest.

As a result, it's easier to get your computer fixed than your health. Thanks, government!


Because of course a person is far simpler to fix than a man made machine....



Hard to argue with her logic? The whole article is riddled with holes and nonsense.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6857|Mountains of NC

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
I guess you're right bert, when you take things out of context.

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-07-23 11:23:03)

Love is the answer
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6871|SE London

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

I guess you're right bert, when you take things out of context.
A bit like Ms Coulter then....

Look at her examples. They're totally and completely out of context. Taking the excerpt I looked at earlier as an example shows this quite straightforwardly.

Why does the Apple Genius Bar provide that sort of service? As an incentive to buy and to reduce costs on replacement units for customers that they are required to provide under law.

How is that reasoning applicable to the healthcare industry? Neither of the 2 motivational factors are there. These systems are in place to sell products for the maximum amount possible through providing a "premium" service. They are easy and simple to entice you to buy the product and to avoid having to replace the product should something go wrong with it. A persons health is not a product, it is not a commodity to be traded. Healthcare systems do not make profit. They should not need to attract customers. The whole concept of comparing the healthcare system to commercial business models is completely absurd.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-23 11:35:59)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard