lawrocket 3 #151 March 7, 2007 QuoteI respect your point of view, but what exactly do you suggest we do about all of the people that cannot afford healthcare? Ive been to countries that share your beliefs, and there was lepars begging on the streets, I dont think that would be acceptable in the USA. No, it would not be acceptable. The choice, as I see it, it the choice between three possibilities: 1) Healthcare is is high quality and affordable, but rationed (Canada) - the leper on the street would not be a problem. He'd still be a leper, just with fewer appendages, since the lesion that developed went untreated for 6 weeks while he waited for a referral to a specialist. 2) Healthcare is high quality and readily available - when you can afford it (American model) - in a sense, the difference between US and Canada's health care can be explained not only by an "opt-out" but by a rationing mechanism - Canada rations on the basis that they just don't have it an nobody can get it; while the US rations high quality healthcare on the basis of who can afford it. You would at least keep the financially well-off lepers viable. 3) Healthcare is affordable and freely available, but not very good (many places in the world) - bloodletting can be done by anyone and is pretty inexpensive. All the lepers would get treatment, but it probably wouldn't do much good. Really, it is an issue of which injustice do you want? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #152 March 7, 2007 Okay, just so I can get on the right page. . .you are saying: The govt "contracts" out all aspects of health that involves any concrete entity (buildings, personnel, businesses) and processes only paperwork that involves the who, what, where and how much and contractual agreements? Or: Total govt ownership in all aspects healthcare at Tier One?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #153 March 7, 2007 It seems to me that reorganizing our system as per Bill Von suggetions we could cover everyone and it wouldnt cost anymore than we spend already Yeah. I think that everyone should have access to essential healthcare. BUT I think that more basic needs, like food and shelter, are even more important. I think that entitlements for more than emergency and some preventative healthcare should only be considered when other, more basic needs for our citizens are met. The problem is, though, that people want to be able to come to the doctor for every sniffle and have the newest antibiotic prescribed and paid for by the rest of us. I'm not interested in paying for Levaquin when Amoxicillin will take care of the problem. And I'm not interested in paying for Amoxicillin when the problem will clear up itself in time. People are not entitled to the most convenient, newest and greatest healthcare on a whim at taxpayers expense.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #154 March 7, 2007 QuoteThe current state of VA healthcare makes a pretty compelling case against government run universal healthcare. YIKES! Oh, That's Cute! The ABJECT FAILURE of the Bush administration to plan adequately for the totally predictable outcomes of its optional war, is now evidence that universal healthcare can't work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #155 March 7, 2007 www.quickhealth.com is a new business model that's worth watching. They're opening up offices next (or inside of) pharmacies and offer most general non urgent services, starting at $39 for a 15 minute consult with a doctor. $199 for a physical, aids and std check ("Lovers special") No insurance used, though you can take the receipt and try to bill it. They intend to be a for profit company. If it succeeds, there's an indication of how overpriced our health insurance appears to be - or that that the rack rate for typical care subsidizes the urgent care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spudboy 0 #156 March 7, 2007 we are definately on the same page, Im not suggesting that the taxpayers foot the bill for a breast enhancement or nose job, just the basic needs, but I think providing the less fortunate with acsess to preventive medicine such as yearly checkups at a clinic, rather than an emergency room could go a long way at saving the average taxpayer alot of money, in the long run. My insurance premium has doubled in the last 5 years, some radical changes are going to have to be made to the current system or healthcare will only be something most of us will experience by watching lifestyles of the rich and shameless Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #157 March 7, 2007 Indeed, assuming that you are correct that it is the Bush Administration, it's amazing to think what would have happened to the millions of children, poor, and minorities in the US had universal health care been the American system when Bush, Jr. came to power. I mean, can you think of the abject failure of the administration to plan for things like sterile method? I'm sure that iatrogenic accidents would have decimated inner cities. Quote ABJECT FAILURE of the Bush administration to plan adequately for the totally predictable outcomes of its optional war, is now evidence that universal healthcare can't work. Yes. It is. If one man's administration can so totally fuck up an organization like that, it should should present a stark reality to everyone. EVERYBODY WHO WANTS NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN THE US - IMAGINE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AT THE VA, AN ORGANIZATION THAT RAN WELL UNDER CLINTON, BUT IS SO RIPE WITH POSSIBILITIES OF MISMANAGEMENT THAT ONE MAN'S ADMINISTRATION CAN MESS IT UP! IF IT CAN HAPPEN TO SOMETHING SMALL LIKE THE VA, IT CAN HAPPEN ON A NATIONAL LEVEL! Imagine what this country would be like had the American medical system been under the current administration's guidance. We would have no choice, professor. None. We would be stuck with it. It is what you have when you get governments deciding medical issues. John - don't you have thanks to whatever almighty out there that at least Bush didn't have a national healthcare system to fuck up the way he fucked up the VA? Because, with National Healthcare, it's what you would have gotten. p.s. - Some government leaders, if they were democrats, greens, peace and freedom, or communist party members, would obviously do the right thing for the health of the people, and the system will work well and people will be healthy and happy. But, if a republican or libertarian administration moves in, the healthcare system fundamentally moves to a place where Surgeon General Mengele is in charge of hospital Buchenwald. I mean, professor, if Bush can do it to the VA, he can do it to the whole of the medical system. Thank goodness we didn't have national health care, thus averting a national disaster. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #158 March 7, 2007 QuoteNo insurance used, though you can take the receipt and try to bill it. This is exactly what I am talking about with my model. It's not a "single payor" system, but a "single payment" system - CASH. The key, however, is that this place will not accept Medicare. No back office billing codes, just cash. And is exactly the type of thing I can see happening if cash payments (what we used to have) were reintroduced. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #159 March 7, 2007 >EVERYBODY WHO WANTS NATIONAL HEALTH CARE IN THE US - IMAGINE >THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED AT THE VA, AN ORGANIZATION >THAT RAN WELL UNDER CLINTON, BUT IS SO RIPE WITH POSSIBILITIES OF >MISMANAGEMENT THAT ONE MAN'S ADMINISTRATION CAN MESS IT UP! If that happened under my system, the solution would be to go to a better hospital - and pay for it. If you can't afford it - then deal with what Bush can give you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #160 March 7, 2007 Quote After reading some of your posts it seems your solution to America's healthcare problem is to basically cull the herd, is that correct? We should not waste our money on unattainable goals. You are clinging to a fantasy, and it is destructive to pursue it heedless.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #161 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteNo insurance used, though you can take the receipt and try to bill it. This is exactly what I am talking about with my model. It's not a "single payor" system, but a "single payment" system - CASH. The key, however, is that this place will not accept Medicare. No back office billing codes, just cash. And is exactly the type of thing I can see happening if cash payments (what we used to have) were reintroduced. Apparently they are prohibited by law from dealing with Medicare patients. But if this sort of business model is profitable and successful, we want a method for medicare patients to be able to use it. They'd pay cash up front, but either reimburse them or have an annual tax credit to a given dollar amount. Key is the elimination of the billing office and the 5 rounds of back and forth. (the catch then is worrying about fake claims) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #162 March 7, 2007 Doctors are already constantly spooked about Medicare fraud. The problem is that it is a violation of federal law to chare people with a health plan less than people with Medicare or Medicaid - a system set up to make sure that the federal government doesn't get gypped by ensuring everyone else does. Many insurance companies write the same language into their agreements with doctors. However, in the event that a person chooses not to use insurance,or does not have it, those rules do not apply. So you'll find doctors that charge $100.00 for a yearly physical. Or doctor visits for $40.00 - which is less than a $20 copay and 300 per month for insurance. So, these doctors can't accept Medicare because if they do and charge someone less, the government will press charges for Medicare fraud against them - the govt. wants the cheapest prices for them. I think it's a great idea - I actually have a physician that works like this - no insurance, nothing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #163 March 7, 2007 QuoteI believe that we should fix the system by duplicating what is working well in all the countries that have healthcare systems superior to ours Define "superior" As in free, quality, or availability? I can not think of a country that has all three. Can you think of one? So given a choice of only one of those three, which would you choose and why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #164 March 7, 2007 Quote>Spend even more, or fix the system? Fix the system. Eliminate the dozens of levels of billing, insurance, collection agencies, government forms, laywers, prequalification etc for basic care I am OK with spending more as long as we tried to reduce the costs first. I would really like to see tort reform that actually does something. I would like to see company's given tax breaks for every dollar they spend providing health care to workers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #165 March 7, 2007 QuotePeople dying in droves from treatable conditions like diabetes because nobody, not least themselves nor our gov't, can afford to pay for their treatment I could almost support national healthcare...With one major provision. People would have to take some steps in preventive care. Stop smoking, lose weight. But we will never make rules like that and I hate to see money get wasted on "Disease's" that are due to eating Ho-ho's and watching TV. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #166 March 7, 2007 QuoteThe biggest problems that our medical system face ae: 1) people who use it without paying; 2) people who won't drop 50 bucks for a doctor's visit when they don't have to drop any money for an ER visit; and 3) the high costs of compliance. Can we add people who don't take any ACTIVE steps to remain healthy but expect Dr.'s to make them healthy? Ya know like not smoking, getting some exercise? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #167 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe current state of VA healthcare makes a pretty compelling case against government run universal healthcare. YIKES! Oh, That's Cute! The ABJECT FAILURE of the Bush administration to plan adequately for the totally predictable outcomes of its optional war, is now evidence that universal healthcare can't work. Are you saying the VA, under Clinton, was a model of efficiency? Here's a news flash - it's been run like shit for decades. Basically, my point was that how can we consider turning healthcare over to the federal government, when that same government has consistently failed to manage the healthcare of our vets, in an efficient manner. Can someone explain to me why the cost/person of publicly funded healthcare in this country is twice that of privately funded healthcare in this country? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #168 March 7, 2007 Quote98.2% color TVs Sony is coming out with a TV that will be 99.1% color. It'll cost $80,000 for 21" model ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
