Socialized Medicine

Again, an avoidance of answering simple questions: Am I correct in thinking that your primary concern is that poor people who can't afford treatment might die? And/or that they might be kept from being productive citizens?

And again, I don't want to put words into your mouth; I want to make sure I understand your primary concerns in an area with numerous concerns.
 
Again, an avoidance of answering simple questions: Am I correct in thinking that your primary concern is that poor people who can't afford treatment might die? And/or that they might be kept from being productive citizens?
Click to expand...
I did answer your question. I pretty clearly stated that I do not want to be a society of "expendable" people. I stated that I believe people have a right to basic care so that they can return to their lives as productive citizens.

I am sorry you did not catch that in my post. I will type slower and use smaller words next time. :D :p ;)
 
This has nothing to do with socialized medicine - it is entirely due to super large organiztaions (AAP and AMA) that are full of antigun doctors and lawyers - There is no governmental involvement in these faulted decisions and the questioning of parent's gun habits already exists -
Click to expand...
I agree with you that RIGHT NOW "it is entirely due to super large organiztaions (AAP and AMA) that are full of antigun doctors and lawyers." However, I'm concerned about how such a policy might be impacted under a nationalized system, under which asking the questions might not be so voluntary any more, and where the answers to those questions could go into government databanks.
Again people are making speculations on how to fix a bad system - I for one, agree, it is bad - But the answer will not come easy.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the system needs repair. Regarding the topic of this thread, I disagree with a nationalized approach.
 
I agree with you that the system needs repair. Regarding the topic of this thread, I disagree with a nationalized approach.
Click to expand...
How about regulations that require medical care be not-for-profit or even non-profit.

Care givers such as Shriners and others seem to operate fine with a not-for-profit system.
 
If the moderators are going to let this thread live, I'll give my .02

I see the main 'hole' in the current system arising out of abuse of the health care and more importantly OVERUSE. In emergency medicine, I am overwhelmed with people on state welfare that come to the ER with 1-4 people whom all want to be seen for cold symptoms that have been present for 2 hours (I'm not kidding). They pay no copays and their prescritption, dental care and referrals are paid in full by YOU and I. We need to limit the access of to health care to this population also - It drives up cost dramatically - Also, as a hospital based agency, I can not turn anybody away, even if they owe us thousands of dollars and clearly have no intentions of paying.

People that have insurance are charged copays and are aware that an ER visit is more expensive than seeing a PCP and they make wiser choices. Nowm this has been taken a step further with health saving accounts where there are monetary incentives to not overuse the system.

These aren't the answers, but are clearly a big part of the problem.

Socialized medicine Doesn;t work and likely never will - The current insurance companies are too rich and definately contribute to the problem too.

Physician Assistants and other midlevel providers as myself, offer the same health care as a physician at reduced costs, but that's not the answer in entirety either.
 
I am overwhelmed with people on state welfare that come to the ER with 1-4 people whom all want to be seen for cold symptoms that have been present for 2 hours (I'm not kidding).
Click to expand...
You are absolutely not kidding. My brother-n-law is an emergency room doc and that is the majority of their cases. People that have no established health care system tend to rely on ER for treatment. That is one of the biggest problems with our current system.

But to state that the majority are on welfare is an overstatement at best. The vast majority have no means of pay at all. They are not on welfare and do not have insurance. They go to the ER because they know they will not be denied service even though they have no coverage.
 
I did answer your question. I pretty clearly stated that I do not want to be a society of "expendable" people. I stated that I believe people have a right to basic care so that they can return to their lives as productive citizens.
Click to expand...
Okay, so then you must believe in nationalizing our food system. Because people do not require health care as much as they require food. You can live without health care; you cannot live without food.

To be logically consistent, you must also be in favor of nationalizing our food system so that people - young and old, rich and poor - stay strong and healthy and are productive. So food should also be "not for profit."

People have stayed strong, healthy, and productive without nationalized health care. No human in history has ever stayed strong, healthy, and productive without food.
 
PBP, you made a TINY quote from my thread... Taxes? The money we spend is largely poorly spent! Methadone for junkies? A week supply? I know for a fact that a good percentage do it in 2 nights to get "ripped" and another large percentage sell it to other junkies. Another high expense is this nations refusal to allow faster drug approval. The drugs cost a ton because we refuse to accept them sooner. Even if fully studied in an industrialized nation. Another expense is one i am guilty of being a party to... If I need emergency care I go get it.
Now if we quit pork barrel spending and supporting other nations I would still not want socialist care. Why? Cuz i don't want the guberment in my business! They should be too busy with the jobs our constitution makes them do to worry about me!
Awww crap I done went and shot myself in the foot again... the constitution grants me the right to "seek life liberty and happiness". No where is it a granted right that they will be guaranteed! Hard studying smart working folks should not be burdened with providing others with insurance!
Brent
 
Okay, so then you must believe in nationalizing our food system. Because people do not require health care as much as they require food. You can live without health care; you cannot live without food.

To be logically consistent, you must also be in favor of nationalizing our food system so that people - young and old, rich and poor - stay strong and healthy and are productive. So food should also be "not for profit."
Click to expand...
No, because our food system is regulated already and it is not broken. the vast majority of people can afford food and those that cannot have service available to them Also, people can provide food to other needy people with no real training. they simply need the desire to give. Medical care is not the same. I cannot decide to provide medical care for someone but i can give them a sandwich so that comparison does not hold water.

Do not use "slippery slope" arguments to defend your position. They are weak at best.
 
Taxes? The money we spend is largely poorly spent! Methadone for junkies? A week supply? I know for a fact that a good percentage do it in 2 nights to get "ripped" and another large percentage sell it to other junkies
Click to expand...
And what percentage of our expenditures does that account for??? 1/10 of a percent? Less? Make statements and point out flaws but keep them in perspective. Sensationalism is not good debate.
Another high expense is this nations refusal to allow faster drug approval. The drugs cost a ton because we refuse to accept them sooner.
Click to expand...
That can be perceived as an issue but I do not buy it personally. I believe that is just another "we want to sell it faster and make more money" scheme from the big business drug companies. if that were true why do the same companies sell the same drugs in other countries for small percentages of what they charge here?

The drugs went through the same trials and met the same standard but then a pill that sells for $2 here is sold for $.45 in Canada by the same company.
 
Our food system works (for the most part) not because it is regulated already but because it follows an effective model. Our current health care system doesn't, and a nationalized approach doesn't either.
 
Do people that become ill not deserve the same rights as people that stay healthy?
Click to expand...

They don't have a right to health care.

There's no such thing as a right that necessitates a financial obligation on someone else's part.
 
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.............
Click to expand...
Those systems are still functioning and could easily meet needs if not abused. Medicare still provides the majority of care for elderly people in this country and if not being drained into the pockets of big business would have little problems.

If your going to take the stance of "destroy the system instead of get rid of the abuse" then you will never be able to accomplish anything. Seems to me that is how a lot of antis want to deal with gun issues. Instead of dealing with abuses and ridding the system of those they want to scrap the entire right.

Plus, Social Security is supposed to be insurance...not an entitlement. The same people that say they don't want handouts sure do want their SS checks.
 
The same people that say they don't want handouts sure do want their SS checks.
Click to expand...

These people were FORCED to pay into a system, with no choice in the matter.

If I had been able to invest what I have put into Social Security over the years, I would be much better off.
 
Those systems are still functioning and could easily meet needs if not abused.
Click to expand...

Those systems are broke, and only kept afloat through a Ponzi scheme, especially Social Security. Medicare and Medicaid payouts alone make up over a third of the entire annual budget already, and the baby boomers haven't even retired en masse yet.

The main problem with a "free" health care system is that it removes the main motivation for moderation of consumption. How are you going to prevent even bigger abuses of the system once you remove the one thing that makes people consider whether they actually need to see a doctor--having to foot the bill? The only way to do that is to put government bureaucrats on the case who get to ration out the available health care based on their judgment of what's a necessary treatment and what isn't. Then you're right back at the stage you lament...pencil pushers making health care decisions to save costs, only this time they'll be federal employees, not HMO accountants.

As for Social Security...only a complete dreamer would classify a system as "functioning" that will pay out less to people below the age of forty or so than they will have paid in. Just because the government can still pay the current retirees with the money taken from the current wage earners does not mean the system "works". It means that it keeps itself afloat (barely), but that'll only work as long as the contributions are more than the paid-out benefits. Some time in, oh, 2015 or so, the ratio will be upside down due to the retiring boomer population, and then the government has to pay SS benefits out of the general fund and pay back all those IOUs it has left in the SS Trust Fund for the last thirty-odd years.

Can you do simple math, I wonder?
 
Medicare still provides the majority of care for elderly people in this country and if not being drained into the pockets of big business would have little problems
Click to expand...

Medicare is a flaming disaster. Obviously you have never had to deal with Medicare.

Many doctors, clinics and hospitals are refusing to take new Medicare patients. Any guesses as to why that is?
 
These people were FORCED to pay into a system, with no choice in the matter.

If I had been able invest what I have put into Social Security over the years, I would be much better off.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of people receive back more than what they pay in within the first few years of payments. people living on SS now that paid in to the system in the 40's, 50's, and 60's receieve many times their investment back.

Plus, SS was set up as a safety net for those that reach old age and are unable to support themselves. It is an expenditure program like roads and electrical grids and is not meant to be an entitlement.
 
Many doctors, clinics and hospitals are refusing to take new Medicare patients. Any guesses as to why that is?
Click to expand...
I know exactely why...there is not enough profit in it. NWMM in Mississippi released a notice to stockholders that stated just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top