Universal Health Care

Let the free market work it out.

I firmly believe that the free market can provide high-quality, reasonably-priced health care without government intervention. Until private charities can assume the task of providing health care to the medically indigent, the government has a role to play in financing such care in some form. However, I think the government has no business providing or managing health care or reimbursing for services rendered.

Elective plastic surgery is a free-market now. Without insurance and a government bureaucracy, costs have actually gone down over the past decade. Much of this has to do with the ability of the consumer to make choices which aren't available to them with insurance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]491392[/snapback]</div>

Where to start....."less than a 100" Well, that could be anywhere from 1 to 99. Oh, I see, you don't want to point out that it is 80 (yes that would be a lot).

1. rations health care - Totally meaningless statement.
2. does not allow for medical malpractice suits- It might, or it might cap them, or allow them. It does not exist yet, so YOU don't know!
3. rations availability to medications - IT SHOULD! I'm sick of all the "Cheap meds!" spam I get. Pills are the new coke these days.
4. rations availability to diagnostic imaging- IT DOESN'T. We have excess machines in the US, Canada has a shortage. You can't predict Canadian style shortage of machines here, due to a change in payment structure.
5. rations availability to organ transplantation- WE ALREADY DO! there are more patients waiting then there are available organs.
6. rations availability based on age- Huh?
7. places the govt in total control of your health care- No, the payments of. Big brother's not going to roam hospital hallways telling doctors not to waste that tetnus shot on HIM.
8. gives the govt access to your medical records- If they wanted it, they can get it already.
9. removes all market forces from health care - There are NO market forces on it today. The only way this happens is if patients have to pay a % out of pocket with no max. Prices are so high already, that this is unfeasable.

Quit making crap up.

 

The health care system in America sucks for most of us. I would take a Canada or European type system any day. A week in the hospital would make me declare bankruptcy, sell my car, and move to a slumhouse, and yes, I have insurance and we make the median household income in this state. The fact that medical care is decided and administered by profit motivated greed makes me sick. Insurance companies make money by denying services; the profit motive is in CONTRAST to the individual's well being and public good. You rightwingers are totally warped to think that profit motivation has a place in healthcare decisions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 6 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]491407[/snapback]</div>

I like you. You make life interesting.

1. in my book rationing is not ok.
2. who is going to pay for med mal?? and who is going to reimburse all the good doctors for the education expenses once you socialize it? and then who will pay them?
3. disagree - how do you fund new research on new medications?
4. yes you can -
5. organ transplant is rationed based on need and availability - not $ - that will be the new ration system with socialized care.
6. over 65 in england - dont get cancer dont get sick
7. i know you are not that naive - big brother will be watching you.
8. wrong - ask dr hippa
9. prices are only high because of:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 02:59 PM) [snapback]491412[/snapback]</div>

9a. med malpractice - too much defensive medicine
9b. lack of market forces
9c. mandates
9d. lack of trans - state competition by insurance companies
9e. taking care of illegals and people that come here for medical care even though they are not citizens
9f. social programs like drug prescription care for the elderly, medicare, medicaid - again lack of competition here too.
9g. too many hospital beds - close down hospitals. NYC alone has 30% more hospital beds on average than are needed - costs boku bucks - shut them down - again lack of market forces at work.

gotta get back to wasting societies dollars now
have a nice day

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]491410[/snapback]</div>

you are in the center of socialized care - you should try [God forbid] getting really sick up north or in england - do you have 18 weeks to wait to get treatment there - because thats the average wait time for really sick patients there??

i believe if people want socialized care - let them have it - but do NOT force it on all of us. let there be two systems or three or four - we all know socialized medicine is on its deathbed everywhere else.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 6 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]491405[/snapback]</div>

true - all true

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 01:59 PM) [snapback]491412[/snapback]</div>

2. I agree with you that Med Mal needs curbs; The doctors will likely make about the same income with a government paid system than an insurance paid system (if done correctly, but doctors won't be able to make thousands to millions of dollars pushing certain drugs or in collecting speakers fees from pharmaceutical companies), but I also support various means to make education more affordable so that the poor and middle class have a more equal chance as the wealthy in getting a M.D.
3. The same way we fund research for almost everything else (and quite successfully) - through the university system using NIH grants.
4. Shortages of certain equipment is not based on anything other than a priority of resources
5. $ does determine organ rationing. Those without the money to stay in the hospital will most likely not be able to afford the wait for an organ (and the insurance will prevent diagnosis screenings that might put someone on the waitlist sooner) My soccer coach from my youth died a few years ago waiting for a liver because he couldn't afford to wait in the hospital living in intensive care for weeks, so he took the 'die peacefully' option; he was 46 and left behind a wife of 22 years, four kids, and two grandkids.

 

Sorry Dr. B. You cannot state that you know the shortcomings of a health system that DOES NOT EXIST. When there is an actual plan and legislation FOR this mythical system, then you can criticize the hell out of it. And I hope you do. Input from doctors will be VERY important to the success of any new system. "But leave it alone" solves nothing and you know it. But then again, we already know that's your preference for fear of losing your very comfy salary (Though an unwarranted fear).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 02:11 PM) [snapback]491412[/snapback]</div>

I am in the center of socialized care??? That is news to me. I have yet to see a hospital or clinic with a sign that says 'free care' anywhere.

I haven't seen any facts that it takes 18 weeks to get treatment in England, would you care to provide a source?? And what kind of treatment are you talking about?? For some treatments, 18 weeks would be fine, and when I do get treated, I won't be dedicating my next two years to paying for it.

I am thinking about moving to another country upon graduation where I can have socialized care, guaranteed vacation, well-funded mass transit, and a population where people actually care about more than money and killing brown people.

There is no evidence of socialized medicine going to its deathbed either. That is as true as saying that the Bush is popular or Hybrids are more environmentally dangerous than hummers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 03:16 PM) [snapback]491421[/snapback]</div>

i'm gonna have to disagree with you there. few NIH grants are even being funded right now just for academic research. put the private sector in competition and someone will get screwed over.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]491427[/snapback]</div>

boy are you cynical
best of luck in cuba - say hi to michael moore for me

interesting how you want everything done for you - you would probably be better off in a socialized country while they still exist. heads up - cross england and france off your list - and canada is tilting towards capitalism. n. vietnam too - becoming capitalistic. n. korea is still a possibility - bring some simple medications just in case - i hear electric rates are low too :lol: . china - prob not. finland?? a toss up -

for facts about waiting times in england - just do a little due diligence bro - also check how many deaths are caused by nationalized health care there too - shocking for me, not for those that like govt run everything.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]491427[/snapback]</div>

I will attribute such naive statements to your age. Look at Europe's pathetic economic performance to see how such massive government control over the economy works. You can have all those things you listed, but you will be lucky to get a job that pays enough to live even at the average American's economic level.

 

The distribution of health care costs is strongly age dependent, a phenomenon that takes on increasing relevance as the baby boom generation ages. After the first year of life, health care costs are lowest for children, rise slowly throughout adult life, and increase exponentially after age 50 (Meerding et al. 1998). Bradford and Max (1996) determined that annual costs for the elderly are approximately four to five times those of people in their early teens. Personal health expenditure also rises sharply with age within the Medicare population. The oldest group (85+) consumes three times as much health care per person as those 65–74, and twice as much as those 75–84 (Fuchs 1998). Nursing home and short-stay hospital use also increases with age, especially for older adults (Liang et al. 1996).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...61028#id2695095

A non politically correct solution to the cost of providing healthcare to our entire population would be to end the practice of taking extraordinary measures to prolong the lives of those people (seniors in particular) that will not be able to have any real quality of life or meaningful added time to their lives. Huge sums are spent to prolong a life for days, weeks or months when only a very small number of patients have any long term chances of survival.

The rationing of healthcare is the only way to make any healthcare system affordable. When it comes down to a life or death situation and there is only a 5% chance of sucess why spend huge sums of money to save that 5%? I have always been told that we all need to make sacrifices for socities benefit but when it comes to being able to provide healthcare for 50 children for their entire lives or 1 person with a 5% chance of making it I would choose the 50 kids.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 03:25 PM) [snapback]491427[/snapback]</div>

govt induced death rate in scotlands universal care system - equal to about 1,000,000 americans per year. enjoy the read
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/news/tm_...-name_page.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 02:40 PM) [snapback]491434[/snapback]</div>

Who the f**k said Cuba??? I was thinking the scandinavian countries or Germany. And don't get too excited about any current tilt to capitalism. You should know that England and France have been capitalists for quite some time.

How many deaths are caused by our health system? I bet that is even more shocking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 01:33 PM) [snapback]491392[/snapback]</div>

"a lot" means anyone that has had to deal with the process of getting the insurance companies to pay for what they are supposed to pay for. I don't know the answers to this, but I do know there are some things we can do to start, i.e. getting a set of standard forms in place that all providers, insurance companies, and patients can use. Other industries have standards boards - why can't the medical industry? How much cost can be removed from the system simply by standardizing the documents used to transfer information?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 6 2007, 02:45 PM) [snapback]491436[/snapback]</div>

I understand what your saying, but don't call me naive unless you want to be called arrogant. They do need some reforms, but the chances of them reforming their system to correct for unemployment is much more likely than america adopting its needed reforms. Chances are that I will have a better quality of life overseas than in america, and that is what matters. The average American's economic level is so heavily skewed due to the ultra rich in this country, that it is a lame number to use. The middle class Frenchmen lives better than the middle class American in the general sense, and that is due to their 'massive' government.

By the way, the European economy has been growing quite nicely the last couple of years. If they are pathetic, than so must we be.

 

Dr. B, you're acting like an obstructionist
The question is, How can we make things better?
Your answer is, we can't, leave it alone. 80% on this board seem to disagree.

You can't claim that problems in other countries programs automatically will be problems here, unless a plan is proposed that is the same. Obviously, as a country we would seek to take the best parts from each plan. But yet, we still get "go to Cuba" as a reason for not even discussing options.
Thanks for your brilliant help!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkMN @ Aug 6 2007, 03:50 PM) [snapback]491440[/snapback]</div>

read the article - far less in fact.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 6 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]491446[/snapback]</div>

i agree we need change. i listed my ideas numerous times. i would strive to get market forces involved and govt uninvolved

have a nice day my friend - and be well.

david

 

Our health policy should focus on making health care of ever-increasing quality available to an ever-increasing number of people. With 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, politicians and special interest groups have concluded that covering everyone will magically make health care affordable. However, “Universal coverage†is not the answer, as it could be achieved only by forcing everyone to buy health insurance or by having government provide health insurance to all, neither of which is desirable.

The only way to make health care “affordable†under a “universal health insurance†scheme is through price controls and limiting access. Any proposal claiming to provide “universal coverage†is nothing more than a system that must rely on private and/or public entities to administer government-run health care. If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of “universal coverage†to subsidize people via “insurance.â€

Again, the free-market should solve this problem.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Aug 6 2007, 03:01 PM) [snapback]491447[/snapback]</div>

Umm, the article doesn't have any numbers about how many Americans die due to our health system; again, I bet it is a much higher rate.

Your ideas of change boils down to giving wealthy people tax deductions and getting the government involved in curbing malpractice lawsuits. Your ideas are only self-serving and do nothing for the vast majority of americans. Wealthy taxpayers pay fewer taxes and Doctors pay less in malpractice -- and how does that help me get the care I need???

 

You reduce the cost by going after waste.
There is a HUGE amount of waste in 2 particular areas.

Administration (overly complex due to varying insurers and levels of coverage, Excess paperwork, complicated coverage schemes, denied coverage as a 1st policy of insurance companies, etc.)

Pharmacuetical company greed. I'll leave that one at that.