Doctors support universal health care: survey

[Tiger26]

Doesn't sound so good when you substitute exam points for tax dollars and healthcare, does it?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pseudoknot]

Until you have been to a country and rotated in hospitals where the above three are ACTUALLY practiced, I wouldn't be so quick to say that that is what is happening here.

Ah, but I have personally seen all of that. If you're saying that you haven't, that's nice, but it doesn't invalidate my personal experience nor does it counter the statistics on this. (I take it you haven't lived or worked in Los Angeles?)

 

[pseudoknot]

Pseudoknot, you seem like a pretty smart guy or gal. Now I've got a proposition for you.

That was pretty funny. I think we all know that's not the same thing. People don't die from not getting enough points on exams (although they do act that way a lot). Also, a better analogy would be where if a classmate falls far enough below the mean, the school actually DOES take points off (i.e., taxes and higher rates for the insured to cover uncompensated emergency care).

Anyway, this discussion is getting a bit unproductive. I'd like to ask those who disagree with me two questions:

1. What value do you think insurance companies add? They consume billions of dollars and don't actually provide healthcare to anyone. Why do you not think this is wasteful?

2. Don't you think healthcare would be less costly and more efficient if patient's medical records were centralized, instead of relying on the patient's own memory? (Strictly speaking, this is independent of what kind of system we have, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.)

 

[nekrogg]

Well, that's fine. I think that a lot of people who reject universal coverage or nationalized healthcare (not the same things BTW) have not looked into the issue very deeply. Then again I don't think I've looked into the issue enough either, as it's very complicated. If I were younger I'd add on an MPH...

But anyway, I think our current system has already failed, so there's not so much to lose. However, there's too much inertia for any radical changes in the foreseeable future anyway.

The biggest problem with universal healthcare, albeit a very noble cause, is that government in the US equals the 5000 pound lady walking down the street. Try getting that woman to turn, it aint happening. We all know the statistics: in 2007 we spend 7500 dollars per person on health care whether or not they had health insurance. In 1999, harvard did a study that showed 1000 dollars spent per capita on administrative fees alone. I dont know what healthcare spending per capita was in 1999, but the amount taken up by administrative fees is ridiculous either way.

The beauty of privatization of healthcare is that despite its dubious look on the surface, it really is the best solution for our country. It is key to ensure that the right regulations are in place, but no way is a private insurance going to waste 20% on administration. American simply put it does not have the culture to support such a large government enterprise. Government anything, in the US at least, most certainly goes to ****. We need some health savings accounts to allow people to choose what to do with their own money. If they want to waste it over fancy drugs and useless tests, so be it.



Also, getting rid of frivolous malpractice and pharmaceutical advertising is essential, but thats another discussion.

 

[NCF145]

Ah, but I have personally seen all of that. If you're saying that you haven't, that's nice, but it doesn't invalidate my personal experience nor does it counter the statistics on this. (I take it you haven't lived or worked in Los Angeles?)

I grew up in SoCal. I take it you've never seen a cardiac operation on a child begin only for the surgeon and operating team to realize that they have no battery for their defibrillator to start the heart back up. What do they do? They stop the surgery (with the child's chest cracked open) and tell the family to go buy the battery before they continue. You ever work in a hospital where they force the family members or friends to go buy antibiotics or pain meds before they administer them? You ever work or rotate in a hospital where they leave a man in the ED for three days after he was hit buy a car and severely fracturing his tibia? The man hadn't received any pain meds in 3 days. In addition to that, the huge cut and scratch on his face still had not been cleaned out. You ever rotate in a hospital where they don't give multi-drug resistant TB patients N-95 respiratory masks, let alone where the doctors recycle them for personal use?

Oh yeah, I have seen all that. Absolutely none of that would happen in the US. If it did, it wouldn't happen again because of the public outrage. Also, I have worked at a major trauma hospital in one of the poorest cities in this country. Nothing even close to letting people die of treatable conditions and discouraging preventive care ever happened while I was there. Now, it may have happened when I wasn't working, but they sure stopped that practice before I came into work everyday. How each and every floor/department knew my schedule is beyond me.

 

[HMSBeagle]

Pseudoknot, according to your profile you are in first year of med school which may explian yout hippiness ( no offense). Even though Im just finishing second year, let me tell you I was like you last year until I took a summer elective in the ER and saw how many people just choose to not buy insurance but yet roll in a new car and a lot of bling. And guess what, not only many 3rd and 4th year students think like I do now, but many attendings. I dont know where they got this research from or maybe I live in another planet. The government can't keep itself together, how will keep us healthy. Im all for a system like Massachusetts where BUYING insurance is mandatory. Just like everyone must have car insurance, home insurance, big screen TVs and more gold in your mouth than teeth. I mean, come on health is important if you want to enjoy your satellite TV, so buy insurance. It's not like it will bankrupt you, au contraire if you get sick and don't have any kind of insurance where yes it may bankrupt you. People's worst enemy is their own stupidity. I say to hell with HMOs and all things similar they do nothing good for patients nor doctors. Insurance companies should be held to higher moral standards, but since they are very powerful lobbying in DC I dont think we'll see any change in our healthcare system anytime soon. All discussions are cyclical, during the 80s and 90s it was the war on drugs, now its healthcare and the war on terror. Lets see what the future will bring us so we can push other issues, so Michael Moore can make a new movie, and for things to stay the same, as it always happens, or maybe AMSA will fix the world.

 

[pseudoknot]

Well, it is the private companies that are spending that 20% on administration in our current system. Again, all the money that goes to insurance companies is essentially wasted on administration, and since they are separate entities they have no incentive to do anything but maximize their profit at the EXPENSE of providing care.

The problem with health savings accounts, of course, is that few people can ever save enough to pay for a major illness.

The biggest problem with universal healthcare, albeit a very noble cause, is that government in the US equals the 5000 pound lady walking down the street. Try getting that woman to turn, it aint happening. We all know the statistics: in 2007 we spend 7500 dollars per person on health care whether or not they had health insurance. In 1999, harvard did a study that showed 1000 dollars spent per capita on administrative fees alone. I dont know what healthcare spending per capita was in 1999, but the amount taken up by administrative fees is ridiculous either way.

The beauty of privatization of healthcare is that despite its dubious look on the surface, it really is the best solution for our country. It is key to ensure that the right regulations are in place, but no way is a private insurance going to waste 20% on administration. American simply put it does not have the culture to support such a large government enterprise. Government anything, in the US at least, most certainly goes to ****. We need some health savings accounts to allow people to choose what to do with their own money. If they want to waste it over fancy drugs and useless tests, so be it.



Also, getting rid of frivolous malpractice and pharmaceutical advertising is essential, but thats another discussion.

 

[NCF145]

1. What value do you think insurance companies add? They consume billions of dollars and don't actually provide healthcare to anyone. Why do you not think this is wasteful?

2. Don't you think healthcare would be less costly and more efficient if patient's medical records were centralized, instead of relying on the patient's own memory? (Strictly speaking, this is independent of what kind of system we have, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.)

1. None. I do.
2. Yes.

Where we disagree is who does what. I do not trust the federal government to run healthcare in any way shape or form. Now before you retort saying that you aren't arguing for universal healthcare, go back and read my posts again and try to find where I said I was against a law that requires everyone to have health insurance.

 

[Tiger26]

That was pretty funny. I think we all know that's not the same thing. People don't die from not getting enough points on exams (although they do act that way a lot). Also, a better analogy would be where if a classmate falls far enough below the mean, the school actually DOES take points off (i.e., taxes and higher rates for the insured to cover uncompensated emergency care).

Anyway, this discussion is getting a bit unproductive. I'd like to ask those who disagree with me two questions:

1. What value do you think insurance companies add? They consume billions of dollars and don't actually provide healthcare to anyone. Why do you not think this is wasteful?

2. Don't you think healthcare would be less costly and more efficient if patient's medical records were centralized, instead of relying on the patient's own memory? (Strictly speaking, this is independent of what kind of system we have, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.)

I don't have a whole lot more time to post stuff, but like others have said, there should be more options, because (even though the liberals hate it) the market does actually work for both the producer and the consumer. People should be able to decide on their care based on the quality and the price, just like they do when shopping for cars or TVs or toothbrushes or anything else. Free market economic principles have carried us this far already, so why abandon them right now. The life expectancy was 49.2 yrs in 1900, 59.2 yrs in 1930, and 76.5 in 1997--all under free market conditions and private health care for the most part.

 

[pseudoknot]

Pseudoknot, according to your profile you are in first year of med school which may explian yout hippiness ( no offense). Even though Im just finishing second year

Offense taken anyway. You know little about my background and experiences before med school, and at most schools they don't teach much about policy in M2 so please try to be less condescending. [/QUOTE]

And guess what, not only many 3rd and 4th year students think like I do now, but many attendings.

Well, we now have statistics that show a majority of attendings disagree.

Im all for a system like Massachusetts where BUYING insurance is mandatory.

Cool, then we're on the same side of this argument, because YOU SUPPORT UNIVERSAL COVERAGE! (I won't tell anyone.)

People's worst enemy is their own stupidity.

I agree, but that's not what a free marketeer would say, is it?

I say to hell with HMOs and all things similar they do nothing good for patients nor doctors. Insurance companies should be held to higher moral standards, but since they are very powerful lobbying in DC I dont think we'll see any change in our healthcare system anytime soon.

Actually I think HMOs are a lot less evil than insurance companies, and some of them do a great job of promoting prevention and providing efficient care. Kaiser has done some great things in this regard, although they're not perfect either.

I agree the insurance companies are too powerful and it would be hard to change anything, but that's not reason not to try.

 

[Tiger26]

Well, it is the private companies that are spending that 20% on administration in our current system. Again, all the money that goes to insurance companies is essentially wasted on administration, and since they are separate entities they have no incentive to do anything but maximize their profit at the EXPENSE of providing care.

The problem with health savings accounts, of course, is that few people can ever save enough to pay for a major illness.

Check out the Whole Foods health care plan that uses health savings accounts, costs less, and provides better care. I wouldn't exactly call people working at whole foods rich.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3602579

 

[nekrogg]

Well, it is the private companies that are spending that 20% on administration in our current system. Again, all the money that goes to insurance companies is essentially wasted on administration, and since they are separate entities they have no incentive to do anything but maximize their profit at the EXPENSE of providing care.

The problem with health savings accounts, of course, is that few people can ever save enough to pay for a major illness.

i really doubt private companies spend 20% on our current system. but since no material evidence can be substantiated as reports as such are typically private, i will leave that one be.

it is the greatest misunderstanding, if you can call it that, that maximizing profits and providing services are different entities. ever since the federal reserve has blamed private enterprise for its own short comings during the depression, this school of thought has been propagated. a quick read into milton friedman's free to choose will provide insight.

in a consumer driven world, maximizing profits = providing the best care possible. of course this cant be fully enforced unless private companies are regulated, which is the point of government anyways.

its only a problem when government oversteps its boundaries and attempts to cross into private enterprise, a section it was never designed to compete in.

the objective with health saving accounts is not so the taxpayer can pay extra money on their own insurance, but to refund part of that 7500 so they can do with it as they please.

al gore, probably your democrat comrade, said that our democracy relies on a well informed public. the way our system is set up, no one is informed, and everyone loses. its time we place the power in the individuals hands as opposed to seizing it from them in a socialist model.

 

[Tiger26]

Also, I'm sure you've never been in the military, but I joined the Army when I was 18, and I can tell you that the care was horrible. The Army has a universal health care system (for soldiers) complete with bureaucracy, poorly paid physicians, and extravagant expenditures. I nearly died due to a variety of easily treatable conditions during basic training that appalled the civilian ER physicians I went to after basic was finished.

 

[pseudoknot]

Check out the Whole Foods health care plan that uses health savings accounts, costs less, and provides better care. I wouldn't exactly call people working at whole foods rich.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3602579

It sounds interesting. I would acknowledge that our system might work better if it were more capitalist than it is now. Currently it is the worst of both worlds. Note also that the employees were required to contribute to the accounts (since the accounts were paid into directly by Whole Foods) and they still had catastrophic coverage albeit with a high deductible.

 

[pseudoknot]

i really doubt private companies spend 20% on our current system. but since no material evidence can be substantiated as reports as such are typically private, i will leave that one be.

WRONG!
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/349/8/768

it is the greatest misunderstanding, if you can call it that, that maximizing profits and providing services are different entities. ever since the federal reserve has blamed private enterprise for its own short comings during the depression, this school of thought has been propagated. a quick read into milton friedman's free to choose will provide insight.

in a consumer driven world, maximizing profits = providing the best care possible. of course this cant be fully enforced unless private companies are regulated, which is the point of government anyways.

Insurance companies do not provide healthcare. They collect premiums, and then pay others to provide healthcare. Whatever they don't pay to doctors and hospitals, they keep. You tell me what their incentive is?

As I said above, I agree that our system might work better if there was transparency and real competition, but there isn't.

Also, this is way off topic since all the poll asked was would doctors support universal coverage. This can just as easily be achieved in a private system with mandates (Massachusetts & Hillary's plans) as with a centralized system. I do think it's been an interesting debate, but I have immuno to cram for so I better take a rest from it.

 

[riverwoman1040]

Pseudoknot, you seem like a pretty smart guy or gal. Now I've got a proposition for you.

In my class, and I'm sure in yours, there are people who are struggling to get by. It's like they're working two jobs with the time they're putting in, but somehow, it's just not enough. Coupled that with the fact that they probably weren't born to a family of doctors, didn't get to attend educational institutions of privilege, or maybe just weren't blessed to have an exceptional level of natural ability.

In order to rectify this gross natural injustice, I propose that you give them some of the points you've earned on exams (no doubt worked hard for, put in the hundreds of hours, made the sacrifices like studying instead of playing xbox all day, and mortgaged your future to obtain).

It's not like you really need all those extra points anyway. For God's sake, we live in the most prosperous society in the world, yet we still have some medical students who aren't honoring classes, but are merely passing to get by. This should not stand, for these inequalities will only perpetuate the intellectual differences that unfairly burden society. In order to achieve this noble venture, I beg you to give up what you have worked so hard for in order to achieve a fairness of mediocrity.

Not really the greatest comparison in the world. If you don't pass exams you MAY not become a doctor. You will likely have the choice of finding another profession where you can still support yourself and your family. You will live. If you can't afford healthcare, you don't exactly have other options, and the consequences are a bit more severe than not entering the profession of your choice

 

[Gut Shot]

Unfortunately medicare compensation would have to change substantially if we plan on keeping hospitals around. Around here, hospitals haven't seen an increase in compensation for 10 years. We're not even keeping up with inflation, let alone the rising costs of providing healthcare.

It is well known that health care expenditure has increased staggeringly over the last 10 years. A year without a double digit increase is a good one. Yet revenue flowing to providers is utterly choked. Where is all that money going?

Without payments from private insurance companies, which are higher than medicare rates they wouldn't be able to keep their doors open.

Medicare reimbursement could certainly stand some improvement, it's not entirely correct that private insurance pays higher rates. Most private insurers peg their reimbursement schedules to Medicare's in some way, and many pay better while some pay worse. Dealing with private insurers incurs other unfortunate costs, such as hiring an armada of people to deal with the labyrinth of billing. I recall in medical school that every department had at least one full time person whose entire job was to fight with the private insurers, on a daily basis, to reimburse for what the physicians wanted to order. Pretty F-ed, eh?

 

[rhiannon777]

I absolutely support universal health care. I was without health insurance after undergrad. That happened to be the only time in my life that I had seriously medical problems. I spent one night in terrible pain trying to decide whether to go to the ER based on the chances that I was actually dying. It's not a decision anyone should ever have to make.

I've always thought of universal health care in the same way I think of education. We have decided, as a nation, to pay for education because we want to give everyone a solid foundation to be able to build a life. Health care should be the same. Just as it benefits the nation to have an educated populace, it benefits the nation to have a healthy populace.

 

[RockShox]

I've always thought of universal health care in the same way I think of education. We have decided, as a nation, to pay for education because we want to give everyone a solid foundation to be able to build a life. Health care should be the same. Just as it benefits the nation to have an educated populace, it benefits the nation to have a healthy populace.

Yeah but using your logic it also benefits the nation to have a fed populace so should we support universal food, it benefits to have a housed populace so what about universal housing, hell people need to get to their work and hospital what about universal cars, and it is a benefit to have an entertained populace so how about universal cable TV. These ideas have been tried before...it was called fascism...Mussolini's to be exact... but I for one would rather endure some pains rather than let the government start deciding whether I live or die (which they will have the power to do when they fully control medical treatments).

We all ready have government health care and its called Medicare and it sucks huge...pays so little doctors are dropping medicare patients like flies, and makes everything a huge pain in the ***.

(by using education as a model I assumed you meant universal health care by the government)

 

[pseudoknot]

I grew up in SoCal. I take it you've never seen a cardiac operation on a child begin only for the surgeon and operating team to realize that they have no battery for their defibrillator to start the heart back up. What do they do? They stop the surgery (with the child's chest cracked open) and tell the family to go buy the battery before they continue. You ever work in a hospital where they force the family members or friends to go buy antibiotics or pain meds before they administer them? You ever work or rotate in a hospital where they leave a man in the ED for three days after he was hit buy a car and severely fracturing his tibia? The man hadn't received any pain meds in 3 days. In addition to that, the huge cut and scratch on his face still had not been cleaned out. You ever rotate in a hospital where they don't give multi-drug resistant TB patients N-95 respiratory masks, let alone where the doctors recycle them for personal use?

Oh yeah, I have seen all that. Absolutely none of that would happen in the US. If it did, it wouldn't happen again because of the public outrage. Also, I have worked at a major trauma hospital in one of the poorest cities in this country. Nothing even close to letting people die of treatable conditions and discouraging preventive care ever happened while I was there. Now, it may have happened when I wasn't working, but they sure stopped that practice before I came into work everyday. How each and every floor/department knew my schedule is beyond me.

You're describing the third world. I only said we have the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world. And the neglect obviously happens outside of hospitals, not as much to people who have already been admitted (although that's an issue too).

 

[NCF145]

You're describing the third world. I only said we have the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world. And the neglect obviously happens outside of hospitals, not as much to people who have already been admitted (although that's an issue too).

We do not have the worst healthcare system in the industrialized world. I get sick and tired of people saying this. I have lived in countries with universal healthcare and I have lived in the US without health insurance. I can tell you from personal experience I would much rather live here.

If people are being neglected by the healthcare system when they are outside of the hospital, maybe they should go to an ED. I haven't heard of doctors doing many house calls these days, unless they are practicing the ever enticing concierge medicine. When people say that there is limited access to healthcare it makes me want to hold a gun to their head and force them to read EMTALA from cover to cover. EVERYONE in this country has the same access to healthcare as long as they have a way to the hospital...and guess what. They do with ambulances. Yeah, medicine may cost quite a bit. Yeah, they may not be able to pay their bills. But EVERYONE still has access to medical services.

 

[pseudoknot]

If people are being neglected by the healthcare system when they are outside of the hospital, maybe they should go to an ED. I haven't heard of doctors doing many house calls these days, unless they are practicing the ever enticing concierge medicine. When people say that there is limited access to healthcare it makes me want to hold a gun to their head and force them to read EMTALA from cover to cover. EVERYONE in this country has the same access to healthcare as long as they have a way to the hospital...and guess what. They do with ambulances. Yeah, medicine may cost quite a bit. Yeah, they may not be able to pay their bills. But EVERYONE still has access to medical services.

EMTALA only applies to initial stabilization of emergent conditions, and this attitude is exactly why the wait time to be seen in many EDs exceeds 8 hours.

 

[NCF145]

I absolutely support universal health care. I was without health insurance after undergrad. That happened to be the only time in my life that I had seriously medical problems. I spent one night in terrible pain trying to decide whether to go to the ER based on the chances that I was actually dying. It's not a decision anyone should ever have to make.

Why? Why do people deserve the right to never make that decision?

 

[NCF145]

EMTALA only applies to initial stabilization of emergent conditions, and this attitude is exactly why the wait time to be seen in many EDs exceeds 8 hours.

I agree that 8 hours is excessive. But that is the price that they pay for not prioritizing their expenses to get healthcare or prioritizing the right things in life (i.e. education) that enables them to get a job to afford medical insurance.

 

[45408]

Could you find some numbers for this?

I've seen that claim a number of times, but here are some numbers to start with.

NHS budget is £92 billion. UK population is 50 million. Per capita cost = $3500. Covers everyone.

Medicare was $256 billion. Medicaid was $295 billion. US population is 303 million. Per capita cost = $1800. Doesn't even begin to cover everyone.

Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world.[1] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP.[2][3] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[2] In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.[4]

Never said anyone was going to like it, but you would have to admit that we have the least efficient health care system of any developed nation. If Medicare were expanded to the whole population, of course Medicare spending would increase. But it would essentially wipe out billions that are currently vacuumed up by the myriad private insurance companies. The net result would likely be a decrease in overall expenditure.

I don't see how you could possibly know that, and I certainly don't agree.

 

[45408]

1. What value do you think insurance companies add? They consume billions of dollars and don't actually provide healthcare to anyone. Why do you not think this is wasteful?

Do you not think that the same principle applies to car insurance? Health insurance provides a safety net in case you have massive health care expenses. I think that's fairly useful, don't you? Health insurance is not meant to cover every health care expense you incur, much like my car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes.

2. Don't you think healthcare would be less costly and more efficient if patient's medical records were centralized, instead of relying on the patient's own memory? (Strictly speaking, this is independent of what kind of system we have, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.)

I can't wait until that system gets hacked within the first month of going online and informing all of your neighbors that you had a foul-smelling vaginal discharge at your last check-up.

 

[45408]

Well, we now have statistics that show a majority of attendings disagree.

Tenuous, at best.

Note also that the employees were required to contribute to the accounts (since the accounts were paid into directly by Whole Foods) and they still had catastrophic coverage albeit with a high deductible.

Note also that that is the entire point of an HSA.

 

[Blesbok]

Your other points are valid, but nearly every other industrialized nation has found a way to get universal coverage.

Have you ever lived in one of those countries? My family and I had to move back to the US from canada because my mom could not get treated for her breast cancer in a timely manner.

 

[Blesbok]

It's also worth noting that they spend a fraction per person that we do, so if we were to try the same approach, we'd be spending a lot more money than any of these other countries. We have a different type of population with a much larger sense of entitlement, and we would need to cut back on the "cover your butt" approach to medicine so as to stave off any tiny hit of a lawsuit, and we would also need to let some people die a little more naturally. When you breathe through a tube, eat through a tube, drink through a tube, urinate through a tube, defecate in a diaper, and you're drooling on yourself in oblivion, it's probably time to say goodbye. I think every single person on Medicare should have to fill out advanced directives before they ever see a cent of coverage. Nothing complex or difficult, just thorough.

I thought that was now a requirement for medicare?

PS Tell OT I said hi

 

[Blesbok]

1. Clearly that was so unusual as to merit news coverage.

2. The article said that wait times weren't the reason she went to California for the procedure.

3. 47 million Americans can't EVER get a Pap smear or CT scan unless they end up in the ED.

So you are saying you would rather punish the majority to help the minority?

 

[Blesbok]

I actually put it up there to call into question the alleged inferiority of our health care system when the policies makers of such bastions of liberalism are coming here for their care while their constituents are left in a substandard system without such resources.

When you mindlessly shout out that 47 million number, make sure to check out the demographics a little further. A third have incomes above $50,000 and an additional sixth have incomes above $70,000. These are people that are CHOOSING not to buy health care, so I don't feel sorry for them. I also don't feel sorry for the millions of people who are eligible for government programs but are too lazy to pursue them and the ones who care less about their diet, exercises, and finances than they do about their $175 basketball shoes, iPhones, satellite tv, and bigscreen tvs.

One more thing, when you have a mandated, monopolistic market, prices are , in fact, higher. In MA, where health care is mandated, a policy costs 5x what it does to an identical person in Arizona.

I may be skewed by living in memphis, but I have a hard time feeling bad for 90% of people without insurance. When you get checked out of the hospital without insurance and then get picked up in an escalade on 24 inch rims, how the hell am I supposed to feel bad for you?

 

[Blesbok]

That was pretty funny. I think we all know that's not the same thing. People don't die from not getting enough points on exams (although they do act that way a lot). Also, a better analogy would be where if a classmate falls far enough below the mean, the school actually DOES take points off (i.e., taxes and higher rates for the insured to cover uncompensated emergency care).

Anyway, this discussion is getting a bit unproductive. I'd like to ask those who disagree with me two questions:

1. What value do you think insurance companies add? They consume billions of dollars and don't actually provide healthcare to anyone. Why do you not think this is wasteful?

2. Don't you think healthcare would be less costly and more efficient if patient's medical records were centralized, instead of relying on the patient's own memory? (Strictly speaking, this is independent of what kind of system we have, but I wanted to throw it out there for discussion.)

Its exactly the same thing. There are programs in place for uninsured children and I support these types of things 100%. I would even support helping out people in college with their insurance when they are supporting themselves through college. And by all means, I support insurance for the elderly and disabled. However, I don't not feel bad at all for the people that are fully capable of working and don't have insurance. You can work 20 hours a week at starbucks and they will not only give you insurance but pay for you to go to college. There are thousands of other places with setups exactly the same. I don't pity laziness, even if it kills you.

EDIT: don't not = do not :O

 

[NCF145]

I don't pity laziness, even if it kills you.

 

[45408]

An interesting statistic I found out was that over 50% of children who are uninsured in the US are already eligible for free government coverage, but their parents just haven't gotten it for them. My city was around 46%, and the national average was like 54%.

 

[rhiannon777]

I understand the opinion that some people do not want universal health care because they don't want to pay for "lazy" people (although, to be honest, I think we're paying for them already...the people who are truly lazy have found a way to get Medicaid/disability...I think it's the working poor who are getting shafted).

But since this has been mentioned, I'm curious. For those of you who are against universal health care, are you also against universal health care for children? Certainly it's not their fault if their parents are lazy, poor, or have misplaced priorities.

 

[NCF145]

I think it's the working poor who are getting shafted.

They are getting shafted because they didn't chose a field that pays enough. Not my fault that you made x career choice. Or chose to not go to x college and get x degree.

But since this has been mentioned, I'm curious. For those of you who are against universal health care, are you also against universal health care for children? Certainly it's not their fault if their parents are lazy, poor, or have misplaced priorities.

I am 100% for insuring children and I completely agree with your reasoning behind it.

 

[Blesbok]

I understand the opinion that some people do not want universal health care because they don't want to pay for "lazy" people (although, to be honest, I think we're paying for them already...the people who are truly lazy have found a way to get Medicaid/disability...I think it's the working poor who are getting shafted).

But since this has been mentioned, I'm curious. For those of you who are against universal health care, are you also against universal health care for children? Certainly it's not their fault if their parents are lazy, poor, or have misplaced priorities.

Like I said in my previous post, I am all for universal healthcare for any children (even through college if their parents cannot afford it and they are using FAFSA etc). I am also for universal healthcare for the elderly and those that are truly unable to work for medical reasons.

And I think you are right about paying for the lazy. Hence the reason that fat, lazy people cost the health care system exponentially more than people that spend the time to take care of themselves.

 

[Tiger26]

Like I said above--the military has universal health care--maybe people should enlist if they have their panties in such a bundle about not having it

 

[Blesbok]

They are getting shafted because they didn't chose a field that pays enough. Not my fault that you made x career choice. Or chose to not go to x college and get x degree.



I am 100% for insuring children and I completely agree with your reasoning behind it.

Even walmart/starbucks/kroger etc have health insurance for their full time employees. It has nothing to do with education, well except for the fact that you are an idiot if you have a big *** tv or some expensive car and still for some reason don't have insurance.

 

[Skymastre]

There seems to be a lot of talk about Universal Healthcare, especially with the dems still contesting the primaries.

I work in public health right now at a top school as an epidemiologist. I think the point that often gets lost is that the end goal should be universal access to care.

Universal Healthcare probably won't improve our current system dramatically, but it will cost a lot of money. What we should be focusing on is establishing a system that emphasizes healthy living and primary care for all. A lot of expense can be avoided with proper up front treatment (ie. late stage cancer/developed resp illness), diagnosing before they progress.

Why insure everyone? It would be far more efficient to cut insurance companies out of the game and to set up government run primary care clinics, where Doc's salaries were subsidized by the government. I'm sure that there are many incentives out there that could be offered to encourage docs to go into these clinics...we should be thinking out of the box on this one.

Seems to me the problem exists in part because doctors gave up autonomy of billing to insurance agencies, lets not increase the role of these companies and compound the problem!

In short, there are a few solutions that both sides should be able to agree on, and they start by emphasizing lifestyle changes and a tiered healthcare system where more people get treated before they wind up in ERs.

IMHO

 

[rhiannon777]

They are getting shafted because they didn't chose a field that pays enough. Not my fault that you made x career choice. Or chose to not go to x college and get x degree.

What about the people who are simply not smart enough to have the option of going to college, or choosing a higher paid career?

 

[Skymastre]

P
In order to rectify this gross natural injustice, I propose that you give them some of the points you've earned on exams... It's not like you really need all those extra points anyway. ...In order to achieve this noble venture, I beg you to give up what you have worked so hard for in order to achieve a fairness of mediocrity.

Nice analogy

Conservatives tend to boil down complicated issues down into simple statements and comparisons. That's why liberals have harder jobs...because they have to try and explain complex things to simple people.

We are talking sickness and life, not a fracking multiple choice test. We are talking about treatment for the sorts of people who grew up in the lowest SES, without the privileges that most medical students (or even members of the middle class) have. No matter how hard you think you work, you don't have it anywhere near as bad as the majority of people who dont have access to health care.

Besides, you wanted to be in med school (right?). I doubt most poor people want to be poor.

 

[NCF145]

Nice analogy

Conservatives tend to boil down complicated issues down into simple statements and comparisons. That's why liberals have harder jobs...because they have to try and explain complex things to simple people.

It only becomes complicated when self-righteous liberals inject everything with pc bull.

No matter how hard you think you work, you don't have it anywhere near as bad as the majority of people who dont have access to health care.

They have access to healthcare. They choose not to use it due to the cost.

Besides, you wanted to be in med school (right?). I doubt most poor people want to be poor.

Then they should have paid attention in school. They should have gone to college. They should have gone to grad school. They should have prioritized.

 

[rhiannon777]

Even walmart/starbucks/kroger etc have health insurance for their full time employees. It has nothing to do with education, well except for the fact that you are an idiot if you have a big *** tv or some expensive car and still for some reason don't have insurance.

I agree with you that people need to make their health the priority and not their entertainment center. But, as an aside, a lot of these places like to use their health insurance programs as good PR, while keeping most of their employees just under the amount of hours they would need to qualify for it. I've even had a friend who works as a manager in a certain chain restaurant tell me that he gets reprimanded if too many of his employees get 40 hours a week.

 

[NCF145]

What about the people who are simply not smart enough to have the option of going to college, or choosing a higher paid career?

Unless you are mentally ******ed, they are called community colleges. Other than that, it isn't my responsibility to take care of someone (financially) because their wits aren't up to par.

 

[45408]

Nice analogy

Conservatives tend to boil down complicated issues down into simple statements and comparisons. That's why liberals have harder jobs...because they have to try and explain complex things to simple people.

Nice low blow there.

No matter how hard you think you work, you don't have it anywhere near as bad as the majority of people who dont have access to health care.

I disagree. I think there is a portion of the population that does not have health care due to factors beyond their control, but I don't think it's a majority by any means. Besides, most people don't really need very much health care. If you drink clean water and eat clean food in appropriate quantities, your body is highly adept at allowing you to live for quite some time. Most primary care is quite cheap too, relative to a big-screen TV or new Air Jordans. The percentage of people who get cancer but don't have insurance is pretty tiny.

 

[45408]

But since this has been mentioned, I'm curious. For those of you who are against universal health care, are you also against universal health care for children? Certainly it's not their fault if their parents are lazy, poor, or have misplaced priorities.

You're right, it's not their fault. While I think it's unfortunate that the parents' poor decisions (to have children they cannot afford) would be subsidized, I put the children first, and I wouldn't have a problem providing coverage for all minors. It wouldn't be that expensive for most of them anyways.

 

[Skymastre]

Nice low blow there.

Thanks, and I'll admit-it was a bit self-righteous. My apologies as that doesn't encourage a very good forum.

I disagree. I think there is a portion of the population that does not have health care due to factors beyond their control, but I don't think it's a majority by any means.

I agree with this, I think. Unfortunately we start talking about what kind of health insurance, and are they educated enough to purchase it? We are socialized into this spend now and not worry about the future.

Again, I don't think insurance is the answer as I don't think it equates to access. I think structural and societal change is needed.

 

[NCF145]

I think structural and societal change is needed.

Please elaborate

 

[Skymastre]

Unless you are mentally ******ed, they are called community colleges. Other than that, it isn't my responsibility to take care of someone (financially) because their wits aren't up to par.

In Mass and NY anyway (not sure about midwest and south) all colleges, including community, are getting harder and harder to get into. As well as prohibitively more expensive. Supply and demand.

I wonder what the statistics are on the people who don't have health care/really couldn't get healthcare w/out considerable sacrifice. I'll bet a significant portion of them don't have high school diplomas.

How early does their 'laziness' start? Or is it really about lack of role models and lack of information...lack of an ability to make the right choices?