Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

  1. #11
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    /TinC

    Tongue in Cheek my friend, Tongue in Cheek.
    gotcha
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,781

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    This isn't your best argument.
    Though I do not support fully controlled governmental health care, what he said is not as bad an argument as you might think.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #13
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It is nearly always slower than the private market.

    Private run system has more than 2 options. It is far superior because of choices.

    I have never seen the mob of dieing people swarming in to emergency rooms must have missed the news flash.
    What choices exactly? Do you really believe that your private insurance will allow you to choose a hospital that they do not support? So you are saying that your HMO will allow you to go to a hospital of another HMO to get treatment? yea right.

    But define options. Is it choice of doctor? Hospital? what is exactly your definition of "choice" in a health situation.

    Pretty much everyone can afford health insurance they just choose not to buy it.

    It's not my problem that they fail to plan.

    The cheapest family insurance coverage in my state for Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Value plan 10000 starts at $126.56 and the maximum is $339.76. That is per month.
    LOL have you read the plan? It is hardly worth the money lol. It does not even cover 100% of the freaking medical bills! And fear if you have more than 10 grand in medical bills a year (as far as I understand the "deductable").
    But it does have 1000 dollar yearly deductable for medicine, very nice... if it was not for the fact that the US has the highest medicine prices on the planet (western world) and that it is only 30 dollars per (if brand name)....

    For 126.56 dollars that coverage, as limited as it is, is hardly worth the effort especially in a low income family.

    What happens if the families medical bills are over 10k a year? What then? add more coverage, and if you believe that the insurance company will allow more coverage in a situation where there is a known medical issue, then I got a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.

    Saying people can't afford it is a lie. They choose cable and satellite tv, fast food, more expensive cars, and other luxuries over their health. Let them eat it.
    Sorry but that is just one hell of a heartless and brain-dead argument. You sound like Marie Antoinette.... if they cant afford bread let them eat cake.

    There is no reward for government to render services faster.
    Nore is there for private insurance. If they deny or delay treatment then the person will die and they will save big bucks on treatment and get higher profit.. so what if they loose 1 persons monthly income, they saved hundreds of thousands of of propped up costs (in collusion with the hospitals and doctors of course).

    Like it or not, a private insurance company will do anything they can to avoid paying out, since it is a cut in their profit, and will always go the cheapest way they can while charging the most of their coverage.

    Not only that but you have limited resources like doctors, hospitals, clinics and combine that with nearly 300 million possible patients.

    The outcome is overcrowding.
    Yes the US does have fewer doctors, nurses and hopsital beds than most western healthcare systems. If the US system is so good, and we all know it is so freaking expensive, then why is this?

    As for overcrowding. Yes that is a possibility in the UHC system, where as in the private system it is not so much, because people cant afford healthcare so they dont burden the hospitals, only the emergency rooms. Of course if you only provide healthcare for 60% of the population then you will automatic have less overcrowding than a system where 100% are covered... basic maths.

    Why should 50-60 year old women have pregnancy coverage, that makes no sense.
    There are a lot of things that dont make sense in this world, but you are grasping at straws and excuses. You do know that you pay for pregnancy coverage too right? And for prostate exams that you dont need before you are 50+ or paying for a number of things that you will never use. It is part of the idea of insurance. If you ONLY paid for what you might need one day, and everyone did that, then the cost would be astronomical for some.. it is called evening out the burden. Same goes for taxes. You pay for the roads in the next county but you will never drive those roads...

    Not only that but since when do voluntary choices like pregnancy qualify as a sickness?
    Ahhh you are one of those... that explains everything.

    To much regulation eliminates a la cart insurance coverage much like car insurance coverage.
    I disagree. Regulation is there to prevent companies for exploiting the people. We have seen what lack of regulation has done to the home mortgage market in the US. Lack of sensible regulation and monopoly like systems have put the US at the bottom in areas like healthcare and telecommunications and that means you are defending socialist communist systems that evade the principles of the free market. But then again I would never advocate free market principles in conjunction with health, since free market principles have one main principle over them all... survival of the fittest and that frankly is a horrible thing when it comes to healthcare.
    PeteEU

  4. #14
    Banned cascadian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In ur threads refuting ur arguments
    Last Seen
    10-28-09 @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,102

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If your country spends $10,000 on treatment to extend the life of a 95 year old man with lung cancer by 3 months, you aren't getting much value.

    If your country's health care system is run by the government, which decides that such an expenditure is not cost effective, then the $10,000 will be spent on something that is somewhat more valuable, like an artificial limb for an amputee.
    It's not really clear to me that all of the nation's health care plans that scored higher on the index could be summed up as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If your country's health care system is still developing, then it will probably only be able to spend that $10,000 on more basic treatments which inherently have a greater return on investment.
    I would also point out that prevention saves treatment costs down the road. People without health insurance will often put off seeing the doctor when they are experiencing minor symptoms.

    This isn't just a zero-sum optimization of resources. When looking at other countries, it seems that we could be healthier overall, while paying less, and still having the option for more expensive private options.

    I don't necessarily agree with the recommendations of this report, but it's definitely underlines a growing consensus that our health care system is broken. Does this mean government run health care? Not necessarily, but given the success in other countries, I don't think we should be afraid of getting the government more involved as a matter of principle.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    What choices exactly? Do you really believe that your private insurance will allow you to choose a hospital that they do not support? So you are saying that your HMO will allow you to go to a hospital of another HMO to get treatment? yea right.

    But define options. Is it choice of doctor? Hospital? what is exactly your definition of "choice" in a health situation.
    Private insurers offer a multitude of hospitals, doctors, and clinics you can visit.

    Private insurers work with more of those than the U.K.'s UHC system.

    I can go across the country to see a doctor if I wanted to.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    LOL have you read the plan? It is hardly worth the money lol. It does not even cover 100% of the freaking medical bills! And fear if you have more than 10 grand in medical bills a year (as far as I understand the "deductable").
    But it does have 1000 dollar yearly deductable for medicine, very nice... if it was not for the fact that the US has the highest medicine prices on the planet (western world) and that it is only 30 dollars per (if brand name)....

    For 126.56 dollars that coverage, as limited as it is, is hardly worth the effort especially in a low income family.
    It is not supposed to cover 100%. Usually the best top dollar plans only cover 80%, why would you think it was supposed to cover 100%?

    I know you won't believe me but America is subsidizing Europe and Canada's price controls on medication.

    It is your health care you have to pay for part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    What happens if the families medical bills are over 10k a year? What then? add more coverage, and if you believe that the insurance company will allow more coverage in a situation where there is a known medical issue, then I got a bridge in New York I would like to sell you.
    I they can't pay all at once they can finance their excess bills, that is a logical practical solution even though I know you won't agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Sorry but that is just one hell of a heartless and brain-dead argument. You sound like Marie Antoinette.... if they cant afford bread let them eat cake.
    Life is not puppies and kittens.

    Real life, nature whatever you want to call it, is heartless and cold, the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can make practical logical decisions and not feel good, emotional decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Nor is there for private insurance. If they deny or delay treatment then the person will die and they will save big bucks on treatment and get higher profit.. so what if they loose 1 persons monthly income, they saved hundreds of thousands of of propped up costs (in collusion with the hospitals and doctors of course).
    That is not as bad as some like to say it is.

    The private insurers offer a better but still crappier solution to government health care.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Like it or not, a private insurance company will do anything they can to avoid paying out, since it is a cut in their profit, and will always go the cheapest way they can while charging the most of their coverage.
    Not only do I support scraping any plans for UHC I also support health insurance reform.

    I'm not happy with the current insurance structure but my idea, which would lower cost and increase service speed, is not popular because people have to pay for minor services out of pocket.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yes the US does have fewer doctors, nurses and hopsital beds than most western healthcare systems. If the US system is so good, and we all know it is so freaking expensive, then why is this?

    As for overcrowding. Yes that is a possibility in the UHC system, where as in the private system it is not so much, because people cant afford healthcare so they dont burden the hospitals, only the emergency rooms. Of course if you only provide healthcare for 60% of the population then you will automatic have less overcrowding than a system where 100% are covered... basic maths.
    The U.S. has a manipulated licensing board that controls how many doctors that can graduate per year. That is part of why there are less.

    Over crowding is a fact for UHC.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    There are a lot of things that dont make sense in this world, but you are grasping at straws and excuses. You do know that you pay for pregnancy coverage too right? And for prostate exams that you dont need before you are 50+ or paying for a number of things that you will never use. It is part of the idea of insurance. If you ONLY paid for what you might need one day, and everyone did that, then the cost would be astronomical for some.. it is called evening out the burden. Same goes for taxes. You pay for the roads in the next county but you will never drive those roads...
    The insured should be able to customize their insurance coverage based on family history and personal need.

    That would lower prices for those that are normally healthy and slightly raise it for those that are not.

    That is the only way to make it "fair".

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Ahhh you are one of those... that explains everything.
    Whether you like it or not, it is a personal choice to get pregnant.

    That should be a totally out of pocket expense. It is lunacy to think that voluntary choices like that are covered under insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I disagree. Regulation is there to prevent companies for exploiting the people. We have seen what lack of regulation has done to the home mortgage market in the US. Lack of sensible regulation and monopoly like systems have put the US at the bottom in areas like healthcare and telecommunications and that means you are defending socialist communist systems that evade the principles of the free market. But then again I would never advocate free market principles in conjunction with health, since free market principles have one main principle over them all... survival of the fittest and that frankly is a horrible thing when it comes to healthcare.
    The regulation has increased cost across the board. Mandatory coverage for services people won't use is not smart.

    You're wrong.

    It is not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the fit enough.
    There is a difference.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 03-13-09 at 03:44 PM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #16
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,092

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Private insurers offer a multitude of hospitals, doctors, and clinics you can visit.

    Private insurers work with more of those than the U.K.'s UHC system.

    I can go across the country to see a doctor if I wanted to.
    So can I if I pay for it. So your point being? You see, you dont get it. I have your system already.. I can pay (if I want) for an insurance that means I can go to the US for treatment. But I also have UHC, which I pay over taxes, which in turn gives me 100% coverage for any illness I have in my lifetime. What do you have? The "freedom" of worrying about if you have the money to get treated or pay for you healthcare insurance? And if you can, then you have the freedom to pay 20 to 50% of the cost anyways if you get sick, .. hell even more if you go over your deductable? All that is worth that you can choose to go see a doctor across the country if it fancies you (and btw you will pay for that), something I can do also if I get private insurance?

    It is not supposed to cover 100%. Usually the best top dollar plans only cover 80%, why would you think it was supposed to cover 100%?
    The funny part is that UHC does cover hospital care 100%, and there is no limit. And it is STILL cheaper than your system.

    I know you won't believe me but America is subsidizing Europe and Canada's price controls on medication.
    Of course not, because it is total bull****. Prove it. The only idiots that claim such things are the fanatical right wingers who hate Europe and the rest of the world.

    Fact is that in Europe the UHC are actually allowed to negotiate with drug companies on prices.. something that you are not allowed in the US. Fact is that in Europe, our independent oversight (something I know is totally alien for an American) prevents drug companies from exploiting people. We dont tell the drug companies what they should sell their drugs for by any means but we do have a system in place (varies of course country to country) that prevent exploitation by Drug companies. The system is pretty simple, the drug companies know that if they choose to demand too high a price then the government can change that, so the drug companies are more realistic in their price setting and the government almost never gets involved. And dont think that our drug prices are dirt cheap, because they are not.

    Now in the US, the drug companies have freedom to charge whatever they wish (thanks to dear Bush), which I bet you find just fine. I guess a 1000% mark up on drugs that they have a patent for 20+ years is not something that bothers you, especially if it is a drug that is the difference between life and death.. naw it is after all the free market and if you cant pay, then it sucks to be you and hope you have money for a burial. And dont you dare go to Canada to buy an aspirin.. we will throw you in jail for life for drug trafficking!

    I they can't pay all at once they can finance their excess bills, that is a logical practical solution even though I know you won't agree.
    Yes it is a logical solution, and yes I dont agree, especially in the US healthcare system where everything is overpriced to the extreme. What about those that cant finance their excess bills? Stop treatment and let the person die? Or continue the treatment and when over let the family live on the street?

    Life is not puppies and kittens.
    No one ever claimed it was, but it is also no the freaking dark ages.

    Real life, nature whatever you want to call it, is heartless and cold, the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can make practical logical decisions and not feel good, emotional decisions.
    There is one hell of a difference between making piratical and logical decisions and letting the all might profit margin dictate what, who, where and by how much you are allowed to be treated. Yes there is no use in treating a 75 year old for cancer, and it is rare that it happens regardless of where it is. It is not because the person is 75 years old, but that the treatment is so harsh on the body that a 75 years survival chances are very low. Now denying treatment for a 50 year old because he or she cant afford it, that is heartless and cold and has no room in a modern western country in the 21st century.

    That is not as bad as some like to say it is.

    The private insurers offer a better but still crappier solution to government health care.
    And you base this on what statistics or facts?

    Not only do I support scraping any plans for UHC I also support health insurance reform.

    I'm not happy with the current insurance structure but my idea, which would lower cost and increase service speed, is not popular because people have to pay for minor services out of pocket.
    You know as well as I do, that any reform in the current insurance structure will never ever happen in the present US political system. There is simply no political will go after one of the industries that contributes hugely to the campaign funds of both political parties.

    As for paying for minor services out of pocket. While a noble idea if the person can pay, it kind of defeats the idea of preventive medicine. If it costs say 100 bucks to see a doctor for a check up, then people will avoid that cost. This means that when they finally do fall ill with something then the costs will be high, especially if that illness could have been prevented or attacked earlier due to seeing a doctor for a regular check up.

    The U.S. has a manipulated licensing board that controls how many doctors that can graduate per year. That is part of why there are less.
    And why is that? Could it be to keep prices up?

    And that does not explain it at all. The US has fewer hospital beds, doctors and somewhat nurses than most Western European countries. We also have "limits" on places for learning to be a doctor in our education system.. it has always been like that, and yes we have problems with not enough doctors, but not because we dont have enough places, but because people dont want to be doctors. Spending 7+ years in school is just not appealing to many

    Over crowding is a fact for UHC.
    Really depends on what and how you define "over crowding".

    The insured should be able to customize their insurance coverage based on family history and personal need.

    That would lower prices for those that are normally healthy and slightly raise it for those that are not.

    That is the only way to make it "fair".
    I thought nothing was fair in the world.... and your idea of "fair" is just another typical excuse by hard core right wingers to be egotists and screw society and your fellow man.

    Whether you like it or not, it is a personal choice to get pregnant.

    That should be a totally out of pocket expense. It is lunacy to think that voluntary choices like that are covered under insurance.
    Okay, that means heart disease, cancer, tuberculoses and almost every illness on the books should not be covered. It is a personal choice to eat foods that give you heart disease, it is a personal choice to be near people that smoke, or smoke yourself, it is a personal choice to be next to someone on the subway that has tuberculoses and then you contract it. Your argument is not only sexist, but idiotic and lame. You are no better than the freaking Taliban that are attempting to prevent women form getting healthcare related services, especially on pregnancy.

    The regulation has increased cost across the board. Mandatory coverage for services people won't use is not smart.

    You're wrong.

    It is not survival of the fittest, it is survival of the fit enough.
    There is a difference.
    Who says they wont use it? Are you just pissed that you have to pay for women and their gyno visits? Should women be pissed to pay for you prostate exams?

    As for you last comment.. what a hyperhole. You are advocating survival of the fittest period.
    PeteEU

  7. #17
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Report: US on short end of health care 'value gap'

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    So can I if I pay for it. So your point being? You see, you dont get it. I have your system already.. I can pay (if I want) for an insurance that means I can go to the US for treatment. But I also have UHC, which I pay over taxes, which in turn gives me 100% coverage for any illness I have in my lifetime. What do you have? The "freedom" of worrying about if you have the money to get treated or pay for you healthcare insurance? And if you can, then you have the freedom to pay 20 to 50% of the cost anyways if you get sick, .. hell even more if you go over your deductable? All that is worth that you can choose to go see a doctor across the country if it fancies you (and btw you will pay for that), something I can do also if I get private insurance?
    The deductible is what you pay before the insurance covers you.

    I'm not worried at all. If I do get a serious sickness the hospital, doctor, clinic will take payments if I have to go that route.

    The cost I pay and nearly every one else pays is around 20%-30%.

    My insurance covers most of it though, so it won't be impossible or improbable to pay it.

    Why is wrong to pay for health care?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    The funny part is that UHC does cover hospital care 100%, and there is no limit. And it is STILL cheaper than your system.
    If I only cared about price then you would be absolutely right.
    Price is not the only consideration in getting health care though.
    Time to services rendered is much more important.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Of course not, because it is total bull****. Prove it. The only idiots that claim such things are the fanatical right wingers who hate Europe and the rest of the world.
    If you think about it, it is entirely plausible for this to be true.

    If a pharmaceutical manufacturer has a specific margin to cover the expenses and they know they can only get x% from the various European countries and Canada they will adjust what they charge to the U.S. to make up the lost margin from Europe and Canada.

    I don't know how you came to the conclusion that I hate Europe.
    I love European culture and the people for the most part.
    I'm not a right winger.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Fact is that in Europe the UHC are actually allowed to negotiate with drug companies on prices.. something that you are not allowed in the US. Fact is that in Europe, our independent oversight (something I know is totally alien for an American) prevents drug companies from exploiting people. We dont tell the drug companies what they should sell their drugs for by any means but we do have a system in place (varies of course country to country) that prevent exploitation by Drug companies. The system is pretty simple, the drug companies know that if they choose to demand too high a price then the government can change that, so the drug companies are more realistic in their price setting and the government almost never gets involved. And dont think that our drug prices are dirt cheap, because they are not.
    The FDA, executive branch, and the pharmaceutical companies are all in bed together, I know this.

    The FDA is a mixture of heavy corruption and ineptness, it should not even exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Now in the US, the drug companies have freedom to charge whatever they wish (thanks to dear Bush), which I bet you find just fine. I guess a 1000% mark up on drugs that they have a patent for 20+ years is not something that bothers you, especially if it is a drug that is the difference between life and death.. naw it is after all the free market and if you cant pay, then it sucks to be you and hope you have money for a burial. And dont you dare go to Canada to buy an aspirin.. we will throw you in jail for life for drug trafficking!
    It doesn't matter if it is Bush or Obama, the corruption and ineptness will continue.

    I believe in a true free market not a mercantilism market.
    We operate and so does Europe under mercantilism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Yes it is a logical solution, and yes I dont agree, especially in the US healthcare system where everything is overpriced to the extreme. What about those that cant finance their excess bills? Stop treatment and let the person die? Or continue the treatment and when over let the family live on the street?
    Hospitals will take payments, it is not that much of a problem if we can free the insurance market and the amount of doctors graduated.

    No one will live in the street, that is just an emotional red herring.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    No one ever claimed it was, but it is also no the freaking dark ages.
    I know its not the dark ages but the government continues to interfere with what could be a continuous age of human enlightenment and freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    There is one hell of a difference between making piratical and logical decisions and letting the all might profit margin dictate what, who, where and by how much you are allowed to be treated. Yes there is no use in treating a 75 year old for cancer, and it is rare that it happens regardless of where it is. It is not because the person is 75 years old, but that the treatment is so harsh on the body that a 75 years survival chances are very low. Now denying treatment for a 50 year old because he or she cant afford it, that is heartless and cold and has no room in a modern western country in the 21st century.
    Companies live and die on profit.

    If they don't make a profit who will supply this medical care you love so much?

    If the 75 year old can pay for it why should we stop them?

    No one is letting 50 year old women die.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And you base this on what statistics or facts?
    I base this on the fact that if I need surgery for anything I can get it next week.

    You UHC subscribers can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    You know as well as I do, that any reform in the current insurance structure will never ever happen in the present US political system. There is simply no political will go after one of the industries that contributes hugely to the campaign funds of both political parties.
    Then instead of focusing all our efforts on getting a trashy, ineffective government health care system we can focus on real tangible reform.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    As for paying for minor services out of pocket. While a noble idea if the person can pay, it kind of defeats the idea of preventive medicine. If it costs say 100 bucks to see a doctor for a check up, then people will avoid that cost. This means that when they finally do fall ill with something then the costs will be high, especially if that illness could have been prevented or attacked earlier due to seeing a doctor for a regular check up.
    The prices will not be stagnant they will become lower because of price competition.

    Price competition is a fact. Your 100 visit will dwindle to less than 50 in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And why is that? Could it be to keep prices up?
    That is exactly why.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And that does not explain it at all. The US has fewer hospital beds, doctors and somewhat nurses than most Western European countries. We also have "limits" on places for learning to be a doctor in our education system.. it has always been like that, and yes we have problems with not enough doctors, but not because we dont have enough places, but because people dont want to be doctors. Spending 7+ years in school is just not appealing to many
    It doesn't explain it all for sure.

    The classical education for doctors is extremely antiquated.
    It needs to be changed drastically.

    We have a problem with nurses but they is being remedied as we speak.
    The nurse training programs in my area are overloaded.
    There is a waiting list for them, some as long as two years.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Really depends on what and how you define "over crowding".
    To many patients and not enough personnel and infrastructure plus waiting lists equals over crowded.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I thought nothing was fair in the world.... and your idea of "fair" is just another typical excuse by hard core right wingers to be egotists and screw society and your fellow man.
    How is it fair for people who are normally healthy to pay for people who are not?

    I owe nothing to "my fellow man."

    I'm not a right winger.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Okay, that means heart disease, cancer, tuberculoses and almost every illness on the books should not be covered. It is a personal choice to eat foods that give you heart disease, it is a personal choice to be near people that smoke, or smoke yourself, it is a personal choice to be next to someone on the subway that has tuberculoses and then you contract it. Your argument is not only sexist, but idiotic and lame. You are no better than the freaking Taliban that are attempting to prevent women form getting healthcare related services, especially on pregnancy.
    Those are not even in the same boat, what crap.

    Smoking is a personal choice that could make you sick. No guarantees.
    Same with the others.

    Pregnancy is not a sickness. You can purposefully get pregnant with a certain amount of accuracy.

    It is not sexist. I want the parents both male and female, to pay for the pregnancy.

    I didn't know the Taliban advocated for personal responsibility.
    Is that why we attacked them?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Who says they wont use it? Are you just pissed that you have to pay for women and their gyno visits? Should women be pissed to pay for you prostate exams?
    I shouldn't pay for women and they shouldn't pay for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    As for you last comment.. what a hyperhole. You are advocating survival of the fittest period.
    Nope. I'm advocating for survival of the fit.

    The fittest are the height of a population. "Fit" is the minimum one must be to make it in our civilization.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •