• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Physicians speak out on health care bill

Laila said:
It won't lower costs that is for sure.

It'll need increased public spending and if it is 90 billion in UK with a population of 65 million. It'll go into a heck lot more for a country with 300 million.

If doctors do not support it, no way will NHS go through in US. You need them on side.
Click to expand...

Eh, you make zero sense. Do you even know how much more American's pay for their system when compared to other similar nations?..

The UK spends 1675 dollars per captia on healthcare. The US uses 4271 dollars per captia.... granted I had to be fast so these are only 2002 numbers... but dont think for a second that the US numbers have gone down since.. I have seen a number that in 2005 the US number had jumped to 6000 dollars. Point is the following..

So you are saying that if the US went to the UK version (which is the dark sheep of UHC in western Europe thanks to Thatchers policies) then those costs would rise to the UK level.. aka fall by over half?

And of course these Physicians are against the health care bill.. they are earning top dollar and can pretty much charge whatever they want in the current bill. For them it is not about the patient but about how much money they can get.. so go figure they are against cutting costs and controlling how much is spent on healthcare... it would hurt their bottom line!..
 
2002 is where it rose.

And has been rising ever since, it is currently stands at around 90 billion roughly and seeing i do not trust the Govt. to give us the truth. The cost is probably much much higher but they are just hiding the true costs.

And why shouldn't they be paid what they are worth?
And i may dislike Thatcher on some issues but the more i see of this disgusting Labour party, the more i miss her.
 
PeteEU said:
Eh, you make zero sense. Do you even know how much more American's pay for their system when compared to other similar nations?..

The UK spends 1675 dollars per captia on healthcare. The US uses 4271 dollars per captia.... granted I had to be fast so these are only 2002 numbers... but dont think for a second that the US numbers have gone down since.. I have seen a number that in 2005 the US number had jumped to 6000 dollars. Point is the following..

So you are saying that if the US went to the UK version (which is the dark sheep of UHC in western Europe thanks to Thatchers policies) then those costs would rise to the UK level.. aka fall by over half?

And of course these Physicians are against the health care bill.. they are earning top dollar and can pretty much charge whatever they want in the current bill. For them it is not about the patient but about how much money they can get.. so go figure they are against cutting costs and controlling how much is spent on healthcare... it would hurt their bottom line!..
Click to expand...
We have a constitution, and it doesn't say anything about controlling healthcare or providing it.
 
American said:
We have a constitution, and it doesn't say anything about controlling healthcare or providing it.
Click to expand...

Nore does it any constitution that I know off.. your point being?
 
Laila said:
2002 is where it rose.

And has been rising ever since, it is currently stands at around 90 billion roughly and seeing i do not trust the Govt. to give us the truth. The cost is probably much much higher but they are just hiding the true costs.

And why shouldn't they be paid what they are worth?
And i may dislike Thatcher on some issues but the more i see of this disgusting Labour party, the more i miss her.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the UK healthcare costs rose hmm 300%+ in a very short time to now be the most expensive in the world? What planet are you on?
 
PeteEU said:
So you are saying that the UK healthcare costs rose hmm 300%+ in a very short time to now be the most expensive in the world? What planet are you on?
Click to expand...

When the NHS was launched in 1948 it had a budget of £437 million (roughly £9 billion at today’s value). In 2007/8 it received 10 times that amount - more than £90 billion.

This equates to an average rise in spending over the full 60-year period of about 3% a year once inflation has been taken into account. However, in recent years investment levels have been double that to fund a major modernisation programme.

The money to pay for the NHS comes directly from taxation
Click to expand...

About the NHS
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
About the NHS
Click to expand...

And? This in no way proves your point. 90 billion pounds is nothing compared to what the US uses and it gets even worse if you do the numbers per captia. You claim that the UK has a more expensive healthcare system than the US because it is UHC, and have yet failed to prove it even in the slightest.. in fact.. if you think the US uses less than 90 billion pounds on healthcare.. then..In 2007, the US passed 2.2 TRILLION in healthcare costs.. so while the US has about 5 times the population of the UK, that would mean if you were correct, that the US healthcare cost would be under 450 billion pounds.. Now I know the US dollar is in the toilet, but sorry it is not 4+ dollars to 1 pound...
 
stekim said:
No need to read the initial bill.
Click to expand...

If you don't read the initial bill then how do you know what's good or bad in it and what needs to stay or be removed? People have to let their representatives know what they support and what they don't.
 
PeteEU said:
You claim that the UK has a more expensive healthcare system than the US because it is UHC
Click to expand...

Absolute tosh.

It'll need increased public spending and if it is 90 billion in UK with a population of 65 million. It'll go into a heck lot more for a country with 300 million.

If doctors do not support it, no way will NHS go through in US. You need them on side.
Click to expand...
 
celticlord said:
Doctors opposing health care bill jam town hall meeting | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Seems like doctors around here do not want to see another broken system foisted on them.
Click to expand...

Many thanks.

Physicians in the US do however generally support health care reform, that means not just the tort reform small change that the Republicans want to go ahead with but actually expanding coverage everywhere.

Doctors and Nurses are tired of the enormous bureaucracy that comes with a private insurance system where some HMO bureaucrat gets in the way between Doctor and patient.

Inefficiency is un-American and negotiating for cover from your sick bed restricts your freedom to live your life. Thats why the current system is fundamentally un-American.
 
Laila said:
Absolute tosh.
Click to expand...

It is? How so?

You are claiming the UK system first of all is expensive.. compared to the US system it is dirt cheap and yet covers everyone.

Also, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to think that the UK system of healthcare has risen dramatically in cost or something over the last few years to decades. Compared to what? If we compare the cost rise in the UK system and the US system, I would bet quite a bit that the US system has risen in costs by a considerable margin higher than the UK system.

Go to WHO's website and there statistical information.. it is quite informative.

In 2001 the UK used 2022 dollars per capita.
In 2006 the UK used 2784 dollars per capita.

That is a 762 increase over 5 years. Yes quite a lot but then again.

In 2001 the US used 4915 dollars per capita
In 2006 the US used 6714 dollars per capita

That is a 1799 increase over 5 years.

And you are claiming that a UHC system is some how more expensive for society because it adds to the public budget????

As for your comment about having the doctors on the side of a UHC system.. well depends on the doctor. I bet you could find plenty of doctors that are not greed motivated and for a UHC system, as well as the opposite.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
You read the OP? Celticlord is trying to say that a few doctor represents the whole group. The AMA is more representative of doctors than a couple of doctors in a town hall meeting.

In addition, I don't understand your position. They artificially raise doctors salaries so they support doctors and doctors like them? How does that affect what I said? In addition, they're not supporting legislation that'll (according to public opinion) lower the average wealth of doctors in the country. Shouldn't that satisfy both Democrats and Republicans? Democrats because the rich get poorer (relatively) and Republicans because doctors' salaries are no longer artificially inflated.
Click to expand...

The AMA only represents about 17% of doctors but that isn't really the point.

Lower doctors wages without a corresponding rise in the amount of doctors is a poor thing to do.
Some of the ideas Republicans are wanting aren't any good either.

Neither side wants to really fix the problems and only uses window dressing.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The AMA only represents about 17% of doctors but that isn't really the point.

Lower doctors wages without a corresponding rise in the amount of doctors is a poor thing to do.
Some of the ideas Republicans are wanting aren't any good either.

Neither side wants to really fix the problems and only uses window dressing.
Click to expand...

1) You prove my point. 17% of doctors is more representative of doctors in this nation as a whole than a couple of doctors in a town hall meeting.

2) I was replying to his quote where he said doctors wages were artificially inflated. I was proposing bringing them back down to "where they should be" whatever that means. In addition, I said relatively poorer and they won't lower the average wealth of doctors. I'm not asking to take money away from doctors disproportionately. In fact, I don't think taking money away from doctors via a universalized health care system will make a noticeable difference in the wealth of doctors. Actually I'm applying to medical school this year.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
1) You prove my point. 17% of doctors is more representative of doctors in this nation as a whole than a couple of doctors in a town hall meeting.
Click to expand...

Even though they do represent a minority of doctors, they still have considerable power.
With the licensing, that is a heavy handle for them to hold.

Smoke[MaxX] said:
2) I was replying to his quote where he said doctors wages were artificially inflated. I was proposing bringing them back down to "where they should be" whatever that means. In addition, I said relatively poorer and they won't lower the average wealth of doctors. I'm not asking to take money away from doctors disproportionately. In fact, I don't think taking money away from doctors via a universalized health care system will make a noticeable difference in the wealth of doctors. Actually I'm applying to medical school this year.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with what the market will support as far as doctor pay goes but at this time I couldn't give you a near accurate estimation based on the fact that I don't know how many people would be doctors if the limits were lifted.

Ideologies aside, I think it's great your going to med school. :thumbs:
 
PeteEU said:
It is? How so?

You are claiming the UK system first of all is expensive.. compared to the US system it is dirt cheap and yet covers everyone.

Also, you seem (correct me if I am wrong) to think that the UK system of healthcare has risen dramatically in cost or something over the last few years to decades. Compared to what? If we compare the cost rise in the UK system and the US system, I would bet quite a bit that the US system has risen in costs by a considerable margin higher than the UK system.

Go to WHO's website and there statistical information.. it is quite informative.

In 2001 the UK used 2022 dollars per capita.
In 2006 the UK used 2784 dollars per capita.

That is a 762 increase over 5 years. Yes quite a lot but then again.

In 2001 the US used 4915 dollars per capita
In 2006 the US used 6714 dollars per capita

That is a 1799 increase over 5 years.

And you are claiming that a UHC system is some how more expensive for society because it adds to the public budget????

As for your comment about having the doctors on the side of a UHC system.. well depends on the doctor. I bet you could find plenty of doctors that are not greed motivated and for a UHC system, as well as the opposite.
Click to expand...
Well, you can't really compare the UK to US. UK has UHC and we don't, yet we magically spend more on Healthcare than the UK does. Which begs the question: Where is that money going? Cuz it sure as hell ain't going in my wallet.
 
Comparing the UK UHCP to the US is idiotic. Even when going by per capita. Just look at the population difference. It is far easier to take care of 1 or 2 people than it is to take care of 30-40 people. Get my drift? There is also a difference in how healthy a lifestyle one has when compared to the other.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Comparing the UK UHCP to the US is idiotic. Even when going by per capita. Just look at the population difference. It is far easier to take care of 1 or 2 people than it is to take care of 30-40 people. Get my drift? There is also a difference in how healthy a lifestyle one has when compared to the other.
Click to expand...

This has got to be the lamest excuse ever. You are seriously saying that because the US has more people, then you cant compare the 2 countries..

well that is why we have per capita comparison.. it eliminates the population issue....

But yes, there is a difference in lifestyle, that one is correct. But considering that the UK looks more like the US in lifestyle, than any European country then well.... Plus if you use this excuse then you will have to use the same excuse with in the US, and thereby saying we cant do any statistics for the US, state by state, because the New Yorkers eat different than those in New Orleans...
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Well, you can't really compare the UK to US. UK has UHC and we don't, yet we magically spend more on Healthcare than the UK does. Which begs the question: Where is that money going? Cuz it sure as hell ain't going in my wallet.
Click to expand...

Why cant you compare them!?!?!

All it compares is amount of money spent per person on healthcare in said countries....

It is like comparing an orange grown in California with one from Florida.. it is an orange and there are costs involved, but are you saying that you cant compare them for some reason?
 
TakeItBack said:
Here's the Cliff's Notes version for ya. Part 1

“Pg 22 of the Health Care Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self-insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123- THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 42 – The “Health Choices Commissioner” will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152- HC will be provided to ALL non-US citizens, illegal or otherwise.
Click to expand...

The four are enough to get the bill killed.

HC for illegal aliens is unacceptable when paid for by American tax dollars. If they're here on a visa, that is one thing, if they came across illegally, that is quite another.

NO HEALTH CARE FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS!
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
1) You prove my point. 17% of doctors is more representative of doctors in this nation as a whole than a couple of doctors in a town hall meeting.

2) I was replying to his quote where he said doctors wages were artificially inflated. I was proposing bringing them back down to "where they should be" whatever that means. In addition, I said relatively poorer and they won't lower the average wealth of doctors. I'm not asking to take money away from doctors disproportionately. In fact, I don't think taking money away from doctors via a universalized health care system will make a noticeable difference in the wealth of doctors. Actually I'm applying to medical school this year.
Click to expand...

You are making a huge assumption, here. Just because people share a membership in an organization does not mean they all share a single opinion. AARP, for example, officially endorses HR 3200 in spite of the vast majority of its members screaming about what a dangerous rag the bill is from the rooftops.
 
stekim said:
It's kind of hard to support or not support a bill that hasn't even left commitee, has not been made public, and hasn't come up for a vote.
Click to expand...

As long as you can read the text of a bill -- as you can -- why do you have to wait for anything else to criticize or support it?

Isn't waiting for it to "come up for a vote" just a tad too late?
 
TakeItBack said:
'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Click to expand...

Neither of those is a legitimate quote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom