• 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!

Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

Grant said:
Who was paying for these procedures? Were they not covered by insurance of some sort?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Long before insurance companies we had snake oil salesmen. Buyer beware has always been the hallmark of the market. Which I think is fine for a lot of things, but not medicine. And I showed you a reason why.
 
Grant said:
In those cases you describe I think it safe to say that there is a third party involved between the doctor and the patient. Whenever that happens, costs go up. Of course it will go up even more when the government pays for everyone. Any idea that money will be saved, or quality maintained, is an illusion.
Click to expand...

Reality has proved you wrong. Every nation with universal health coverage has lower costs than the US, which does not have UHC.
 
sangha said:
You asked for supporting evidence, and you got it. Why not just admit that?
Click to expand...

You got in late and are jumping the gun. Read a few posts back and you'll get it.

I said prices were higher when third parties were involved and Boo Radley denied it. That's why i asked who was paying for these costs he submitted.
 
Grant said:
You got in late and are jumping the gun. Read a few posts back and you'll get it.

I said prices were higher when third parties were involved and Boo Radley denied it. That's why i asked who was paying for these costs he submitted.
Click to expand...

You got in early and you're still getting it wrong, so getting in late hasn't seemed to hamper me.

Especially since I showed how reality has disproven your claim that costs go up when the govt (a third party) has a UHC policy.

sangha said:
Reality has proved you wrong. Every nation with universal health coverage has lower costs than the US, which does not have UHC.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Doesn't matter. Long before insurance companies we had snake oil salesmen. Buyer beware has always been the hallmark of the market. Which I think is fine for a lot of things, but not medicine. And I showed you a reason why.
Click to expand...

What do you mean it doesn't matter. I made a claim, you denied it. You said you would offer evidence and then try to pass off some silliness that is far from the point.
 
Grant said:
What do you mean it doesn't matter. I made a claim, you denied it. You said you would offer evidence and then try to pass off some silliness that is far from the point.
Click to expand...

Again, in every nation where the govt pays the cost of health care, the costs are LOWER than in the US.

Every nation. Every single one of them
 
Ikari said:
Please, deflect away from his cocaine use, whatever. Next is that he was never an
alcoholic. And yes, he started undeclared wars as we have no Declaration of War issued against the government of Iraq.

So is deflection all you have to support our other abhorrent President who didn't give 2 ****s about the Constitution?
Click to expand...

I just find your critique of him Hypocritical.

Also Iraq was a puffed up media driven non-issue years ago.

Its that much more pathetic 4 years after his last day in office.
 
sangha said:
Again, in every nation where the govt pays the cost of health care, the costs are
LOWER than in the US.

Every nation. Every single one of them
Click to expand...

NO Govt paus the cost of its Health Care.

Wow....liberals
 
sangha said:
Again, in every nation where the govt pays the cost of health care, the costs are
LOWER than in the US.

Every nation. Every single one of them
Click to expand...

NO Govt pays the cost of its Health Care.

Wow....liberals
 
Grant said:
What do you mean it doesn't matter. I made a claim, you denied it. You said you would offer evidence and then try to pass off some silliness that is far from the point.
Click to expand...

I explained why it doesn't matter. The problem isn't the third party payer, but the way unfortunately profit works. It worked that way before and after, only there are more restrictions against such deception with the third party payers paying attention.
 
Boo Radley said:
I explained why it doesn't matter. The problem isn't the third party payer, but the way unfortunately profit works. It worked that way before and after, only there are more restrictions against such deception with the third party payers paying attention.
Click to expand...

And you feel that the government can pay better attention than a private company? Do you have any stats to support this claim?

The fact remains that when a third party comes between a doctor and his patient costs go up,. They have to because that third party has to make money also. The government employees have to make money for their role and private company employees for theirs. What will happen is that the government bureaucracy will grow like no other and within a few years will challenge the NHS as one of the largest employers in the world.

No doubt there was room for 'reform' but all Obama and his Czars created was a hugely expensive and inefficient bureaucracy, with ideas that predate the 1950's.
 
Grant said:
And you feel that the government can pay better attention than a private company? Do you have any stats to support this claim?

The fact remains that when a third party comes between a doctor and his patient costs go up,. They have to because that third party has to make money also. The government employees have to make money for their role and private company employees for theirs. What will happen is that the government bureaucracy will grow like no other and within a few years will challenge the NHS as one of the largest employers in the world.

No doubt there was room for 'reform' but all Obama and his Czars created was a hugely expensive and inefficient bureaucracy, with ideas that predate the 1950's.
Click to expand...

It's not. Either or, but like now both. I do keep mentioning two tiered. But, having the focus being the care and not profit is better for services like medicine.

And while spout absolutes about costs going up, explain why countries with UHC care ay less? Perhaps your absolute isn't all that accurate.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's not. Either or, but like now both. I do keep mentioning two tiered. But, having the focus being the care and not profit is better for services like medicine.

And while spout absolutes about costs going up, explain why countries with UHC care ay less? Perhaps your absolute isn't all that accurate.
Click to expand...

Before we go any further do you now understand that when third parties get involved, costs go up?

In those cases you referred it seems there was actually a fourth party involved.
 
Grant said:
Before we go any further do you now understand that when third parties get involved, costs go up?

In those cases you referred it seems there was actually a fourth party involved.
Click to expand...

I understand the claim and the rational, but often it is a limited view those using it arE looking at. The FACT remains, those countries with UHC pay less. We pay more than anyone. And yes, if we remove third party payers, growing the number without adequate access, we will also pay less, maybe even less than they do. But this is a two sided issue. We're looking to get the best access for the least cost. I think the evidence suggests UHC does that best.
 
buck said:
I have no doubt that Dr's do order unecessary tests for alot of reasons, one of which is defensive medicine.
Click to expand...
Dr. Robert Boyd, an orthopedic surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston also mentioned “insecurity, inexperience and the potential for economic gain”, but that's OK, most seem to reach for the defensive (i.e. malpractice protection) angle and ignore the others.

buck said:
But, I would guess that one of the problem with your point, is that Dr.s in NHS systems are still sending their patients to have MRIs. It's just that those wait times for the MRI are much-much higher there then here. High enough that it could b ecosting lives.
Click to expand...
Not trying to defend the NHS in England or the system in Canada, as there are no proposals in the U.S. even remotely approaching anything similar to those programs, but what caught my attention was trying to use the number of MRI machines as a measure of a 'good' vs. 'bad' health care system.

The overuse, abuse and unnecessary use of some technology does cause, as has been proven in the U.S., inflate the cost of healthcare. So having 'x' number of MRI machines per 'x' number of people doesn't mean much, except we spend a bunch more $$$ on health care.

What your article doesn't say is, how many of those that have to wait longer are considered 'low risk' by their physicians and how many of those that actually do need the tests right away get them right away. Like your post, there were a lot of "could', "may', and "potentials" in the article. No hard facts of actual causation.

A colonoscopy is generally recommended at age 50 and if the results are normal, another in about ten years. Depending on what is found, a followup could be in three to five years. So a six week wait, after seeing a doctor would not be life threatening.

A sigmoidoscopy is a less invasive, usually a precursor to a colonoscopy. Recommended every five years. Six weeks isn't a problem.

An echocardiogram is nothing more than a sonogram (like a pregnant mother gets) of the heart and blood flow. It's generally used by a cardiologist in diagnostic and followups with their patients. No rush. Again the physician will prioritize the patients and those with urgent needs will be moved to the front of the line.
 
Boo Radley said:
I understand the claim and the rational, but often it is a limited view those using it arE looking at. The FACT remains, those countries with UHC pay less. We pay more than anyone. And yes, if we remove third party payers, growing the number without adequate access, we will also pay less, maybe even less than they do. But this is a two sided issue. We're looking to get the best access for the least cost. I think the evidence suggests UHC does that best.
Click to expand...

You keep going back to the same song without looking at the least inexpensive way, which is the direct relationship between the doctor and patient. Can we agree on that?
 
Grant said:
You keep going back to the same song without looking at the least inexpensive way, which is the direct relationship between the doctor and patient. Can we agree on that?
Click to expand...

We have. And I've explained the problem with it, which is the eventual decrease in access. Like I have always said, there are two issues here and not one.
 
Boo Radley said:
We have. And I've explained the problem with it, which is the eventual decrease in access. Like I have always said, there are two issues here and not one.
Click to expand...

Okay, we can agree that the cheapest way is the direct relationship between a doctor and patient, with minimal interference from third and fourth parties, correct?
 
Grant said:
Okay, we can agree that the cheapest way is the direct relationship between a doctor and patient, with minimal interference from third and fourth parties, correct?
Click to expand...

Not convinced either way on that, but concede it might be for some items.
 
Boo Radley said:
I understand the claim and the rational, but often it is a limited view those using it arE looking at. The FACT remains, those countries with UHC pay less. We pay more than anyone. And yes, if we remove third party payers, growing the number without adequate access, we will also pay less, maybe even less than they do. But this is a two sided issue. We're looking to get the best access for the least cost. I think the evidence suggests UHC does that best.
Click to expand...

NO matter how many times we point out the fact that nations with UHC have lower costs, Grant will continue to ignore this fact and insist that UHC must make the costs go up
 
sangha said:
NO matter how many times we point out the fact that nations with UHC have lower costs, Grant will continue to ignore this fact and insist that UHC must make the costs go up
Click to expand...

I completely agree. Living in Germany I've seen how amazing their health care system is, every citizen covered 100% for everything, and the quality is quite impressive. We get all this for half the per capita cost that the US is paying. The only thing I'll say is the special brand of American UHC that's been brewing by Obama and libs is little more than legislation giving more power to big pharma and the medical industry. Obamacare actually is making prices rise, we need to adopt a real UHC program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom