Intellectual Fervor - Healthcare

C

coolflippers

Member
I figure this site's been around long enough for us older folk who still troll these forums and have developed at least a superficial understanding of federal issues to opine on the healthcare overhaul - not to say you youngins can't speak your piece. Healthcare is intimately relevant to the skiing we like. Mandate, abortion, costs, prescience, etc: what is your take? Is the mandate within the scope of the commerce clause? Massachusetts emergency care spending went from $600 billion before reform to $400 million after, but aren't there still excesses that need to be trimmed? For those who prefer not to talk about this stuff, consider this: would you rather take a whole new set of everything, from skis to underarmor at MSRP, every year (I believe the estimate was $7k/yr), or know no matter what you'll be able to ski with that peace of mind which comes with access to high quality healthcare?

I'm for it and I'd include abortion (population and familial concerns aside, if a baby isn't wanted, stem cell research could use that fetus to, say, develop spinal cord reproduction for Marc-Andre Belliveau). However, a lot of money is spent excessively. ¶ We keep the elderly alive in cases where tens of thousands per patient may be spent for mere extra days of life when the patient is one step out the door and the medical team knows it. ¶ A doctor could be working through a mass casualty triage at 4 New Year's morning, make the slightest mental lapse and get sued by bivvies of lawyers, raising that doctor's or hospital's insurance costs and thus raising the price for the care they provide. ¶ To become a doctor one must first get a Bachelor's. Medical school, notwithstanding its prerequisite courses, often has no relevance to one's Bachelor's focus. That Bachelor's is in most cases 4 years and tens of thousands of dollars, which is a barrier to entry into the medical profession (it's no secret the AMA likes it this way, it restricts supply of doctors and keeps their salaries high, even if they're internists and horribly deficient), thus increasing the costs of seeing doctors and decreasing the supply of the highest trained medical professionals.

 
I agree with most of your points.

One thing that needs to be considered if we extend medical coverage to more Americans is the necessity for more doctors. Many doctors, especially surgeons and ER docs, are extremely overworked as is. That plus the financial barriers to becoming a doctor make the profession far from lucrative.
 
I disagree with any mandate by the government whether it be health care, social security, income tax etc. I believe in Austrian economics and anarcho-capitalism and if big bro wants to do something, my rule of thumb is that it:

A) The free market could do it more efficiently and effectively

B) The motives for said proposal are most likely political and not realistic/rational

C) This proposal 9 times out of ten harms my personal and/or economic freedoms in some way

I guess what I am preaching is individualism over the mob mentality, or as we have in the US, a liberal-democracy, which easily forgets and ignores its republican roots (liberal and republic as in the political systems, not left vs. right; dems vs. repubs etc.). Both major political parties are the plague. Leave me alone people.
 
Everytime I see the word opine I think of the oreiley factor which would make one beleave that I am a conservative which be true Now I feel having health care for all individuals is great but I shouldn't have to pay for you to stay in ecu on a machine because your family can't pull the plug. Wow tht sounds cruel but an intensive care room runs about 90,000 a night and with Obomba care we would all be paying for that I feel we should pay for what we need. If I want to take a more coverage plan then I should pay for the extra coverage not the person who is struggling to make ends meet but has these high taxes due to our greedy health plans. That way if anyone wants the coverage they can get it None of the denying bullshit like the major hmo's do. But we still have choices. Those are my two cents probably something most nsers view differently as liberals are the majority here. And sorry for the mega paragraph I'm on Mg iPhone
 
Sorry for double post, but I just wanted to add that I think most medical malpractice lawsuits are appalling. It is a shame how frequently doctors have to go to court considering the unpredictable nature of illnesses and the human body.
 
OP, you didn't present your ideas well and therefore will not respond to your questions.

Ryan - You say you are a conservative but your main point is in contradiction with the GOP's main argument against "Obama Care." The GOP's argument is that they DON'T want the Gov't deciding who lives or dies, so they would WANT to keep that person on life support.... to some extent. There argument is directed more towards the Gov't deciding who gets care and how much, but life support would fall under that umbrella. I don't care what you think about the GOP or Obamacare reallly, but you are making a statement that you are a conservative while directly contradicting one of their big arguments against Obamacare. I'm not saying you have to agree with everything the GOP stands for, but this is a biggun.
 
I think you summed up the american health "business" in one great post.
Amidst all this commercial/financial rhetoric - i wonder where medical ethics, and duty of care fit in. Or is medicine in the united states just another big business (it clearly is). Just look at the biggest companies in America with serious power - people like to talk about oil companies, because it's easy, but in reality, it's these insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that have a massive influence, and are powerful lobbyists.
If you're going to have a health care system that is commercially founded - then be prepared for the "it ain't show-friends, it's show-business" policies surrounding health care here. No matter what they do with it - just remember, somebody somewhere is making a lot of money. That's how America rolls....

 
i had a receipt from when my grandma was in there after her surgery but i think my parents filed it when we moved, trust me it is ridiculous and i am sure at a bigger hospital it is even more.

and while i say i am a conservative I am not someone who only believes what the party thinks, i think for myself and some things i agree with them on ( gun control, abortion, immigration, foreign policy, budget) and some things not so much health care i think needs to be compromised A LOT because obomba had some good points but i do not feel that it should be mandated by our govt.
 
I'm interested in the quality conversation going on in this thread. I don't consider myself old enough to have any experiences on this topic or mature enough to comment. Threads for some education though
 
You are a joke.

I made a coherent argument explaining my deductions while you did not drop any of your "wisdom" into this thread and went straight to name calling and generalizations. Your method of argumentation typifies that of someone who is ignorant, uninformed and quite frankly, a bigot.
 
I wasn't started yet. I'm waiting to see if the thread is worthwhile to even drop opinion in here. Arguing with just you, the person who finds it perfectly okay that people in our country don't have healthcare, would be a waste of my time.
 
Very true. I mean, it's kind of irrelevant what the government does with their money if it was taken by force (i.e. stolen). Let's talk about what kind of healthcare plans are the best after we get rid of the gun in the room.
 
i have health insurance.

why would i want to pay higher taxes for others to get free or inexpensive care when my employer and i are paying to cover my ass?
 
For me it goes back to your ultimate belief on government: Do you want more or less? I'm with GorillaSteeze on this, the private sector, when allowed to do so, can and will do things better and cheaper than any government.

That said, open up the competition for insurance companies. Let them sell policies across state lines and eliminate what has ultimately become miniature monopolies.

Also, if you really want a gov't type policy, why not have personal medical accounts that you would have the option to buy in to. Nothing mandated, but if you have a hard time finding a policy (pre-existing conditions, can't afford it, etc), this would be your option. Basically a medicare type program that is funded directly by your donation, with little help from other tax payers except in the most severe cases.
 
You need to look up the definition of stolen. These taxes were passed through the legislative process by a congress. Just because the people you voted for didn't win doesn't make it stealing. Its called democracy.
 
You already are paying for others. People who go into a hospital get taken care of, whether they have insurance or not.
 
and if they don't pay their bill it goes to collections, their credit gets a good rapin', they lose everything they have, aand when they file bankruptcy taxpayer money absolves their debt

while my employer and i pay an insurance company so this does not happen....me paying an insurance company and going to the doctor regularly for preventative care is much more cost-effective method than care via an ER visit because the individual cannot afford to visit the doctor on a regular basis.

 
From what I understand about the situation is that the government is going to take my money that I already spend on insurance and give it to a provider they choose, then I will be covered, as the Canadians call it, for "free". If I want to pay for my own insurance than I still have to pay into the program.

The only problem I have is that I will have to pay regardless if I want to participate or not. I get the mandate, I mean we are all required to have auto insurance to drive so it is reasonable to require health insurance, but I find my own auto insurance and I don't have to pay for anyone else.

I'm just asking for a little bit of freedom, that's all.
 
So what youre basically saying is that if the majority wants something, it's not the initiation of force and not a violation of the non-aggression principle?
 
By the way, I'm just curious and i could be wrong. I just want to make sure i understand what youre saying.
 
When passed through the governmental system set up by the nation. No. That's the bummer about democracy/republics. You don't always get what you want. But you deal.
 
And before you ask, yes I realize in the past governments have initiated horrible things like genocides through their governments, but generally speaking they weren't republics with democratically elected representatives. Not to mention if you cant tell the difference between genocide and taxes, you should probably seek psychiatric help.
 
I'm not sure i understand how it's not force to coerce someone into doing something they dont want to due to a law going through a government system. If you'd like to explain that in more detail i'd appreciate it.
 
Its how democracy works. When a conservative is in office, liberals are stuck (or "forced" if you prefer that) into doing things they don't want to. When a liberal is in office, conservatives have to do things they don't like. Its how a democracy works, you have to deal with who is elect it. Call it force if you want, but don't pretend you were represented, you just lost.
 
This thread hasn't entirely collapsed into name calling and talking points spouting, yet, I'll hang around till then.
 
lulzy.

IMO, I don't get why the healthcare bill had student loan stuff in it and I don't get the individual mandate... and when I say I don't get it I don't get why or why not it should be there. Since I kinda understand both sides of the argument.
 
This is how i perceive what youre saying (correct me if this is wrong): Force is inherent in the democratic political system. Whoever the majority votes for is given the legal right to initiate force. This is fair because peoples' opinions are represented, though they may not have their opinions enforced. Because they are allowed to vote, the force involved is just whether they agree with it or not.
 
An unresearched thought I've always had is: would it not greatly help the medical field to make it difficult to sue doctors, surgeons etc... Granted there are those that are far guilty of malpractice and organ farming and whatnot, but so many cases are just greedy lazy people trying to get some free cash. That's one point could see the gov't getting involved in, but I suppose there are criminal downsides to that as well
 
And you can protest if you want, that's fine. Again, that's the beauty of this nation.

But its disingenuous to pretend that this is some tyrannical oppressive regime that is taking your money against your will like a big bad bully. Conservatives (generally) act as if Obama appointed himself all knowing dictator of the United States, when in fact he was legally elected, and may very well be gone in another year come 2012.

And quite frankly I find the tea partiers who basically hint towards all out revolt disgusting. Again, go ahead, protest, let your voice be heard, but lets not pretend some slightly higher taxes are worthy of a forceful overthrowing of government.
 
@Matt_L (& woozy): It is largely within the scope. When provision is only intrastate, it would be tedious to isolate as such, because every dynamic would have to lie within one state's borders. The problem is that a global economy renders so much inter-territory, 'commerce' categorized as 'interstate' is much too general. Correspondingly, anyone restricting commerce to a single-state would have difficulty competing - insurers would have to pay by state, providers would have to accept payment from monies originating in-state, etc. The commerce clause is basically there to say that the federal gov't can regulate the states' economies.

@Gorilla.Steeze: You might agree with a mandate for car insurance. I agree with you on med mal practice.

@RYAN66: I agree that some of the elderly are being kept alive for too much money. Further, health care costs too much. The trick is bringing down costs, not withholding care. Economies of scale should make each unit of production cheaper at this point - but it's the opposite.

@Big_Willy: Thx for bein so nice. Good input too. Way to keep Ryan in check.

@H8CH: Good points. You sound defeatist though.

@woozy: You bring up the most important point: prices are spiraling out of control. However, that's not to say the idea behind Medicare and Medicaid are bad. Agriculture and healthcare are two different beasts. AAA is excessive and adversely affects health (subsidizing corn and wheat has resulted in cheap corn-syrup and complex carbs, aka diabetes and obesity). But protecting the elderly's and the poor's health is a good thing. In government, is the fox (republicrats, to be fair) guarding the hen house?

What say the insured are incentivized to compete on price? If they find a price below the average within say a 30 mile radius, the savings gets credited to the policy? There's still moral hazard and the consequential increase in price, but less so.

@JamesR: Government isn't going to stop forcing (or enforcing) what they want to. It has to be assumed that the gun is in the room. Discussion is to convince them to put it back in the holster or point it in a different direction.

@youmad: You wouldn't have to have double coverage. Regardless, you would pay more.

@Ben.: You're all over the place man.

@Mr.Panda: This isn't the first time the titular distinction of a bill contrasts with the various legislation in it.

@Cubber: Don't chide yourself into believe prosecuting criminal doctors hasn't spilled over into damaging, unwarranted prosecution of innocent doctors. On the contrary, you are right to believe that med mal practice is an issue. It doesn't help that doctors can charge so much.
 
The way I see it a considerable number of people desperately need federally funded healthcare but lots of people don't. Nobody should be forced to purchase health insurance, but nobody should have to rely on insurance companies for their insurance. Healthcare corporations fuck you every single time you deal with them. If you don't like federal health insurance don't use it.

This is similar to how I feel we should deal with abortion, marijuana, and gay marriage, but that's for a different thread.
 
Funny you seclude those sentiments to conservatives and teapartiers. Especially considering how sensationally the left acted during the Bush era
 
You're are not basing your argument off the Constitution. You are warping the Constitution to fit your stance.

The commerce clause clearly states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Forcing people to buy health insurance is not regulation of commerce, it's coercion of commerce. The constitution includes no provision giving Congress the power to dictate how people spend THEIR money.

I would refute more of your argument, but most of it is irrelevant.
 
Nope, that pretty much applies to everyone. The OWS folks too. Sure things need to be changed on Wall Street, but its not like we need to remove corporations entirely. The problem with everyone is their insane extremes, no one wants a middle ground.
 
OWS protestors:

"I HATE CORPORATIONS!!! Capitalism is disgusting!"

*Tweets about OWS on iPhone and Macbook and pulls out Camel cigarette.
 
threads for later... Excited to see intelligent, non-aggressive, non-inflammatory discussion of health care in NSG.

see you all soon.
 
Before we even get into the insurance debate, I think we as a nation need to address wasteful spending in hospitals. Point in case - the ER.

In this country, if you get hurt and need medical attention, an ambulance will come pick you up, deposit you at a hospital, and you will get treated - even if you cannot afford it. This in itself a great thing: any civilized society should have this. Its hugely expensive however - if you want to lower to cost of healthcare, keep people out of ER's. Preventative healthcare is given a huge backseat in this country, a country where 1/3 of the population is obese. Healthier people use the healthcare system less - if you want healthcare to be cheaper, we need to get this country healthy.

Preventative care can be applied everywhere. One of the best examples of this came from Malcolm Gladwell, one of the guys responsible for Freakonomics. He looks at the case of Murray, a homeless man in Reno, Nevada. Murray was a chronic alcoholic. He was seen so frequently by ambulances and ER docs that he was on a first name basis with most of them. In a six month study, he managed to rack up $100,000 of unpaid bills at a single hospital. Murray probably had one of the highest medical bills in the entire state. It cost Nevada taxpayers millions to keep him on the street panhandling.

So how do you prevent this? Simple - give Murray a place to live and some alcohol counseling. Its not cheap - about $20000 a year - but it keeps him from ending up in the ER every other day and racking up bills that increase health insurance premiums, cost taxpayers much more and waste resources.

Before we even bring the whole insurance debate up, we need to get the nations healthcare system fixed. Its a raging behemoth of spending, incredibly wasteful, and focused on immediate care, not preventing illness. Universal healthcare works in Sweden and Norway just fine - but its because they're a much healthier nation than the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top