| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2004 12:56:45 PM · #1 |
I can̢۪t believe that Bill and Hillary blew a perfect opportunity to prove that socialized medicine really could work. But instead of waiting six months for an adequate surgeon they decided to go the immediately route with all the best that money can buy. Oh well, I guess it only sounds like a good idea.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:18:46 PM · #2 |
I think the slam you've made on "socialized medicine" is overly simplistic, and doesn't address the issues at all. The sort of comment you've made is designed to incite riot. What if waiting 6mos wasn't an option? (ie. immediacy of the danger) OR what if someone cannot afford a private surgeon? Should they go completely without? I live in Canada, and I find the health care system here, though in need of repairs, a far better alternative than nothing at all.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 01:35:24 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by frisca:
I think the slam you've made on "socialized medicine" is overly simplistic, and doesn't address the issues at all. The sort of comment you've made is designed to incite riot. What if waiting 6mos wasn't an option? (ie. immediacy of the danger) OR what if someone cannot afford a private surgeon? Should they go completely without? I live in Canada, and I find the health care system here, though in need of repairs, a far better alternative than nothing at all. |
I completely agree with you, Pam! |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 05:40:19 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by frisca:
What if waiting 6mos wasn't an option? |
Then you pray you don't live in a country with socialized medicine.
Originally posted by frisca:
what if someone cannot afford a private surgeon? |
It's actually illegal to deny emergency care in the US so that's not really an issue. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 05:49:13 PM · #5 |
the problem with healthcare in the United States isn't the doctors overpricing, or the lack of government controlled medical care. It's the sue happy country we have became. Everytime a malpractice suit is filed the malpractice insurance doctors pay skyrocket. Take it as God's wishes if the procedure didn't go right.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2004 06:25:33 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
the problem with healthcare in the United States isn't the doctors overpricing, or the lack of government controlled medical care. It's the sue happy country we have became. Everytime a malpractice suit is filed the malpractice insurance doctors pay skyrocket. Take it as God's wishes if the procedure didn't go right. |
Bingo! My dad is a retired OB/GNY and when he started his practice back in the early 60's he charged $50 for a normal healthy delivery. By the time he retired $50 wouldn't even pay the premium for an HOUR worth of malpractice insurance. That's why I find it totally hypocritical for John Edwards to talk about affordable healthcare when people like him have personally f**ked the whole thing up.
Message edited by author 2004-09-07 18:26:59. |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 08:21:38 PM · #7 |
Well it needs work that̢۪s for sure. We really aught to take some tips from our northern neighbors. Maybe if we focused on home instead of "liberating countries" we could get more funding for a project like that.
How much would free health care for Americans cost? Where could we find the money? |
|
|
|
09/07/2004 10:58:14 PM · #8 |
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. Most people don't want to bring law suits of this nature against their doctors, or the institutions, as it's very time consuming, expensive with no guaranteed results. I think it may be of more concern to the insurance companies, as they are the ones that have to pay out the lost settlements, but they are the ones that now control health care. They, and the pharmaceutical industry, have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000 so it's pay back time for these companies regarding malpractice law suits.
A majority of the expense in health care comes from wanting to keep grandma and grandpa alive at ripe old ages. It's very expensive to keep these patients alive when they enter hospitals, especially if they are admitted into critical care. There are numerous diagnostic tests, such as, labaratory tests and radiology tests (both done repeatedly on a daily basis); technologies such as ventilators and intra-aortic ballon pumps are very expensive; pharmaceuticals are very expensive; labor costs for nursing, physicians, therapists (respiratory, physical, occupational) and ancilliary personel all add to the costs. Many of these types of patients are frequent fliers, meaning they return over and over for the same ailments their doctors cannot cure them of. This list could go on and on.
Managed care has turned running health care into more of a business plan and along with that has come other problems such as poor staffing of hospitals and nursing homes. Poor patient care results and law suits follow. Workers in these facilities are abused. I don't use that word lightly, but it's true. Health care companies that have followed the business model of health care have been denied establishing hospitals up north because of the "legendary" poor patient care delivered and have also been found guilty by the federal government of medicare fraud. Another health care company has been using fraudulent accounting and Medicare fraud. Would you intrust your health, or that of a loved one, to companies like these?
Speaking from a personal point of view, my family has been in the hospital numerous times and there have been countless times when poor care by the physician and hospital personnel have resulted in near deaths (twice) and other complications that extended a hospital stay much longer than should have been the case.
Even good health care can have adverse results. Many drugs on their own can be the cause of immediate problems, or health issues down the line. Iatrogenic disease is a big problem in this country that has been written about by New England Journal of Medicine. |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 03:21:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 07:15:58 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
I think it contributes very little...maybe increasing the doctor's portion of the overall bill by a nominal amount per patient. On the whole though, what I mentioned above has a much greater impact on overall cost of health care. |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 07:51:16 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
I think it contributes very little...maybe increasing the doctor's portion of the overall bill by a nominal amount per patient. On the whole though, what I mentioned above has a much greater impact on overall cost of health care. |
So the solution is to deny grandma and grandpa medical care? Who gets to make the decision when grandma is old enough and should just die? What about other functionally useless people of society? I think they tried this form of socialized medicine once in Germany but it didn̢۪t work out too well. |
|
|
|
09/08/2004 09:49:34 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
I think it contributes very little...maybe increasing the doctor's portion of the overall bill by a nominal amount per patient. On the whole though, what I mentioned above has a much greater impact on overall cost of health care. |
Don't put words in my mouth, Thelsel. I did not state any kind of solution to the problem of health care in this country, and only tried showing that the high costs of health care have more to do with what I stated above, rather than mal-practice insurance premiums paid by doctors. The solutions to health care have to be solved by society at large with open and honest dialogue between all parties. It's a problem that neither the Bush administration or insurance companies are really tackling, except from the business end of things.
So the solution is to deny grandma and grandpa medical care? Who gets to make the decision when grandma is old enough and should just die? What about other functionally useless people of society? I think they tried this form of socialized medicine once in Germany but it didn̢۪t work out too well. |
|
|
|
|
09/08/2004 11:25:09 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
I think it contributes very little...maybe increasing the doctor's portion of the overall bill by a nominal amount per patient. On the whole though, what I mentioned above has a much greater impact on overall cost of health care. |
Don't put words in my mouth, Thelsel. I did not state any kind of solution to the problem of health care in this country, and only tried showing that the high costs of health care have more to do with what I stated above, rather than mal-practice insurance premiums paid by doctors. The solutions to health care have to be solved by society at large with open and honest dialogue between all parties. It's a problem that neither the Bush administration or insurance companies are really tackling, except from the business end of things.
So the solution is to deny grandma and grandpa medical care? Who gets to make the decision when grandma is old enough and should just die? What about other functionally useless people of society? I think they tried this form of socialized medicine once in Germany but it didn̢۪t work out too well. |
|
fyi ... $100,000 per year = $50 per hour of service, generously calculated ... actually more.
With Love and Affection -- The Math Guy |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 09:06:23 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. Most people don't want to bring law suits of this nature against their doctors, or the institutions, as it's very time consuming, expensive with no guaranteed results. I think it may be of more concern to the insurance companies, as they are the ones that have to pay out the lost settlements, but they are the ones that now control health care. They, and the pharmaceutical industry, have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000 so it's pay back time for these companies regarding malpractice law suits. |
Can't stay away from implicating Bush, can you?
How about providing some substantiation to your charge that they ( the insurance companies ), and the pharmaceutical industry have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000?
Ron |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 09:34:36 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. Most people don't want to bring law suits of this nature against their doctors, or the institutions, as it's very time consuming, expensive with no guaranteed results. I think it may be of more concern to the insurance companies, as they are the ones that have to pay out the lost settlements, but they are the ones that now control health care. They, and the pharmaceutical industry, have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000 so it's pay back time for these companies regarding malpractice law suits. |
Can't stay away from implicating Bush, can you?
How about providing some substantiation to your charge that they ( the insurance companies ), and the pharmaceutical industry have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000?
Ron |
Here's one
here's another
a third
a fourth
There seems to be plenty more articles out there. Just do a Google search. |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:47:36 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. Most people don't want to bring law suits of this nature against their doctors, or the institutions, as it's very time consuming, expensive with no guaranteed results. I think it may be of more concern to the insurance companies, as they are the ones that have to pay out the lost settlements, but they are the ones that now control health care. They, and the pharmaceutical industry, have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000 so it's pay back time for these companies regarding malpractice law suits. |
Can't stay away from implicating Bush, can you?
How about providing some substantiation to your charge that they ( the insurance companies ), and the pharmaceutical industry have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000?
Ron |
Here's one
here's another
a third
a fourth
There seems to be plenty more articles out there. Just do a Google search. |
Interesting stuff - thanks for the links. Of course, some of those you provided only show the anti-Repbulican statistics.
It seems that the Pharmaceutical companies aren't one sided though - they also gave large sums of money to Democratic Presidential Candidates ( over $266,000 ) and to the Democratic National Committee ( over $2.2 million ) during the 2000 campaign.
And, it seems that the Insurance Industry isn't one-sided, either - they gave over 14 million dollars to the Democrats in 2000.
Ron |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 10:56:06 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. Most people don't want to bring law suits of this nature against their doctors, or the institutions, as it's very time consuming, expensive with no guaranteed results. I think it may be of more concern to the insurance companies, as they are the ones that have to pay out the lost settlements, but they are the ones that now control health care. They, and the pharmaceutical industry, have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000 so it's pay back time for these companies regarding malpractice law suits. |
Can't stay away from implicating Bush, can you?
How about providing some substantiation to your charge that they ( the insurance companies ), and the pharmaceutical industry have paid out large sums of money to the Bush campaign in 2000?
Ron |
Here's one
here's another
a third
a fourth
There seems to be plenty more articles out there. Just do a Google search. |
Interesting stuff - thanks for the links. Of course, some of those you provided only show the anti-Repbulican statistics.
It seems that the Pharmaceutical companies aren't one sided though - they also gave large sums of money to Democratic Presidential Candidates ( over $266,000 ) and to the Democratic National Committee ( over $2.2 million ) during the 2000 campaign.
And, it seems that the Insurance Industry isn't one-sided, either - they gave over 14 million dollars to the Democrats in 2000.
Ron |
Can't argue with you there, Ron...but then again, I never said that the Democrats were not so different from the republicans. They are not as right leaning as the republicans, but the dems are still right of center and they take plenty of money from the corporations. |
|
|
|
09/09/2004 08:00:34 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can't argue with you there, Ron...but then again, I never said that the Democrats were not so different from the republicans. They are not as right leaning as the republicans, but the dems are still right of center and they take plenty of money from the corporations. |
Of course, when you have an aggenda, its more important how badly you smear the guy you hate than it is to be fair and balanced. No wonder you guys don't think Fox is fair and balanced, you have no idea what that means.
An update: Heard on the radio this afternoon that he's being moved from the intensive care ward to a private room, in a section of the hospital with classical piano music, gormet food and even english teas. Definitely not the kind of service you get from socialized medicine. Sounds downright aristocratic to me. |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 03:32:01 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Of course, when you have an aggenda, its more important how badly you smear the guy you hate than it is to be fair and balanced. No wonder you guys don't think Fox is fair and balanced, you have no idea what that means.
|
The judge in the Fox News (misnomer...it aint news...it's opinion) vs Al Franken lawsuit last year didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either.
Of course, you don't even address the new movie, Out Foxed, that exposes Fox's agenda through statements by former employees.
|
|
|
|
09/10/2004 08:46:19 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The judge in the Fox News (misnomer...it aint news...it's opinion) vs Al Franken lawsuit last year didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either. |
Can you provide evidence to substantiate that statement? Or are you just (mis)interpreting to suit your agenda and exercising "poetic license"? |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 10:14:32 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The judge in the Fox News (misnomer...it aint news...it's opinion) vs Al Franken lawsuit last year didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either. |
Can you provide evidence to substantiate that statement? Or are you just (mis)interpreting to suit your agenda and exercising "poetic license"? |
***Sure, Ron. Not a problem to find an article about this:
Fox News VS Al Franken |
|
|
|
09/10/2004 11:37:37 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The judge in the Fox News (misnomer...it aint news...it's opinion) vs Al Franken lawsuit last year didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either. |
Can you provide evidence to substantiate that statement? Or are you just (mis)interpreting to suit your agenda and exercising "poetic license"? |
***Sure, Ron. Not a problem to find an article about this:
Fox News VS Al Franken |
That article doesn't support your statement that the judge "didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either."
It merely indicates that the judge found no merit in the arguments.
I'm looking for evidence that the judge didn't think Fox had a clue... |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 12:10:24 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The judge in the Fox News (misnomer...it aint news...it's opinion) vs Al Franken lawsuit last year didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either. |
Can you provide evidence to substantiate that statement? Or are you just (mis)interpreting to suit your agenda and exercising "poetic license"? |
***Sure, Ron. Not a problem to find an article about this:
Fox News VS Al Franken |
That article doesn't support your statement that the judge "didn't think Fox had a clue about what "fair and balanced" meant either."
It merely indicates that the judge found no merit in the arguments.
I'm looking for evidence that the judge didn't think Fox had a clue... |
Happy diligence to you on your quest to finally find a clue... :D |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 12:24:53 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I don't see malpractice lawsuits being the problem at all. |
You don̢۪t think a doctor paying $100,000 a year for malpractice insurance contributes to the high cost of healthcare? |
I think it contributes very little...maybe increasing the doctor's portion of the overall bill by a nominal amount per patient. On the whole though, what I mentioned above has a much greater impact on overall cost of health care. |
Don't put words in my mouth, Thelsel. I did not state any kind of solution to the problem of health care in this country, and only tried showing that the high costs of health care have more to do with what I stated above, rather than mal-practice insurance premiums paid by doctors. The solutions to health care have to be solved by society at large with open and honest dialogue between all parties. It's a problem that neither the Bush administration or insurance companies are really tackling, except from the business end of things.
So the solution is to deny grandma and grandpa medical care? Who gets to make the decision when grandma is old enough and should just die? What about other functionally useless people of society? I think they tried this form of socialized medicine once in Germany but it didn̢۪t work out too well. |
|
This form of "socialized medicine"??
In case you missed it, the U.S. is the ONLY modern country WITHOUT a national healthcare system!
I don't know about you, but I enjoy getting goods and services back from my government. Considering how much taxes we DO pay, I would dearly love to get something meaningful in return - like the rest of the frickin' world is getting!
If it wasn't for Republicans, we could be paying no more in taxes and getting FREE healthcare, FREE college, REAL public transportation, FREE childcare, and we would all be getting six weeks of vacation of year, just like they do in Europe, just to name a few.
But noooooo..... Republicans would rather give the tax dollars back to the filthy rich, and squander most of the rest on the military-industrial complex, lining their pockets along the way.
Wake up and smell the coffee: The Republican party only gives a crap about millionaires - always have, always will. Everything else they hold up as an "issue" is merely to splinter off support here, support there from people who don't realize they are being taken down the garden path and voting against their own self-interest and well-being. |
|
|
|
09/11/2004 03:59:45 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
If it wasn't for Republicans, we could be paying no more in taxes and getting FREE healthcare, FREE college, REAL public transportation, FREE childcare, and we would all be getting six weeks of vacation of year, just like they do in Europe, just to name a few. |
Perhaps it is YOU who should wake up and smell the coffee. According to the OECD ( the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development )( ref: Here ) here are the effective taxation rates for the AVERAGE manufacturing worker in Europe and in the U.S.:
Austria 44.7%
Belgium = 55.6%
Denmark = 44.2%
Finland = 45.9%
France = 48.3%
Germany = 50.7%
Hungary = 52.7%
Italy = 46.2%
Netherlands = 42.3%
Poland = 42.9%
United States = 30.0%
No one with a modicum of intelligence would consider a 41% to 85% increase to be "no more in taxes". And no one but a fool would believe that FREE healthcare, FREE college, and FREE childcare were really free.
P.S. Consider, also, that in many European countries EVERY wage earner pays federal income taxes. In the U.S. nearly one-third of wage earners pay NO federal income tax.
Ron
|
|
