Healthcare deserves its own thread

[PackFan#1]

However, I've heard that "Sicko" is his best work as a real documentary, that he has done an honest job. I've been meaning to check it out.

Great film. Accurate. You should definitely check it out. (those right wing idiots like to describe the film as "liberal bias", but that's why they're narrow-minded idiots.)

[texaspackerbacker]

However, to provide that sort of coverage to everybody, we would have to sacrifice the choice, availability and convenience, and probably quality of research for EVERYBODY....

Why?

Why? How about the law of supply and demand?

When I was in the army, I was part of the closest thing this country has had to socialized medicine/Hillary care/Obama care/whatever. Everybody got treated for free. And suddenly, a helluva lot of people decided that a helluva lot more things needed medical attention than on the outside where it wasn't free. A kid has the sniffles? Let's take him and sit around the minor illnnesses clinic for a few hours so a doctor can see him--which usually ended up being a physician's assistant--that said, "take him home, give him plenty of liquids, and in a couple of days, he'll stop sniffling" assuming he didn't catch something worse waiting in line for treatment.

If you want a more general case, check out Canada, Britain, etc., and the mess they have.

Why does the law of supply and demand limit our choices, availability or convenience? I would think it would give us greater choice and convenience as the government is a very reliable client. By the way, these days civilians take their kids to the doctor for the very same sniffles.

I guess I didn't spell it out clearly enough. There simply aren't enough health care providers or facilities to handle everybody without massive traffic jams. That's the supply side. The demand side comes in when, as I described, people just somehow seem to decide that every little hangnail and sniffle needs the attention of a professional--when that professional attention is free of charge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approach we need will not happen overnight, but MUST be done:
1.) Tort reform (malpractice laws have to be more stringent, far too many large payouts have been given, plus the burden to the judicial system is enormous)
2.) True portability regardless of income status or medical condition.
3.) Provide health care to all citizens in its most basic form. If one wants to have a private room at a hospital or other elective add-ons, they can purchase a supplemental plan.
4.) Regulation to a certain degree is necessary regarding drug manufacturers. I have seen first hand the amount of money companies have thrown at doctor's just to prescribe their medication. My sister has also through her pharmacy. The drug companies are providing kickbacks to doctor's for prescribing certain drugs. Same goes for procedures. My crappy insurance only covered $400 for a $2000 MRI on my knee last month. Considering a Japanese hospital can only charge $100, something appears a bit wrong. I can deal with a happy medium here.

I do not want the government involved. But when we have the current free market system falling flat on its face, something needs to be done.
_________________
-digital dean
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is moderate and reasonable enough that I and many conservatives could probably go for it. I think you would have a problem with the Hillary and Obama types, though, as this falls WAY SHORT of the government takeover they have in mind.

The only thing I would add to what you posted would be some kind of a safeguard--how I don't know--against people clogging the system for silly crap that doesn't even need attention. Maybe a minimal copay of $10 or even only $5 would discourage that sort of thing.

Let's hear what some of the less extreme libs on this--Harlan, Ziggy, etc.. Would it be good enough for you? Or not?

[MJZiggy]

I thought I agreed with it when DD posted it. I agree on tort reform for ALL types of lawsuits, not just medical malpractice, I think as a country we've taken litigious to an art form and it needs to stop.
Portability is very important; Making sure everyone gets a basic form of coverage is key--especially children (and the distinction between basic and beyond is noted and agreed with as well)
And yes, they do need to stop selling drugs to doctors. Their offices are plastered with posters and pens and all manner of junk put out by drug companies in an attempt to make us think that their drugs are going to bring us utopia somehow.

There has to be a way to keep a free market system and make sure those who need medical care can get it.

[bobblehead]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched

Next, go check out Michael Moore's unbiased "Sicko."

Dude........Are you trying to lose all semblence of credibility or are you making a joke?

[bobblehead]

However, I've heard that "Sicko" is his best work as a real documentary, that he has done an honest job. I've been meaning to check it out.

Great film. Accurate. You should definitely check it out. (those right wing idiots like to describe the film as "liberal bias", but that's why they're narrow-minded idiots.)

You mean those right wing idiots that reject the notion that 9/11 was an inside job?

If you want to further your cause you're going to have to learn to tone down the rhetoric. Its very hard to take you seriously the way you go about it. What are you, like 20 years old and in college still learning the attack mechanism of the leftt?

[bobblehead]

I thought I agreed with it when DD posted it. I agree on tort reform for ALL types of lawsuits, not just medical malpractice, I think as a country we've taken litigious to an art form and it needs to stop.
Portability is very important; Making sure everyone gets a basic form of coverage is key--especially children (and the distinction between basic and beyond is noted and agreed with as well)
And yes, they do need to stop selling drugs to doctors. Their offices are plastered with posters and pens and all manner of junk put out by drug companies in an attempt to make us think that their drugs are going to bring us utopia somehow.

There has to be a way to keep a free market system and make sure those who need medical care can get it.

I hear ya. The drug advertising is getting tiresome. Portability is huge, I actually think simply saying that the employee sponsored group plans should never be able to drop you when you quit and have to charge exactly what they charge said company would go a long way just by itself.

I disagree on tort reform. I hate to say it, but we need professional juries that can comprehend the facts of a case. I have no problem with a gazillion dollar judgement agains ford because they made a cost benefit analysis on pintos exploding when rearended. It is simply a case of making sure they realize the cost side of that equation isn't worth the risk. Now, a doctor that did his god honest best and made a misdiagnosis that was within the realm of reasonability getting zapped with that judgement...no, i don't like that. Or suing a tobacco company cuz smoking was dangerous....it says so right on the frickin pack.

[PackFan#1]

Ok, I sucked it up and watched

Next, go check out Michael Moore's unbiased "Sicko."

Dude........Are you trying to lose all semblence of credibility or are you making a joke?

I am serious. You should definitely check out the film. It will broaden up your narrow mind a bit.

[Patler]

And yes, they do need to stop selling drugs to doctors. Their offices are plastered with posters and pens and all manner of junk put out by drug companies in an attempt to make us think that their drugs are going to bring us utopia somehow.

I don't mind it in the Drs. offices so much; but why do prescription drugs advertise so much on television and radio? Clearly they want us to go to our Drs. and request (demand) certain treatments. The whole idea of very, very frequent advertising of prescription drugs to the general population seems ridiculous to me.

And people wonder why we are a drug-driven society!

[mraynrand]

That's just lame. Again, everyone can get healthcare and the U.S. spends more than any meaningful comparable country on healthcare. The critical point is that we've become a country that thinks in terms of entitlements rather than in terms of responsibilities. Of the 45 million uninsured, many can afford health care, many are illegals, and many others are elgible for existing programs. The critical problems in health care are 1) third party payer systems don't make people responsible in any meaningful way for economizing. If you can get virtually low or no co-pay why should you limit visits or expensive alternatives - 2) high tech care is assumed to be better - resulting in patients asking for the cadillac care version (like an expensive new artificial hip or knee for example when all that's needed is a standard version). Companies prey on this mentality and push the new stuff even if it's no better - certainly they push all sorts of things that have never been demonstrated to be better and they resist studies that demonstrate otherwise. 3) coverage for all sorts of things that would seem to be excessive or non-standard 4) End of life expenses that are out of this world - in many cases people spend more in the last two weeks of life than throughout their entire life. As difficult as it seems, people have to make choices that recognize their mortality. Everyone dies. Physicians should prevent death when it's in their power. Individuals and their families have to be responsibly told what is excessive and have a sense when to let go. I'm certainly not advocating the direction of Europe, with physicians essentially deciding when to Euthanize, but rather that people have to come to grips with their own mortality.

Most everyone can afford healthcare. The U.S. has by far the greatest healthcare system in the world. It can take care of people who truly cannot afford care, just so long as those who can pay, do so, and there is some rational use of resources

Ziggy, the mortality figures have nothing to do with quality of care - they have more to do with what is considered infant mortality. U.S. figures include neonatal.

Econ 101 - any time you subsidize something, the quality drops and costs go up. Ask yourselves this - if Government provides healthcare for 'free', what incentive do you have to govern your use of it? If government provides healthcare, then they must control it's distribution. Since it's 'free of charge', demand will exceed supply, and thus supply must be rationed. Who will ration it, and how? How will government prevent the 'rich' and/or people who place a premium on health care from seeking out higher quality health care, or from spending more on health care they choose to receive. What if physicians don't want to work for government wages, or the people who are intelligent enough decide not to train as physicians. Will government put a gun to their heads and force them to train as physicians. At some point they must if health care is to remain 'free' and to remain 'a basic human right.' If you think this sounds absurd, it's already happening. The costs are rising so fast that medicare and medicaid cannot reimburse so physicians are quitting and hospitals are recruiting from overseas - bringing in more poorly trained physicians. What is happening to our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS?? Funny, I went out for walk in the woods and nowhere did I see healthcare growing on trees. I would have expected it, if it were a basic human right.

To translate the above post: We don't give a fuck about people who can't afford health care. Let them die. And people with genetic diseases? They are "responsible" for their diseases, not the person or persons that passed on the diseases to them, so since they were "irresponsible" to began with, let them die. Hey, humans are merely animals with a big brain (those that are "irresponsible" have smaller than average brains). Survival of the fittest is the law of nature.

------------------------



You're so full of $hit, it's a wonder you can find enough time off the toilet to post anything. My post is simple: healthcare has multiple areas of problems, starting with the insane notion that it is some sort of basic human right that exists independent of human beings who work their asses off to train as physicians, scientists, engineers, etc. to learn how to treat patients, generate medicines, and produce instruments that are required to fix injured and sick people (Do MRI machines grown on trees? Do blood pressure medicines self sort to 99.99% purity and migrate into plastic bottles all on their own, does a human being spontaneously aquire the skill and judgment to understand human anatomy and physiology so as to make a differential diagnosis?).

The second point is that people in general should be responsible enough to get health care insurance since most can afford it. Third, is that government and unions should get the hell out of the business as much as possible, because they institute or codify insane requirements that drive up costs and because they eliminate competition.

Finally, nowhere in my post did I suggest that providing health care to those who can't afford it is not a proper objective. If you actually knew anything other than leftist propaganda (like 'Sicko') you'd know that there are thousands of people receiving top quality care (in many cases better than what they can get a private hospitals) at county hospitals and emergency rooms around the nation. Some county institutes provide well over 200 million dollars per year of free health care, and often that figure doesn't even include physician billing, which is often waived to the tune of 2,3,6 times the physician's salary. I challenge you to look into the kind of care the indigent receive at medical centers like Harborview in Seattle, Denver General, MetroHealth in Cleveland. The care is so far better than what the average poor shmuck living in a socialist hell like Cuba gets that the Cubans may just as well use rattles and chanting. But gullible fools like you will believe what a propagandist like Moore tells you, instead of thinking for yourself and researching the issue on your own - why? Because for what ever reason - indoctrination in public schools, or by the leftists media, etc. you choose to believe the historically disproven rhetoric that socialism and more government control is better, even though you'll turn around in the next instance and rail on government for screwing everything up. You're waiting for the next ruler to give you your bread and circuses and tell you that everything will be OK once all the ill-gotten monies are taken from corrupt capitalists and put back into your pocket in the form of "Free" health care.
----------------
For people who can think for themselves, the goal is to reduce health care costs by making responsible consumers, increasing competition so that companies can't gouge, and by reducing government and union involvement (for the obvious reason that government and large unions typically #uck up virtually everything they touch). Do these things, and the indigent people who really need free health care will never have to worry, and we won't have to worry as a society how to pay for it.

[mraynrand]

And yes, they do need to stop selling drugs to doctors. Their offices are plastered with posters and pens and all manner of junk put out by drug companies in an attempt to make us think that their drugs are going to bring us utopia somehow.

I don't mind it in the Drs. offices so much; but why do prescription drugs advertise so much on television and radio? Clearly they want us to go to our Drs. and request (demand) certain treatments. The whole idea of very, very frequent advertising of prescription drugs to the general population seems ridiculous to me.

And people wonder why we are a drug-driven society!

Yes, they are trying to push their products on you, like any other industry. Fortunately, Patler, you are a smart guy and you can seek out the relevant information and/or judge your physician to see whether he or she is just a pill pusher or a legitimate doc. Just like any industry, there will be docs that are trying to make money on the cheap, or who take short cuts to knowledge and will just accept what the drug companies tell them about medication x. Possible solutions include more government regulation or more awareness from the consumer. Which do you think will work better? From my perspective, I cringe at the thought of more regulation - it's bad enough that some pencil neck in an HMO office somewhere is trying to micromanage physicians - imagine some governmental clerk from HHS (Health and Human Services) in Washington D.C. trying to determine whether your prescription is legit given his/her education in public policy.

[Patler]

Yes, they are trying to push their products on you, like any other industry. Fortunately, Patler, you are a smart guy and you can seek out the relevant information and/or judge your physician to see whether he or she is just a pill pusher or a legitimate doc. Just like any industry, there will be docs that are trying to make money on the cheap, or who take short cuts to knowledge and will just accept what the drug companies tell them about medication x. Possible solutions include more government regulation or more awareness from the consumer. Which do you think will work better? From my perspective, I cringe at the thought of more regulation - it's bad enough that some pencil neck in an HMO office somewhere is trying to micromanage physicians - imagine some governmental clerk from HHS (Health and Human Services) in Washington D.C. trying to determine whether your prescription is legit given his/her education in public policy.

I'm not one for more government regulation in anything. I can't think of a single activity that I think needs more government control.

As you said, there will always be the occasional Dr. who wants his kickback, or is too lazy to stay current. Every profession has members who are not very "professional", and the medical profession is not an exception. Perhaps naively, I tend to think this will be only a small problem.

If you are suggesting that prescription drug advertising is a good way for individuals to become knowledgeable about the drugs their physicians might supply, I disagree. All it does is make people aware of what is offered, it does nothing to help them evaluate their physician. Unfortunately, most people will relate more to the one they remember, be it from advertising frequency, advertising cleverness so as to be memorable, or the spokesman used. None of these are relevant to the efficacy of the treatment in any circumstance.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point?

[Scott Campbell]

And yes, they do need to stop selling drugs to doctors. Their offices are plastered with posters and pens and all manner of junk put out by drug companies in an attempt to make us think that their drugs are going to bring us utopia somehow.

I don't mind it in the Drs. offices so much; but why do prescription drugs advertise so much on television and radio? Clearly they want us to go to our Drs. and request (demand) certain treatments. The whole idea of very, very frequent advertising of prescription drugs to the general population seems ridiculous to me.

And people wonder why we are a drug-driven society!

I'm a little tired of hearing about consulting your physician if your erection lasts longer 4 hour during prime time tv.

[Patler]

I'm a little tired of hearing about consulting your physician if your erection lasts longer 4 hour during prime time tv.

That has always confused me. I take no drugs. Should I still be consulting my physician when that happens???

[Scott Campbell]

I'm a little tired of hearing about consulting your physician if your erection lasts longer 4 hour during prime time tv.

That has always confused me. I take no drugs. Should I still be consulting my physician when that happens???

Call your Doctor???

I'm calling a press conference if that happens.

[mraynrand]

Yes, they are trying to push their products on you, like any other industry. Fortunately, Patler, you are a smart guy and you can seek out the relevant information and/or judge your physician to see whether he or she is just a pill pusher or a legitimate doc. Just like any industry, there will be docs that are trying to make money on the cheap, or who take short cuts to knowledge and will just accept what the drug companies tell them about medication x. Possible solutions include more government regulation or more awareness from the consumer. Which do you think will work better? From my perspective, I cringe at the thought of more regulation - it's bad enough that some pencil neck in an HMO office somewhere is trying to micromanage physicians - imagine some governmental clerk from HHS (Health and Human Services) in Washington D.C. trying to determine whether your prescription is legit given his/her education in public policy.

I'm not one for more government regulation in anything. I can't think of a single activity that I think needs more government control.

As you said, there will always be the occasional Dr. who wants his kickback, or is too lazy to stay current. Every profession has members who are not very "professional", and the medical profession is not an exception. Perhaps naively, I tend to think this will be only a small problem.

If you are suggesting that prescription drug advertising is a good way for individuals to become knowledgeable about the drugs their physicians might supply, I disagree. All it does is make people aware of what is offered, it does nothing to help them evaluate their physician. Unfortunately, most people will relate more to the one they remember, be it from advertising frequency, advertising cleverness so as to be memorable, or the spokesman used. None of these are relevant to the efficacy of the treatment in any circumstance.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point?

You were just a bit off. I agree that commercials tend to not be informative. They are in fact, deliberately manipulative. But they aren't going away. I just hope folks can determine for themselves, for the most part, when they are being scammed. I know that I won't try Avocor, because even though I want my hair back, I don't want it to be green and have to comb it funny. I'm tired of that bearded guy who keeps selling the amazing putty that can pull a semi and the Oxi-cleaner that will remove all colored stains from my carpet, yet not change the dye AT ALL, but I bought 400 of those amazing shami thingies instead of spending hundreds for paper towels. But that's not all, act now and WE'LL DOUBLE YOUR ORDER!

sorry, I lost it there. help me.