My Friend Needs HealthCare.

page: 9
37
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed
reply to post by jam321
 
If they're your friends, why don't YOU pay for their healthcare?

Why do you want me to pay for their healthcare?

There are 139 Million employed people in the US (Aug 09). There are 305 Million people living in the US (June 08). Do the math. Every person has to pay for two people. No Way.


BETTER yet why don't we make healthcare not for profit and regulate the hell out of it?
Cut 30% off of the cost right there?




posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Come to the UK for a holiday I don't mind paying for your health care, it may be a craphole to visit but least you don't have to faff with costs and life or death decisions



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by radio_for_peace
I have to say it: Your friend is an idiot. An MRI costs 5000? I got some fancy tap water for 20/gallon. He wants to buy that? It's called shopping around.

Government-run health insurance won't solve this kind of stupidity. Only darwinism. ....


Just because this forum affords you sufficient anonymity to post uncompassionate, and frankly uneducated and cruel things without recourse ...doesn't mean you should.

For a leaky vessel in the brain a high end MRI scanner that offers high resolution imagery is needed. You don't just go to the cheapest MRI "Shop" you can find...your doctor will be using these "fuzzy" images as a map when they operate!!.

All MRIs are not the same. If you ever need one...ask things like..

(1) Is your doctor affiliated with the MRI center? They often own the place they send you too...or get a large "cut" for referring you there.

Otherwise ...they often have a profit motive to send you to an MRI center irregardless of how good the MRI machines are, the relative cost, and the quality of technical staff etc.

(2) How old are the machines? This technology has been advancing rapidly with higher resolution imagery each year.

(3) Is the MRI center accredited and if so, by whom?

Jam...I hope your buddy feels better soon.


[edit on 8-9-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dbriefed
reply to post by jam321
 
If they're your friends, why don't YOU pay for their healthcare?

Why do you want me to pay for their healthcare?


Well..Why the hell do folks who don't own a car still have to pay for the roads, signage, lights, infastructure??

If I have never had my house catch fire....why the hell do I pay for the fire department?

People should either pay the fireman to show-up.....Or just make sure their house doesn't catch fire!!

Why should my tax dollars go toward other people because their house caught fire...they probably are lefty communists who smoke anyways and want a free ride from me.

I have never been broken into or mugged. Why the hell do my tax dollars pay for the police?? It's socialist!!!! ME paying for OTHER PEOPLES SAFETY!!!

I Mean maybe I don't mind paying for police to monitor the roads, because I do drive...but hey....I am not a woman...I'll never be raped...I want to make sure MY MONEY doesn't go toward defending women against being raped...they can use THEIR OWN money to buyTHEIR OWN GUNS and defend themselves...why mooch off of me...


Ad infinitum.....

What does it mean to be american? To be "United"?

Some things don't fit the capitalist paradigm.




[edit on 8-9-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Dbriefed
 



If they're your friends, why don't YOU pay for their healthcare?

Why do you want me to pay for their healthcare?


God bless you the day you lose your job where you had worked for over 20 years, lose your insurance, and get stricken with a life threatening illness.

I only hope that you can warm your heart and allow others to help pay for your healthcare.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator

Going back to a previous post of yours I think you assume people
should be able to handle their shiz like you, be on top of things and suck their own
snake venom out when need be.

Well, I think you may be exaggerating a bit there. I'm not John J. Rambo.


That said, I do expect people to be able to suck it up to a point. I mean, where do you draw the line? Do you run to the ER if blood is spurting out of your ear? How about if you're doubled over in abdominal pain? Maybe if your back starts hurting really bad. Or if you simply have a stomach ache? A headache? An eye twitch? A hangnail?

Everyone must make these decisions for themselves. Obviously, if you have blood spurting out of your ear, it's probably time to panic and hit the 911 button. A hangnail, in contrast, is something almost no one would consider going to an ER for (I hope). Somewhere in between is a point where an individual deems that a visit to the hospital is called for.

The problem arises when that visit to the ER becomes free. There must be some incentive to suck it up and simply handle the pain while it is bearable, or we overrun the system and decrease quality of care for everyone. That's not heartless; it is realistic. The hospital ER is not, never has been, and doubtful ever will be intended to handle minor medical situations. That's why it is called an Emergency Room. It is there for emergencies. A headache is not an emergency; it is a condition that requires at most a visit to the GP.

This is where a large part of the problem lies: with patients who abuse the system because, under the present conditions, it is essentially free for them because they have no money to pay with, and the hospital cannot refuse them (at least not until verifying that their condition is not life-threatening). The only way to counter this is to both educate the public on how to properly use the medical system so they do not unnecessarily burden it, and to make that visit to the ER cost something.

Imagine for a moment that all airlines had to give you a flight whether you could pay for it or not. What do you think you're chance of getting a flight would be under those circumstances?


Alas I go to a doctor for five minutes, who has much less ACTUAL overhead to maintain the office and it costs me a $20 co pay and $110 ding to the insurance pool (which is reflected in premiums later on) - Doc gets the $20 co pay and $35 bucks if they are lucky...

Agreed on the insurance hiking the price. Does anyone really think an insurance company can operate without charging more than they receive?

You may be forgetting one overhead cost of that doctor - ten years+ of his.her life and thousands of dollars spent on education, at a time when they are pretty much broke. They could learn a trade and be making $50,000 a year for those ten years and not have to spend $20,000+ a year on education. So that's $70,000 times ten years for a grand total of $700,000 out of their pocket right off the bat. People tend to forget about that expense.



The system can be fixed without socialism if the FEDS took it as serious as the Airline industry. Regulate them to hell, force cost down, mandate the basic guidelines and don't worry, if their is money to be made business will find a way.

I am all for regulation, as long as there remains a profit motive for the industry. If you'll look back at the plan I outlined, Step 3 is all regulation.


BETTER yet why don't we make healthcare not for profit and regulate the hell out of it?
Cut 30% off of the cost right there?

You'll cut out every doctor in the nation as well. You really think someone is going to swallow almost a million dollars of loss to work for no profit?

Come on, that's downright silly.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



The only way to counter this is to both educate the public on how to properly use the medical system so they do not unnecessarily burden it, and to make that visit to the ER cost something.


Abuse is a serious issue as well as doctors who abuse the system. Your quote above is right on, but sometimes trying to educate people about things fall on deaf ears.

Who you feel abuse the ER system the most, people with insurance or without?



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Time is probably of the essence with your friend-tell him to go to a local church and ask for help. There are many churches who now have on-site medical doctors who volunteer to see you (even dentists) for nothing or a small donation. You don't have to go to the church or any other church for that matter.
Obama isn't going to fix anything folks.
We're in for the ride of our lives in 2010.



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   
If you go to an ER, they have to do the nessaaary tests that need to be done..it's the law. If they don't and they let you go, and something happens to you, they can be sued for millions. People are afraid to seek health care because they have no insurance, I say just go and get the care you need and when the bill comes, screw it and tell they to screw off because the bill is to high. You may get bad credit from it, but so what? People are so afraid of having bad credit. People will still sell you a car, a house or whatever, even if you have bad credit. There are always ways to still function on bad credit. whats more important? Having bad credit and serious health problems and possibly dying because you were afraid to seek care? Or getting the care and having bad credit because you refuse to pay the insane medical bills? I say screw the system that is screwing us all the time. Screw them, get the care you need and then just don't pay the bills...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I just don't understand this big push to get everyone covered under some form of health insurance. The elderly are already covered, so are the poor. The wealthy can afford to have great health insurance, or none at all, and pay out of pocket. Most everyone who haas a 'real', full-time job has some form of health insurance. Illegals are pretty much the largest segment of the uninsured- they just use county and city services for health care.
Seems to me a simple solution would be to cut government waste, and use that money to expand city and county health centers, rather than trying to insure everyone. Expand Medicaid to cover those with catastrophic illnesses, and pass a bill that would no longer allow health insurance companies to deny claims from their members. Problem solved.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by mental modulator


BETTER yet why don't we make healthcare not for profit and regulate the hell out of it?
Cut 30% off of the cost right there?

You'll cut out every doctor in the nation as well. You really think someone is going to swallow almost a million dollars of loss to work for no profit?

Come on, that's downright silly.

TheRedneck


Well Rambo
(thats funny as hell)


I absolutely agree with you on people going in for hang nails. We could cut alot out of the system if we remedied that besides turning people away and we all know you cannot mandate common sense unfortunately, but I agree this is a huge problem in the wider issue.

However I think making healthcare not for profit could certainly work, I just think you are taking the term to extreme IMO. There are some not for profits that pay very very well, six figures in fact if the organization if structured that way, depending on the position of course. Non profit in the proper fashion places emphasis on the "mission"
which produces revenue, which is in turn invested back into the objective.

This means proceeds can go directly to services and PROVIDERS, which means doctors and staff. If it were set up properly, the money that would otherwise go to lawyers, CEOS, adverts, etc... would be directed to the salaries of the people who are actually providing healthcare. I think DOCS have to profit more than currently and receive an amazing tax break via legislation... All we have to do is change the focus of the profit
by creating profit incentive to motivate the essential players in physically practicing medicine.


You see the profit motive of the current system is based upon cutting costs while garnering heftier earnings. Right off the bat you can see a problem in the equation -
Cutting cost ultimately means lesser care and lesser earning for practitioners. In order to distribute the money "saved" to a condensed group our people, who are NOT practitioners.
It is a very simple equation, frankly the current system is BUILT to CHARGE US MORE, that should be very clear to everyone.

We need to get creative, use legislation and cut out the middle man, provided every ones goal is a healthcare solution.

I can go on but I would like thoughts if there are any...


[edit on 9-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mental modulator]

[edit on 9-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by mental modulator

Agreed on the insurance hiking the price. Does anyone really think an insurance company can operate without charging more than they receive?




I think it is this point right here that is the very core of the problem.

The simple answer is NO, but the key word is operate -

It is HOW they operate - and they operate to make as much profit as possible.
The current system has objectives that operate against the primary objectives
of the American public.


I am trying here, the industry has posted record profits for much of the last decade
and record increases in premiums. In short they are making more money and charging more, so there is a point where we all need to question this equation as we are talking about a vital part of EVERYONES life (you and I on one extreme).

Healthcare will never cost less or improve in quality if the goal is to make money off of the OPERATING SYSTEM. The shift of money should go to the DELIVERY SYSTEM...



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrashGecko
look i need health care too. i have a grinding issue with my teeth that has caused holes. If they get infected i can have a heart attack. I am prone to alot of issues but i still dont want the national health care. If they bring it in they will have no choice but for us to become a socialist country. As much as i like the idea me and my family dont need the drama from an entire country.


We are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. UHC does not make a country "socialist".



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by stevegmu
 



Expand Medicaid to cover those with catastrophic illnesses, and pass a bill that would no longer allow health insurance companies to deny claims from their members. Problem solved.


You offer a lot of solutions and Washington should be wise to at least consider them. Unfortunately, compromising and considering the best alternatives does not seem to be part of the plan.




posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321

Abuse is a serious issue as well as doctors who abuse the system. Your quote above is right on, but sometimes trying to educate people about things fall on deaf ears.

Agreed that some doctors abuse their position as well. But the doctors, unlike the patients, are professionals. As such, thsy should be held to a higher standard.

As a former (still licensed) truck driver, I was considered a professional driver. As such, any time there was an incident, I was expected to do more and be responsible for more than someone with a regular license. My DUI level is 0.04%, as opposed to the 0.08% that regular drivers are allowed. My vehicle is subject to being stopped, inspected, and searched without probable cause at the whim of any DOT officer. In an incident, I am not assumed to be 'innocent until proven guilty'; rather, I am held to the standard of 'was there anything I could have done to prevent the incident?' whereas a Class D driver is held to a much more lax standard of 'was it their fault?'

A truck driver typically gets three or four weeks of driving training, combined with another six weeks or so (sometimes much less) of on-the-job training. Now compare that to a doctor. A GP has to complete four years of Pre-Med undergraduate school, four more years of Medical School, then they have to intern under a licensed physician for another period (I believe it is 2 years?) before they can even apply to be a licensed physician themselves. 10 years as opposed to a couple of months. I would say that makes the doctors much more subject to that term of 'professional', along with the many responsibilities thereof, much more so than a truck driver.

And yet, in far too many cases, doctors are coddled. They too abuse the system by sending patients to get truly unnecessary testing just to pad their pockets through relationships with the testing facilities. They abuse the system by accepting kickbacks and gifts from pharmaceutical companies. They abuse the system by not policing their own, allowing the few bad doctors out there to continue to operate.

They get away with this for a large part due to the lack of pressure from their customers. People have come to seemingly believe that since the doctor is infallible, the doctor should be listened to no matter what the man says. True, the doctor is the one with the in-depth knowledge, but that does not mean his actions and advice should not be at least questioned. This is what needs to be brought before the people in the form of education. Not information about what drug can be used to treat what illness and what the possible side effects are; no one outside the medical profession truly cares about that. No, they need to be educated on what to expect from their doctor. Things like explaining how the doctor's office may actually be able to help you more than the ER, since you typically get faster service and more face-to-face interaction if there is no emergency. People need to understand that doctors are not gods, and that the patient is ultimately responsible for taking care of themselves. There needs to be education on what to do if your boss refuses to allow you the day off while you are running a high fever. Tell people how much cheaper it is for them, both at the time and in the long run, and how it is just as effective to visit the doctor instead of the ER. These are things that the general public can understand and that can be tailored to catch their interest.


Who you feel abuse the ER system the most, people with insurance or without?

Both, but for different reasons. Those with insurance often see their ER visits as an entitlement. They are paying for that insurance, and by gum, they plan on using it! Those without insurance see the ER as their only alternative, and since people in low incomes (in my experience) typically are fearful in general, a simple ache can seem to much worse than it is.

In both cases, the feeling is less cognizant thought than a habit that is being ingrained in our population. The first thought whenever there is any medical concern is either "Time to go to the ER; glad I got insurance" or "OMG! I might be dying! I have to get to the ER now!" The arrogance of the former group and the desperation of the latter have turned into conditioned behavior and thought.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator

I absolutely agree with you on people going in for hang nails. We could cut alot out of the system if we remedied that besides turning people away and we all know you cannot mandate common sense unfortunately, but I agree this is a huge problem in the wider issue.

It has been said that one cannot legislate common sense. I agree with that.

Which is easier to accomplish? Forcefully preventing a child from, say, drinking, or showing them what happens when you drink too much? I can remember my early years where some children were simply told "you don't drink and that's the end of it", where others were forced to drink a case of beer straight when they decided to try one. Guess which ones had the drinking problem later on in life? The ones who were given the ultimatum.

Personal experience and personal consequences are the greatest teacher. If someone can get away with abusing the system with no more consequence than someone berating their actions, they have little incentive to avoid such behavior in the future. But, if they abuse the system and there are personal tough consequences (such as where I mentioned in my plan, they still have to at least pay a part of that bill), they tend to avoid behavior which leads to those consequences.

It's called 'tough love' in the modern vernacular. And it works, much better than coddling and enabling self-destructive behavior.


This means proceeds can go directly to services and PROVIDERS, which means doctors and staff. If it were set up properly, the money that would otherwise go to lawyers, CEOS, adverts, etc... would be directed to the salaries of the people who are actually providing healthcare. I think DOCS have to profit more than currently and receive an amazing tax break via legislation... All we have to do is change the focus of the profit
by creating profit incentive to motivate the essential players in physically practicing medicine.

OK, I'm a bit confused here. You indicated you wanted a non-profit health industry, but you advocate more money for doctors?


My personal feeling is that everyone has to eat. Lawyers do provide a service when someone is injured, and they have almost as many education requirements as doctors do. CEOs, well, that's a touchy subject. A good CEO is definitely worth a high salary, but the real problem is that too many CEOs obtain that high income (which is usually in large part due to bonuses) at the expense of their firm, not as a reward for improving it; but really, that's a different debate. Advertisers bring in business, and while I am definitely in favor of banning prescription medicine commercials (why are the pharmaceuticals trying to target someone who cannot by law buy their product without the doctor's OK?), I would be very hesitant to stop all advertising.

I also tend to believe that doctors pay is pretty much fine, perhaps even a bit on the excessive side already. I would suggest that more than more money, most doctors might be agreeable to an easier lifestyle with less hassle on paperwork, getting paid more regularly, and being able to do what I still believe is the primary purpose most of them still become doctors: make sick people better.

I'm apparently reading you wrong, so can you explain a bit more in depth what it is you advocate in this area of the debate?


You see the profit motive of the current system is based upon cutting costs while garnering heftier earnings. Right off the bat you can see a problem in the equation

That is an inherent characteristic of the Capitalist economic system. In a perfect world it is offset by simple human compassion and a desire for fairness and equity. Oh, that we lived in such a perfect world!

This is, in my opinion, where government definitely has a role to play, and a role that is not only singularly suited for government, but is constitutional as well. It is the place of government to ensure, as much as possible, that fraud and deception does not occur in any industry.

We do this already in some areas. Those who have been harmed have the right to bring charges or a lawsuit against the one who harmed them. Doctors must be licensed in order to practice medicine. Prescription drugs can only be prescribed by doctors. But all these restrictions have one thing in common: they are enforced by humans. That means that unscrupulous humans are capable of manipulating the system to achieve personal goals above public goals.

I know of no way, other than continual oversight by the public to make sure things run correctly, that will remove any of this human factor. We all must be watchdogs ready to pounce on the slightest hint of personal interest conflict. Unfortunately, too many people are lazy Basset hounds, and not enough are Rottweilers.



Healthcare will never cost less or improve in quality if the goal is to make money off of the OPERATING SYSTEM. The shift of money should go to the DELIVERY SYSTEM...

I could not agree more! Now, what are your thougths on how we can accomplish this?

TheRedneck


[edit on 9/9/2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


The big difference, is that people should either pay for their own healthcare, or get a job that does. At least in my area, there are no private police- except for my subdivision, roads are public, and there are no private firefighters.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


The biggest problem I see is that the Dems want a massive overhaul of the system, when the best solution would be piecemeal. Pass a number of small bills everyone can agree on, rather than a 2000 page bill few have read.





 
37
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join