OK Repubs QUESTION

#51
#51
droski said:
if you were poor and someone was suggesting they would give you money and tax a bunch of suckers that make a LOT more money than you wouldn't you support it?
Click to expand...
exactly.

The grounswell of college kid and recent grad support is because most of that crowd have never paid a dime of taxes or watched the system being milked by people clearly crafty enough to work.
 
#52
#52
Fine Vol said:
The only downside I have heard is the wait.
Click to expand...

In some other countries where healthcare is socialized, women receive 2 pap smears in their lifetime. Thus, lots of women die of cervical cancer that could have been detected early, giving them a fighting chance.
 
#53
#53
kptvol said:
In some other countries where healthcare is socialized, women receive 2 pap smears in their lifetime. Thus, lots of women die of cervical cancer that could have been detected early, giving them a fighting chance.
Click to expand...

With socialized medicine everyone has equal access to crappy care! Unless you a rich and you can just go elsewhere to receive treatment.
 
#55
#55
KB5252 said:
Look at it this way in that system you are a number not an individual. For instance there are some drugs that they will not provide because most of the people with your particular problem do well with prescription B and C. We all know that some people respond differently to some medications than others. Now what if prescription A was the one that relieved your chronic pain or kept your blood sugar in balance the best. What if you couldn't get that prescription that seemed tailor made for you because it was more expensive and most did fine without it. This kind of thing is happening in countries with socialized medicine, do the research.
Click to expand...

I'm not for socialized medicine -- but we are missing the point. Why is health care such an issue? It's because there are serious flaws with our current system. If you don't think we pick up the bill for people without insurance you are mistaken. Even if hospitals refuse continued support of those without insurance, there are state run programs for these people --> run on tax dollars. If hospitals do take on a level of patients that don't pay then that is really built into the margins. Everything filters back to the consumer.

The issue with health care is profit maximization and prudent health care are not goals that are aligned. Profit maximization is a cost savings effort at a reasonable fee to companies to choose their health care company. Prudent health care is being proactive, utilizing preventive measures to curb future costs. Getting preventative care is far more difficult in our health care system.

I don't have an answer -- because socilalized medicine is not it -- but if you think our system is right one track -- I strongly disagree with you.
 
#56
#56
VolByBirth said:
I'm not for socialized medicine -- but we are missing the point. Why is health care such an issue? It's because there are serious flaws with our current system. If you don't think we pick up the bill for people without insurance you are mistaken. Even if hospitals refuse continued support of those without insurance, there are state run programs for these people --> run on tax dollars. If hospitals do take on a level of patients that don't pay then that is really built into the margins. Everything filters back to the consumer.

The issue with health care is profit maximization and prudent health care are not goals that are aligned. Profit maximization is a cost savings effort at a reasonable fee to companies to choose their health care company. Prudent health care is being proactive, utilizing preventive measures to curb future costs. Getting preventative care is far more difficult in our health care system.

I don't have an answer -- because socilalized medicine is not it -- but if you think our system is right one track -- I strongly disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Neither do I, I just know that socializing medicine is not the answer, in fact it will create another set of issues than the ones we have currently which will be far worse IMHO. We do need to address health care but putting the government in charge is a huge mistake.
 
#57
#57
Personal care of one's own health is a much more prevalent problem than the healthcare industry. But you'll not see many yammering about that one, that would require personal responsibility.
 
#58
#58
VolByBirth said:
I'm not for socialized medicine -- but we are missing the point. Why is health care such an issue? It's because there are serious flaws with our current system. If you don't think we pick up the bill for people without insurance you are mistaken. Even if hospitals refuse continued support of those without insurance, there are state run programs for these people --> run on tax dollars. If hospitals do take on a level of patients that don't pay then that is really built into the margins. Everything filters back to the consumer.

The issue with health care is profit maximization and prudent health care are not goals that are aligned. Profit maximization is a cost savings effort at a reasonable fee to companies to choose their health care company. Prudent health care is being proactive, utilizing preventive measures to curb future costs. Getting preventative care is far more difficult in our health care system.

I don't have an answer -- because socilalized medicine is not it -- but if you think our system is right one track -- I strongly disagree with you.
Click to expand...
moving the government out of the middle of the process would go a long way toward straightening out the problems
 
#61
#61
FineVol - the reason this country is headed for the ****ter is for a few reasons, but the main one being this:

The American dream is now 'live out of my means and make poor decisions, then let the government bail me out."

I almost feel like that's obvious.

My point? Obama would unequivocally ENHANCE this approach for people, because it would become easier to live that way - less negative consequences for negative actions.

I know people on here don't like Glenn Beck, but underneath his snark and sarcasm, he has a dead on opinion on this country.

Cramer from Mad Money has some nice financial ideas as well.

Again, I know people think those 2 are putzes, but I really identify with them. This country is failing because people take no responsibility. Obama's stated platforms and plans would undoubtedly continue that trend.

And no, I don't like McCain, either.
 
#62
#62
VolByBirth said:
How so? I guess it depends on what each person feels the problems are.
Click to expand...
the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.
 
#63
#63
BigPapaVol said:
the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.
Click to expand...

:yes:
 
#64
#64
I think a great deal of making medical care more accessable would be things like tort reform and the general cost of doing the healthcare to begin with. It costs an incredible amount to provide health care and the insurance companies and lawyers are up to their necks in it. There are some places, I believe Nevada was one of them, where OB/GYN docs were simply leaving or retiring since you just couldn't afford to insure your practice. Like anything, costs are passed on to the customers, but when the costs being passed on are passed on to YOURSELF it gets pretty ugly. When an insurance company charges you X amount for health insurance which is jacked up because the insurance company is demanding Y amount of money from your healthcare provider to cover their butts from the lawyers then...well...
 
#65
#65
hndog609 said:
I think a great deal of making medical care more accessable would be things like tort reform and the general cost of doing the healthcare to begin with. It costs an incredible amount to provide health care and the insurance companies and lawyers are up to their necks in it. There are some places, I believe Nevada was one of them, where OB/GYN docs were simply leaving or retiring since you just couldn't afford to insure your practice. Like anything, costs are passed on to the customers, but when the costs being passed on are passed on to YOURSELF it gets pretty ugly. When an insurance company charges you X amount for health insurance which is jacked up because the insurance company is demanding Y amount of money from your healthcare provider to cover their butts from the lawyers then...well...
Click to expand...

Agreed completely. But look no further than the most prevalent profession of our elected officials: lawyers -- almost all of them. No wonder we are such a litigious society.
 
#66
#66
BigPapaVol said:
the government mandates much of how care is given and has their fingerprints all throughout the payor system. Moreover, the gov't is dictating pricing with its disaster of a socialized medicine precursor, MediCare.
Click to expand...

So do you think a government-free health care industry would provide better care as a whole? I still think that increasing shareholders wealth and satisfactory health care are competing problems. I'm not sure I trust company execs to look after my well being when their main goal is maximizing profits.

MediCare is certainly a debacle though.
 
#67
#67
VolByBirth said:
So do you think a government-free health care industry would provide better care as a whole? I still think that increasing shareholders wealth and satisfactory health care are competing problems. I'm not sure I trust company execs to look after my well being when their main goal is maximizing profits.
Click to expand...

how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.
 
#68
#68
MG1968 said:
how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.
Click to expand...
absolutely correct.

the best companies in the world have figures out that B begets A.
 
#69
#69
MG1968 said:
how do you figure they're "competing" interests?

the private sector is full of businesses that maximize shareholders' wealth while providing excellent, high quality products.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but I believe those are different business models. Those are product or service industries. Insurance doesn't perfectly fit either.

The issue is that the proper health care -- as a collective for society -- is best served by preventative/proactive measures to minimize disease and it's effects prior to onset. However, that model doesn't work unless someone has the same health care for life. For example, if Person A uses Healthcare X for the first 15 years of their working life (let's say 20-35) then their costs are relatively low (based on percentages). Healthcare X is not going to pay for proactive, preventative health care for Person A that would greatly reduce their costs later in life because there is a good likelihood that person will not be with them once they hit an age where their overall costs rise. The model is backwards because of the need for profit maximization. Perfect health care is altruistic (and also impossible), which directly conflicts with company cost-cutting and profit making.

It's kind of interesting though -- insurance in it's base form is nothing more than a business form of socialism. It pools enough money from individuals at small levels to be able to pay for those that need it (by using the premiums from those that don't). Nothing more than taking from the healthy and giving to the sick. And yes, I'm excluding insurance's ability to invest the premiums -- but remember, they make a profit too.

This is why there is government intervention as it stands now. Of course, we certainly can't expect them to get it right...and they have proved us right in this regard.
 
#70
#70
BigPapaVol said:
absolutely correct.

the best companies in the world have figures out that B begets A.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with that.....I'm just saying that's not what happens with health care. I don't know enough about total costs, etc to know if a "good model" is cost-effective, but as it stands -- it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.
 
#71
#71
VolByBirth said:
I'm not disagreeing with that.....I'm just saying that's not what happens with health care. I don't know enough about total costs, etc to know if a "good model" is cost-effective, but as it stands -- it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.
Click to expand...

so, do you think Ted Kennedy would have received the same level of care had he went to a public hospital in one of the poorer sections of Boston?
 
#72
#72
VolByBirth said:
it seems profit and service do not go together with health care.
Click to expand...

The problem with that line of reasoning is that I'd venture to guess that profit motive has yielded many of the advances in medicine that we take for granted today.
 
#73
#73
GAVol said:
The problem with that line of reasoning is that I'd venture to guess that profit motive has yielded many of the advances in medicine that we take for granted today.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'm very familiar with this and most all advances are from grant-based research (whether through private or public funding).
 
#74
#74
MG1968 said:
so, do you think Ted Kennedy would have received the same level of care had he went to a public hospital in one of the poorer sections of Boston?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following your logic so I'll say no and let you respond and go from there.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top