Nationalized Healthcare-unconstitutional?

[B_talltpaguy]

^With a URL like "biggovernment.com" you just know it's a legitimate news organization. lolololol


So far as I'm concerned, this is excellent news, and hopefully it's actually true... With some of these old, fatcat doctors and their exorbitant fees out of the system, costs will go down precipitously. (it may not seem like it, but we can in fact train new doctors for WAY cheaper than these old entrenched doctors think they're worth) It's like when manufacturers declare bankruptcy on paper, so that they can break the unions and save labor costs on old fatcat workers not even applying themselves anymore. The heathcare system isn't any different in terms of jacked up labor costs screwing consumer costs up... The first step in reforming any bloated organization is to get rid of the dead weight who cost more than they are worth.

 

[midlifebear]

^With a URL like "biggovernment.com" you just know it's a legitimate news organization. lolololol


So far as I'm concerned, this is excellent news, and hopefully it's actually true... With some of these old, fatcat doctors and their exorbitant fees out of the system, costs will go down precipitously. (it may not seem like it, but we can in fact train new doctors for WAY cheaper than these old entrenched doctors think they're worth) It's like when manufacturers declare bankruptcy on paper, so that they can break the unions and save labor costs on old fatcat workers not even applying themselves anymore. The heathcare system isn't any different in terms of jacked up labor costs screwing consumer costs up... The first step in reforming any bloated organization is to get rid of the dead weight who cost more than they are worth.

Totally agree with tallpaguy. In my 20's and 30's I was referred to an allergy/pulmonary specialist who never helped me control a serious problem with asthma. In fact, after seeing him for 5 years I was worse than better. Turns out he was a closet smoker (Kool Menthols) and had basically kept me in a chronic state because at that time, asthma was one of those "fringe" chronic conditions that was a cash cow. He had a big roster of patients who smoked and he never recommended they might consider stopping to help improve or cure their condition. When he looked at me he didn't see a patient that needed help, he saw a BMW payment or new braces for his children's teeth. After becoming a financial success he "retired" at 40 and I was left with having to look for another asthma specialist on my own. After a couple of months I noticed I didn't have daily attacks and that something had changed -- for the positive. I learned how to control the chronic asthma myself by avoiding certain things such as cats, entering homes of friends with less than satisfactory house cleaning habits who kept caged birds, cigarette smoke, horses, and a bunch of other stuff that really didn't add quality to my life.

When AIDS became recognized and diagnosed, but there were no effective treatments to fight and control the virus, my primary physician retired (a nice woman who worked hard her entire life because she enjoyed the challenge of practicing medicine). I had to find a new doctor as my point man for any health problems that might hit me. I "interviewed" for a new physician by making initial appointments for which I had to pay for out-of-pocket, (my fabulous Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance wouldn't cover the initial appointments). I saw more than 12 physicians in my area of the USA. The first question I asked each one was, "I'm homosexual. Do you have a problem with that? Would you have a problem if I tested positive for HIV? How many gay patients do you see. Have you any experience with HIV patients.?" All but one physician didn't balk at my openness. That physician turned out to be a Lesbian internist who was back in medical school specializing in infectious diseases. I wish I had Polaroids of the faces of those other 11 physicians when I "interviewed" them. The homophobia and/or general horror was so thick I could have cut slices of it like a birthday cake.

These days I'm pretty much asthma free. I just keep an inexpensive inhaler around in case of a mild attack. The brand of inhaler is well-known and available without a prescription throughout most of the world (except the USA, where you need to consult a physician to get a prescription and then pay $45 for a smaller size than the larger one that costs me €4 -- exact same pharmaceutical manufacturer). And the world is a better place without that allergy/lung specialist practicing medicine anywhere in the world. Physicians are not gods, although in the USA they are regarded as such. Getting a physician's license to practice medicine revoked in the USA is almost impossible. And there are plenty of racist, homophobic, bottom-of-their-medical-class physicians who need to be gleaned from the USA's system of health care. And if they're so bad at treating patients, just imagine how poor their diagnostic skills must be working in research medical labs. Granted, some are not completely stupid, just lazy.

As I've posted before, whenever I have to travel back to the USA I buy a medical insurance policy from a broker in Spain that covers 100% of the cost to get me stabilized and back to Barcelona to receive care from my current primary care doctor, if I am unlucky enough to suffer a medical problem during my annual visits to Nevada to check on business. :smile:

 

[Mensch1351]

How does this line of logic work for current 20-somethings that could have opted out but may have no SoSec at their retirement age, "sorry, you're fucked too"?

If Congress lived under social security --- there would be no "looming" disaster about it's funding. They simply don't "get it"! We in America must simply decide if it is a "right" or a "privilege" to have a reliable stable source of income in old age. Talk to the folks screwed by Enron or other companies who legally declared bankruptcy to avoid paying out pensions! Turning all this over to "privatization" doesn't guarantee ANYONE security -- the monthly reliable check from the government does!

 

[Speculator]

It doesn't matter. You choose to drive, including purchasing a car, getting a license, and driving on public roads. If you done none of that, you will never need auto insurance.

Everyone needs healthcare. That's why it's perverse to even have it as a for-profit service dependent on ability to pay.

You're 100% wrong. Nobody needs car insurance and nobody needs health insurance, if you desire these services however the providers will NEED to make a profit in order to function. Making a profit doesn't entail ripping off customers, it allows capitalist to earn their return fairly in a free market.

If you wanted to plumb your own house single handedly for example it may cost you $10,000 because you need to purchase all the tools + materials, a pro plumber may do it for $5,000 tho because he's able to spread the tool cost out over a number of clients. He's still making a profit (the evil money grabbing capitalist) but he's been able to take advantage of economies of scale and plumb your house cheaper than you'd be abke to do it. It'd called an economy.

 

[JTalbain]

You're 100% wrong. Nobody needs car insurance and nobody needs health insurance, if you desire these services however the providers will NEED to make a profit in order to function. Making a profit doesn't entail ripping off customers, it allows capitalist to earn their return fairly in a free market.

If you wanted to plumb your own house single handedly for example it may cost you $10,000 because you need to purchase all the tools + materials, a pro plumber may do it for $5,000 tho because he's able to spread the tool cost out over a number of clients. He's still making a profit (the evil money grabbing capitalist) but he's been able to take advantage of economies of scale and plumb your house cheaper than you'd be abke to do it. It'd called an economy.

They should be able to make a profit, true. But the profit should be reasonable. When the insurance companies have a higher profitability than almost any industry in America, we spend more on healthcare than any nation in the world, and we still have only something like the 24th best healthcare system by the rankings of the WHO, something's got to change. Obviously the money we're funneling into it is not getting us what we're paying for.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You're 100% wrong. Nobody needs car insurance and nobody needs health insurance, if you desire these services however the providers will NEED to make a profit in order to function. Making a profit doesn't entail ripping off customers, it allows capitalist to earn their return fairly in a free market.

If you wanted to plumb your own house single handedly for example it may cost you $10,000 because you need to purchase all the tools + materials, a pro plumber may do it for $5,000 tho because he's able to spread the tool cost out over a number of clients. He's still making a profit (the evil money grabbing capitalist) but he's been able to take advantage of economies of scale and plumb your house cheaper than you'd be abke to do it. It'd called an economy.

There's a difference in "making a profit" and being greedy. Unfortunately for us, many wealthy people conduct their business like they don't know the difference. The lives of everyday people should not be impeded on by the wants and desires of someone desperately looking to be on the Forbes' List. Those who continually chirp the rhetoric about capitalism need to realize that if we were truly in a completely capitalist society, not only would you probably not have a dime to your name but we'd all be paying for internet services by the letter... just to give you an idea.

 

[B_Marius567]

A lot of states are going broke and been laying people off. will Health care bill make things worse?

 

[JTalbain]

A lot of states are going broke and been laying people off. will Health care bill make things worse?

It'll probably make our health care system fail like Canada's and Britain's. The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems God it would be nice if that happened. :tongue:

Now now, maybe that wasn't fair. Maybe we'll be spending a bunch more money, so we'll be bankrupted by the weight of our medical system like Canada and the UK. http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_2005.html

...well shit.

 

[midlifebear]

Sorry, JTalbain, but the source from, "The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task." according to the link. There is certainly more current information from other, more reliable sources. And the second link opens up a chart with rankings so poorly displayed that the information is completely unreadable.

However, I agree with you. The so-called "free market" style of medical care has inherent problems no one should be insulted to suffer when ill. One of the ironies that never fails to amuse me regarding the USA's Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs is that I do not know one senior citizen who is a self-avowed die hard Republican willing to give up their access to those "socialist" programs. But they are happy to rationalize that everyone else should go bankrupt and risk ending up homeless because they may have a chronic or degenerative disease.

But that's "The New America": I've got mine, fuck you!

 

[Speculator]

There's a difference in "making a profit" and being greedy. Unfortunately for us, many wealthy people conduct their business like they don't know the difference. The lives of everyday people should not be impeded on by the wants and desires of someone desperately looking to be on the Forbes' List.

If corporations consistently make abnormal profits then it's usually a sign that a form of government protection is at work. High profits send signals, it's like the goldrush effect; the prospect of an easy return encourages participants into the market and this mechanism acts to reduce prices, in some cases though the state may prevent this. We could call it corporate "greed" but this gives an inaccurate description of what is going on. It individualises what is essentially a social/political problem and leads to no natural solution, other than just being nicer to each other.

Those who continually chirp the rhetoric about capitalism need to realize that if we were truly in a completely capitalist society, not only would you probably not have a dime to your name but we'd all be paying for internet services by the letter... just to give you an idea.

I think you may be confusing capitalism with private ownership, they often coincide but not always. I could claim that a slave was my private property for example, but this wouldn't be consistent with capitalism as it's a theory based on voluntary exchange, not coercion. This sort of injustice can only be maintained with state backing, which is why I find it difficult to agree with the left when they argue that a central all powerful body is the solution to all our problems.

 

[Speculator]

They should be able to make a profit, true. But the profit should be reasonable. When the insurance companies have a higher profitability than almost any industry in America, we spend more on healthcare than any nation in the world, and we still have only something like the 24th best healthcare system by the rankings of the WHO, something's got to change. Obviously the money we're funneling into it is not getting us what we're paying for.

Healthcare is a government protected industry, to relieve the scarcity caused by central planning the U.S needs to have faith in the free market and deregulate. Healthcare is too important to be left to the whims of politicians and bodies run by physicians for physicians, the're effectively colluding against the public and stuffing them with high prices. U.S citizens will only achieve world class levels of service when the government ditches cosy cartelism and forces firms to compete with one another.

 

[midlifebear]

Healthcare is a government protected industry, to relieve the scarcity caused by central planning the U.S needs to have faith in the free market and deregulate. Healthcare is too important to be left to the whims of politicians and bodies run by physicians for physicians, this form of cartelism is leaving the U.S without the care it needs.

As a US tax-paying citizen of the Great Silver State, if we did not have brothels in Wells, NV, (population swings from about 900 to 1,300 depending upon the season), the majority of towns folk would have no health care at all. Because prostitution is legal in many counties, the State Department of Health is obligated by law to provide health providers (AKA, physicians) in towns with brothels to test and monitor the working girls every two weeks. Therefore, the clinics, ostensibly set up to track and control STDs, also see all the little old blue-haired, church-going ladies, local ranchers, as well as many legal Mexican Americans and members of the Shoshone and Goshute Tribes who live near or at poverty level. And yes, there is a "fuck" tax paid by all brothels to help subsidize the State's need to monitor STDs, but it is hardly enough to keep a community clinic alive.

You'd think that "free market" economics in the sex business would find it in its best interest to build in and pay for keeping both clients and workers safe from STDs. But without government regulation it doesn't. And if Wells suddenly became overrun by Southern Baptists who voted to close all the brothels, the clinic would disappear as soon as the brothels closed.

Just something for folks to think about. And yet another irony; northern Nevada, especially Elko County, is a major Tea Bagger center for those "wanting their America returned to them." Interestingly, we have so much less Federal Government interference than probably any other State. But for the Tea Baggers, that's still not enough non interference. They enjoy buying cheap gasoline at the local postage stamp sized part of the Shoshone Reservation's gas and Quick Food Stop in Elko, but there are many Tea Baggers who think the Shoshones property should be taken over via eminent domain, moving the Shoshone out to their larger piece of reservation north of town. After all, those Shoshone are nothing but government free loaders wasting the Tea Baggers good tax dollars. Just ask any of the non-navtive 'Mericuhns who work at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The stupidity never seems to level off.

 

[gwk158ill]

I am by no means an expert on the subject, but both my parents are medical professionals. I grew up surrounded by nurses, doctors, and researchers. I'd like to think that I have a fairly solid grasp on the issues at hand (albeit a bit biased by those same relationships).

Healthcare is too important to be left to the whims of politicians and bodies run by physicians for physicians, the're effectively colluding against the public and stuffing them with high prices. U.S citizens will only achieve world class levels of service when the government forces firms to compete with one another.

US Citizens already have access to world class levels of service. US medical care is some of the best in the world. Princes and presidents fly to Cleveland Ohio for care at the CCF (I've passed two sets of body doubles, complete with matching bodyguards in the halls there). Cincinnati Ohio - another shining example of a wonderful American metropolis (hah!) - is home to one of the best Childrens' Hospitals in the world as well. The issue is clearly not the quality of care available to citizens, and suggesting that is deliberately misleading.

Instead the problem is with access to basic care. Put in absurdly simple terms, people who can't afford insurance usually also can't afford regular checkups or clinic visits for small problems. This results in an enormous deficiency in preemptive care, and an excess of significant problems that could have been solved quickly and cheaply had they been diagnosed earlier.

But I digress. Competition has already created extreme advances in treatment and facilities. But these hospitals have no reason to compete for the business of people who cannot pay. Insurance on its own is a socialization of medical bills. If you (I'm assuming), a middle class American, find that your kidneys have failed tomorrow, I can only assume your insurance will cover it. And they will cover it with money amassed from the network of fellow customers served by the same provider.

A public option, a government mandate, whatever happens, all it is doing is increasing the number of people collectively paying for your treatment. And if it results (as many predict, citing European institutions) in better preemptive care, then it may actually reduce the overall cost of Healthcare.

The intention of the few legal mandates for insurance companies and healthcare providers is not to reduce the quality of care, but to insure that care is available to all. I'm sure you remember during the 2008 campaign the criticism that John McCain and several other candidates and candidates' relatives would be ineligible (by many companies' standards) to open a new policy due to pre-existing conditions.

Pure and simple, the healthcare 'issue' boils down to the population that has insurance already not wanting a government policy that 'might' slightly increase the cost of their plans, while ignoring the enormous population that cannot afford it. And of course the people who hear criticisms and say this:

http://cabalamat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/medicare.jpg

 

[Speculator]

Instead the problem is with access to basic care. Put in absurdly simple terms, people who can't afford insurance usually also can't afford regular checkups or clinic visits for small problems. This results in an enormous deficiency in preemptive care, and an excess of significant problems that could have been solved quickly and cheaply had they been diagnosed earlier.

But I digress. Competition has already created extreme advances in treatment and facilities. But these hospitals have no reason to compete for the business of people who cannot pay. Insurance on its own is a socialization of medical bills. If you (I'm assuming), a middle class American, find that your kidneys have failed tomorrow, I can only assume your insurance will cover it. And they will cover it with money amassed from the network of fellow customers served by the same provider.

The fact that Americans are having to rely on insurance to satisfy their healthcare needs at all concerns me, I'm a big believer in avoiding insurance unless it's a legal requirement. It may well socialise the losses for individuals, but the net cost of insurance will outweight the total value of medical procedures performed because those companies have significant overheads and need to generate their profits , they're an added -probably unnecessary- expense.

Instead of asking; how can we give people the money they need to cover their bills? Perhaps interested parties could start questioning why the cost of medical care is so expensive in the first place and tackle that. Throwing insurance money and government subsidies at it only inflates costs as providers tailor their prices to take advantage, they have absolutely no incentive to cut prices all the time they know the state will be there to make up the difference.

Insurance companies are almost certainly doing more harm than good, if I was an American I wouldn't be looking to them for help.

Edit to add, I remember watching an undercover investivgation into the British dental profession on the news, when some dentists were told the patient had insurance unsurprisingly they inflated their charges and offered unnecessary work so they could claim the maximum amount, clearly this pushes up the cost for those with no insurance as they have to compete with all this artificial demand.

 

[JTalbain]

The fact that Americans are having to rely on insurance to satisfy their healthcare needs at all concerns me, I'm a big believer in avoiding insurance unless it's a legal requirement. It may well socialise the losses for individuals, but the net cost of insurance will outweight the total value of medical procedures performed because those companies have significant overheads and need to generate their profits , they're an added -probably unnecessary- expense.
......
Insurance companies are almost certainly doing more harm than good, if I was an American I wouldn't be looking to them for help.

This situation is actually something that is caused by lack of regulation rather than too much regulation. For instance, in many places there is really only one option for health insurance. In any other industry, the company would be subject to anti-trust laws, but medical insurance is immune to that piece of regulation. The government also has no say in determining what a reasonable price would be, so they can charge what they want.

As for why people have to rely on insurance, it's actually kinda like the lottery. Everyone pays into the pot, and large amounts go to a very small number who contribute. The payments to those people wouldn't be possible if people weren't playing, however. The biggest difference is that with the insurance lottery, everyone is hoping they don't "win". :tongue:

Instead of asking; how can we give people the money they need to cover their bills? Perhaps interested parties could start questioning why the cost of medical care is so expensive in the first place and tackle that. Throwing insurance money and government subsidies at it only inflates costs as providers tailor their prices to take advantage, they have absolutely no incentive to cut prices all the time they know the state will be there to make up the difference.
......
Edit to add, I remember watching an undercover investivgation into the British dental profession on the news, when some dentists were told the patient had insurance unsurprisingly they inflated their charges and offered unnecessary work so they could claim the maximum amount, clearly this pushes up the cost for those with no insurance as they have to compete with all this artificial demand.

Yes, I agree with you that the current prices should be a primary concern, but they're far from the only problem. This is the reason why there are so many pages in the healthcare bill; it's such a big myriad issue.

 

[B_talltpaguy]

Healthcare is a government protected industry, to relieve the scarcity caused by central planning the U.S needs to have faith in the free market and deregulate.

The fact that Americans are having to rely on insurance to satisfy their healthcare needs at all concerns me, I'm a big believer in avoiding insurance unless it's a legal requirement. It may well socialise the losses for individuals, but the net cost of insurance will outweight the total value of medical procedures performed because those companies have significant overheads and need to generate their profits , they're an added -probably unnecessary- expense.

The day you finally figure out that the insurance companies we have are the best 'solution' that the 'free market' could manage to come up with over the past 60+ years, then maybe you'll begin to realize just how thoroughly flawed the corporatist mentality that the 'free market will fix everything' really is and always will be.

Not all of society's problems can be solved by adopting a solution proposed by the guy who promises to fix the problem while stealing the least amount of money for himself.

 

[Speculator]

The day you finally figure out that the insurance companies we have are the best 'solution' that the 'free market' could manage to come up with over the past 60+ years, then maybe you'll begin to realize just how thoroughly flawed the corporatist mentality that the 'free market will fix everything' really is and always will be.

Not all of society's problems can be solved by adopting a solution proposed by the guy who promises to fix the problem while stealing the least amount of money for himself.

To quote another poster, I'll make this absurdly simple. People need resources, the only people that can create those resources are people, not the state. If you cannot rely on individuals to do this freely then forcing them to act in certain ways won't achieve anything, it's just an expensive exercise in crowd control.

Yes in an ideal world everything would be free and we'd all be nice to one another, but we don't live in an ideal world so the next best thing is profit: which allows people to achieve a fair reward for a fair days work.

What exactly is wrong with that?

 

[midlifebear]

I'd like to ask Speculator if he can afford a monthly premium of at least $1,500 and an annual deductible of $20,000 before his US health insurance begins to pay 80% of all medical costs for the rest of the annual 12-month period. This starts all over again at the beginning of the new policy year. And even if he can pay that much annually, what is he going to do once his insurance company has paid out the maximum to cover health costs for the rest of his life time, which in the case of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Nevada for a self-employed 65 year-old male such as myself is only $100,000? After that, there are no more benefits. There are other insurance companies in my part of Nevada, but they are group policies only available to employees of large mining corporations or casinos. As for buying insurance from a company in another State, it's illegal where I'm not a legal resident?

Suggestions? I'd LOVE to hear them.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

People need resources, the only people that can create those resources are people, not the state. If you cannot rely on individuals to do this freely then forcing them to act in certain ways won't achieve anything, it's just an expensive exercise in crowd control.

Nice idea. Too bad it doesn't happen, especially when it comes to health insurance because they have no probable cause or competition. That is why they (or "individuals" as you put it) will not freely make their services more affordable. In some states, premiums have went up for some patients in excess of 41%. This wouldn't have happened if there was some actual competition to provide an alternative.

Yes in an ideal world everything would be free and we'd all be nice to one another, but we don't live in an ideal world so the next best thing is profit: which allows people to achieve a fair reward for a fair days work.

You still don't know the difference between making a profit and being greedy.

 

[B_Marius567]

Nice idea. Too bad it doesn't happen, especially when it comes to health insurance because they have no probable cause or competition. That is why they (or "individuals" as you put it) will not freely make their services more affordable. In some states, premiums have went up for some patients in excess of 41%. This wouldn't have happened if there was some actual competition to provide an alternative.



You still don't know the difference between making a profit and being greedy.

You can buy health care stock.