Prepare for healthcare abuse to the Nth degree

Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_starinvestor, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    As the Obama administration continues to push for 'nationalized healthcare' or 'universal healthcare' or whichever term his P.R. machine prefers that hour.....

    we can also prepare for one of the most abusive assaults on the medical service industry in worldwide history.

    While some are legitimately due suitable medical treatments and attention, the vast majority - mostly those that are already gobbling up every entitlement dollar available - will ransack healthcare facilities in search of prescription drugs, constant attention, multiple inner-week appointments with children who aren't even sick or ill, clogging up emergency care facilities with nonsense...and will end up costing people lives, running down the facilities and staff, and generally making an absolute mockery of the healthcare industry.

    We don't have near the capacity to serve this gigantic contingency without a massive expansion of medical facilities. They are overcrowded already.

    If Obama were serious about implementing an effective system, he would direct some of his Trillions of spending to build government hospitals; and all those that will be added to a public healthcare system could utilize those hospitals.

    Those that choose to continue on private health insurance can continue to seek their treatments at private facilities, without being stampeded by a mother and her 14 kids zooming up and down the hallways of the doctors office because one kid has a bee sting.

    This gov't is OUT OF CONTROL and they have their dirty paws in nearly every industry now. OUT OF CONTROL.

    this guy is a fucking retard.
     
  2. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,283
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    So you're advocating for a 2 tiered system. One for the RICH and one for the less well off. That'll be great.
     
  3. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    blah, blah, blah, anything new?
     
  4. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Once more he's calling something that you've paid for a charitable handout.

    What are people going to do? Drink Dran-O just to abuse the health care system?

    Once again, the US does not exist in a vacuum. Other countries manage this, despite the fact you think the rest of the world runs around in stone underwear.

    Go peddle your fear elsewhere.
     
  5. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
     
  6. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    The sky is falling! The sky is falling!! :rolleyes:
     
  7. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    Actually, Star, you are really uninformed here. I know you want to create anti-Obama hysteria, but this is a complicated issue, and you really ought to do your homework first.

    The employer-based health care scheme we have had since the 1940s is completely broken. Health care costs have risen 15% per year for the last two decades. Providing employee health insurance costs my firm anywhere from from $200 to $2,000 per month per employee. Obviously, we are just one firm, but my reading indicates we are a reasonable example. Our reaction has been to decrease coverage for spouses and families, increase deductibles, and eliminate vision, dental or other coverage. This is a direct consequence of the dramatically increasing costs. Employers and employees need a new system under any circumstances.

    We already do pay for the uninsured, it is just indirect and the least efficient way imaginable. People without coverage either go without health care or use the emergency room. Going without healthcare (screening, preventative visits, etc) tends to increase the likelihood and cost of end-of-life care, which is the purpose of Medicaid. Emergency rooms are actually paid for by insurers and the hospitals themselves. But, there is no free lunch, and trust me, these costs get pushed into insurance costs and fee for service at these hospitals.

    Here is a summary of what we have today.

    -- More employers are cutting or abandoning health insurance
    -- Fewer employees are covered
    -- More spouses have to work for some kind of family coverage
    -- Rationing of health resources (try to make an appointment for anything elective to see my point)
    -- Doctors leaving the profession
    -- Few GPs, too many specialists
    -- Hidden costs for the uninsured
    -- We spend more, and get worse results than most other countries

    So, before you advocate for 'no change', please understand how broken the system really is *right now*.
     
  8. javyn

    javyn New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,031
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL well put! It should be common knowledge by now Republicans are more than happy to support handouts when they are going to already wealthy executives for instance. The working class should be left to their own devices to receive nothing more than a wagging finger and lecture on personal responsibility.



     
    #8 javyn, Jun 9, 2009
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
  9. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    I agree 100%.

    Once again, I agree

    again, yes.

    wrong.


    I am not pushing for 'no change.'

    We now have a system that is sick (pun intended.) We will be moving to a system that is on life support.

    We will be taking a fucked-up, over-crowded, inefficient circus of a system; and jamming millions more into its tiny portals.

    The system needs to be expanded [physically] to accomodate those who can utilize the service. Medical services will be much more effective when they can be delivered in a non-congested environment which has the facilities, technology and equipment that is required for sound medical delivery.

    What Obama and friends are pushing is more congestion and mayhem, and he tidies it up with fancy terminology like 'universal healthcare.'

    It will be a universal disaster unless the healthcare infrastructure is established properly and not a free-for-all into a corner office.
     
  10. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    The sad thing is congressional dems seem to be caving into repub fear-mongering. There will be no single-payer (meaning one payer: government) healthcare plan.


    David Orentlicher writes (on Politico.com):

    With the President's popularity, Democratic control of Congress, and great public concern about access, the odds are very good for health care legislation by October. However, it does not appear that Congress will pass a bill that will ensure universal access to health care coverage.

    By all accounts, we will see legislation that preserves the current basic framework for health care--most Americans will receive their coverage at work, and those who do not and cannot afford it on their own will receive governmental subsidies. But that kind of dual system never achieves universal coverage. People with political influence will not back adequate funding for public subsidies when they pay for them but do not benefit directly from them. Thus, for example, programs like Social Security and Medicare that serve recipients at all income levels are far more successful at securing universal access than programs like Medicaid that are targeted to the indigent. Indeed, Medicaid has never reached even half of the poor.


    The Arena: Health care bill by October? | POLITICO.com


    Also, the huge medical insurance companies operate on a profit motive. That is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Get ready for for "SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!" scare tactics from the far right crowd.
     
  11. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Something has to be done.

    As sparky pointed out in an earlier post; some folks are paying $2k per month for medical insurance.

    Should they really be waiting in line for an angioplasty behind 8 people that pay $0.00?
     
  12. sparky11point5

    sparky11point5 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    501
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston
    OK, so pick a metric.

    -- Life expectancy
    -- Infant mortality
    -- Incidence rate of diabetes (e.g. a typical chronic disease that dramatically reduces quality of life or expectancy)

    Almost any other measure. Where do we rank versus (shudders) any European country?
     
  13. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,283
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    SI: You said that the statement "We spend more, and get worse results than most other countries" was wrong. Infant mortality rates are a fair and objective way to measure how effective a nation's health care system is. So why is it that all those "socialist" nations with Nationalized healthcare have better rates than we do in a country when we spend the most per capita on healthcare?
    Infant mortality rate - Country Comparison

    We are also 45th in life expectancy:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
     
    #13 Industrialsize, Jun 9, 2009
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2009
  14. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,283
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Well you've just revealed a lot about yourself.
     
  15. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest

    How about this metric:


    The 5-year survival rate for all cancers in Europe was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women.
    In the US those numbers are 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women

    -Lancet Oncology Magazine

    Either way, I'm all for improving the healthcare system.

    Obama's answer will make it worse. Just wait.​
     
  16. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    I agree that we need to improve drastically, but jamming 40 million people into a system that can't handle their current patients is not the answer.

    That's my point.
     
  17. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    C'mon.

    What do you have to say to the guy that's paying $2K per month? Tough luck, dude?

    How would you suggest they set the priority..alphabetical order?

    Some of you treat people that pay for things like they are evil.

    I say responsible. You say evil.:rolleyes:
     
  18. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,283
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,121
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    And some people treat others who CAN'T pay like garbage.
     
  19. SEXXXX

    SEXXXX New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    From the posts I get a grip on who's PAYING and who's NOT
     
  20. D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,539
    Likes Received:
    1
    Nobody is addressing the fact that the republicans/conservatives don't actually have a "plan" for healthcare. They're against Obama's plan. Party of "No". They're against removing the healthcare system from the free-market system.

    I remember the republicans last "great" idea of extricating Social Security from the government... privatizng social security... and turning it over to the free-market system, Wall Street... “individual retirement accounts” with monies deducted directly from workers paychecks and this deducted money placed on the stock market instead of a secure government fund.


    Right, and these same cons are the guys that now wish to control the healthcare debate.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted