Jump to content

Welcome to our forums!

Sign In or Register to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Photo

Here is what nationalized healthcare gets you


  • Please log in to reply
115 replies to this topic

#101 oldtimer

oldtimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,486 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 09:12 PM

Do you seriously believe that measurable numbers of normal people "demand every costly drug or procedure recommended by doctors, whether useful or not?" Do you seriously believe that any significant number of doctors "recommend useless procedures?"

 

And what do you think insurance is?  By definition it is a socialist program that depends on charging "lucky" people to have the money to pay for "unlucky" people.  That is what insurance IS..  The only difference is that private insurance companies add a profit margin and pay their executives tens of millions of dollars per year.  http://www.fiercehea...out-at-22m-2016

 

I have heard you make weak posts before, just like any of us,  but this one takes the cake.

 

why then  the TV adds? for the DR's Benefit?

 

no doubt in my mind



#102 Vonschnitz

Vonschnitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 09:14 PM

why then  the TV adds? for the DR's Benefit?

 

no doubt in my mind

Good point.



#103 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,926 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 10:49 PM

Do you seriously believe that measurable numbers of normal people "demand every costly drug or procedure recommended by doctors, whether useful or not?" Do you seriously believe that any significant number of doctors "recommend useless procedures?"

 

And what do you think insurance is?  By definition it is a socialist program that depends on charging "lucky" people to have the money to pay for "unlucky" people.  That is what insurance IS..  The only difference is that private insurance companies add a profit margin and pay their executives tens of millions of dollars per year.  http://www.fiercehea...out-at-22m-2016

 

I have heard you make weak posts before, just like any of us,  but this one takes the cake.

Yes.  My wife has personally endured doctors who prescribed drugs and tests that were useless.  Fortunately, we found one on the third try who seems interested in being efficient and practical.  The first two asked her to take inappropriate therapies and discouraged her use of generic drugs.  We experienced a time when a doc wanted to do expensive tests and surgery on her back when, at our insistence, simple kyphoplasty (sp?) fixed the problem in an hour.  Maybe I shouldn't extrapolate our experiences, but we've heard plenty of similar stories.  I won't even start to go into what a few medical facilities did to a special needs aunt.

 

Insurance is shared risk, but it's not designed to have 50% of the people pay for everyone.  I choose not to carry collision insurance.  It's there if I want it, but I'd rather play the odds and assume the risk myself.  Would that be a choice under single payer?  Could someone pay less taxes and assume his own medical cost risk?  Don't think so.  To your point, I don't know of any other insurance where some people pay the premiums for everyone.   House, life, auto, flood, crop, boat,....they all are paid for by the insured.  To lump all insurance with single payer government controlled health pay outs is a silly contention.



#104 Vonschnitz

Vonschnitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 11:32 PM

Yes.  My wife has personally endured doctors who prescribed drugs and tests that were useless.  Fortunately, we found one on the third try who seems interested in being efficient and practical.  The first two asked her to take inappropriate therapies and discouraged her use of generic drugs.  We experienced a time when a doc wanted to do expensive tests and surgery on her back when, at our insistence, simple kyphoplasty (sp?) fixed the problem in an hour.  Maybe I shouldn't extrapolate our experiences, but we've heard plenty of similar stories.  I won't even start to go into what a few medical facilities did to a special needs aunt.

 

Insurance is shared risk, but it's not designed to have 50% of the people pay for everyone.  I choose not to carry collision insurance.  It's there if I want it, but I'd rather play the odds and assume the risk myself.  Would that be a choice under single payer?  Could someone pay less taxes and assume his own medical cost risk?  Don't think so.  To your point, I don't know of any other insurance where some people pay the premiums for everyone.   House, life, auto, flood, crop, boat,....they all are paid for by the insured.  To lump all insurance with single payer government controlled health pay outs is a silly contention.

Sounds like you have had bad experiences with docs.  Since I have been retired for awhile, I hope that isn't common, but it might be.  I haven't had that experience with my own care under Medicare, but maybe that is because I come in knowledgeable and they see that M.D. after my name.  I don't really know.

 

No, Jet.  50% of the people pay for 100% of the people, not just the 50% who are uncovered.   It includes all those who are insured already.  In the case of single payer, everyone who has income would pay by taxes proportional to income.  Right now, those who pay for insurance still pay for those who don't with their taxes via Medicaid and via other losses to society caused by early death and illness, police calls, ambulances, ER, and many other things.  That stuff is costly to society, and it won't change.  So, you are still paying for it.  Of course, that is moral, IMO.  People should not be left to die because they are unemployed due to not being able to find work or disabled or retarded or old.  Very few are just freeloaders who refuse to look for work if they are able.  The idea that there are vast numbers of those types is a myth.  We all pay for the VA, because the recipients of that care have served our country, often at the expense of their own limbs and brains.  But even for those people who cannot pay, it is worth it to help those who are truly without options through no fault of their own.  It is a small price to pay, I think.  And once again, businesses would not be obligated to pay for health insurance as a benefit. That would increase profits and serve captalism, especially small businesses.

 

As to your point about inappropriate medical care, a single payer program would have proscribed rules as to what can be covered or treated, even rules about generic drugs.  Challenges to the rules would be standard. In that sense, it would improve care and prevent most cases like you describe with your wife.  Before you start shouting that that is "government control of medicine",  ask yourself: "Isn't that what private insurace companies already do...all the time?"  The answer is very much "yes." No insurance program would do otherwise, private or public.



#105 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,926 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 01:44 AM

Sounds like you have had bad experiences with docs.  Since I have been retired for awhile, I hope that isn't common, but it might be.  I haven't had that experience with my own care under Medicare, but maybe that is because I come in knowledgeable and they see that M.D. after my name.  I don't really know.

 

No, Jet.  50% of the people pay for 100% of the people, not just the 50% who are uncovered.   It includes all those who are insured already.  In the case of single payer, everyone who has income would pay by taxes proportional to income.  Right now, those who pay for insurance still pay for those who don't with their taxes via Medicaid and via other losses to society caused by early death and illness, police calls, ambulances, ER, and many other things.  That stuff is costly to society, and it won't change.  So, you are still paying for it.  Of course, that is moral, IMO.  People should not be left to die because they are unemployed due to not being able to find work or disabled or retarded or old.  Very few are just freeloaders who refuse to look for work if they are able.  The idea that there are vast numbers of those types is a myth.  We all pay for the VA, because the recipients of that care have served our country, often at the expense of their own limbs and brains.  But even for those people who cannot pay, it is worth it to help those who are truly without options through no fault of their own.  It is a small price to pay, I think.  And once again, businesses would not be obligated to pay for health insurance as a benefit. That would increase profits and serve captalism, especially small businesses.

 

As to your point about inappropriate medical care, a single payer program would have proscribed rules as to what can be covered or treated, even rules about generic drugs.  Challenges to the rules would be standard. In that sense, it would improve care and prevent most cases like you describe with your wife.  Before you start shouting that that is "government control of medicine",  ask yourself: "Isn't that what private insurace companies already do...all the time?"  The answer is very much "yes." No insurance program would do otherwise, private or public.

Now there you go again.   :)  Trusting that  the government will make rules in everyone's best interest and without political considerations.  They won't.  The fuss over paying for abortions and birth control is just one example.  Don't rule out death panels, of course with a different name.  At the least, care will be rationed.  Medicare is on very shaky financial ground even though we've paid premiums through taxation for decades.

 

Sure, no one should be sick or die because they have no means of getting medical care.  My inclination, conscience, and religion demand that we not let that happen, even to those whose needs are because of their own irresponsibility.  The issue is can the government do it better.  I'm firmly convinced it can't and won't.  You disagree.  So be it.  The key, and what should be the public discussion, is how do we lower medical costs, not who pays how much.  ObamaCare, replacement, single payer, and all other programs proposed are about modifying the insurance structure.  That's just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.



#106 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,343 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 10 July 2017 - 01:44 AM

No muss,no fuss, it just magically gets paid for.

Not m magically. I have paid into Medicare every time I received a paycheck. Over 50 years.

#107 wilkie

wilkie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,343 posts
  • LocationShagri La

Posted 10 July 2017 - 01:45 AM

No muss,no fuss, it just magically gets paid for.

Not m magically. I have paid into Medicare every time I received a paycheck. Over 50 years.

#108 ATLchief

ATLchief

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 768 posts
  • LocationRichmond, VA

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:14 AM

Not m magically. I have paid into Medicare every time I received a paycheck. Over 50 years.

 

As have I, albeit for not quite as long.

 

The problem is, the government took all of that money that you and I paid into Medicare, and spent it on other shit. 

 

Stupid shit.

 

If you handed over such a significant portion of your earnings to a private financial planner/investment adviser to insure you weren't eating Alpo in your golden years, and he squandered it away on something that was of no benifit to you, I'm assuming you would be pissed off, right?

 

Then why, for god's sake, do you give the idiots in Washington a free pass, and actually want them to control even more of your life?


  • MAUI, oldtimer, West and 3 others like this

#109 mex

mex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,399 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 02:31 AM

As have I, albeit for not quite as long.

 

The problem is, the government took all of that money that you and I paid into Medicare, and spent it on other shit. 

 

Stupid shit.

 

If you handed over such a significant portion of your earnings to a private financial planner/investment adviser to insure you weren't eating Alpo in your golden years, and he squandered it away on something that was of no benifit to you, I'm assuming you would be pissed off, right?

 

Then why, for god's sake, do you give the idiots in Washington a free pass, and actually want them to control even more of your life?

excellent post atl...

 

looking forward to the good counselor's inevitable rationalization of more of the same



#110 Vonschnitz

Vonschnitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 04:08 AM

Not m magically. I have paid into Medicare every time I received a paycheck. Over 50 years.

Not exactly magic, is it?



#111 Vonschnitz

Vonschnitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 04:09 AM

Remember, ending Medicaid by itself saves 500 billion dollars per year.



#112 Vonschnitz

Vonschnitz

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 562 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 04:11 AM

Not exactly magic, is it?

By the way, Wilkie, do you like your Medicare?  Any bad experiences with it?  Anything denied?



#113 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,204 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 03:39 PM

Ending Medicare MANDATES should not be a problem right bil?

 

After all, the money we have paid in is in a "Magical Lockbox"....

 

I remember you and Wilkie explaining this to us back in 2001 or 2002....

 

ATL Post was spot on....You merely tried to deflect his point.

 

w



#114 West

West

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,204 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 03:39 PM

Wilkie, still waiting on your wisdom filled response to ATL.

 

w



#115 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,926 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 04:19 PM

Remember, ending Medicaid by itself saves 500 billion dollars per year.

Maybe you should delete the word "saves" and insert "shifts".  And only in Washing is a decrease in proposed increases called a "cut".



#116 jetlord

jetlord

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,926 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 04:21 PM

As have I, albeit for not quite as long.

 

The problem is, the government took all of that money that you and I paid into Medicare, and spent it on other shit. 

 

Stupid shit.

 

If you handed over such a significant portion of your earnings to a private financial planner/investment adviser to insure you weren't eating Alpo in your golden years, and he squandered it away on something that was of no benifit to you, I'm assuming you would be pissed off, right?

 

Then why, for god's sake, do you give the idiots in Washington a free pass, and actually want them to control even more of your life?

Only in DC are Ponzi schemes legal and permanent. 


  • mex likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users