Democracy For America: Healthcare for All

[mRx 16]

Sheep are enjoying the thought of eating at the trough for free. Can't wait till the sheep realize the bill from the bureaucracy becomes due.

Tex, you are being blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid. If you have medical insurance now, it is with a private insurance carrier. The proposal is to switch from private insurance (for profit) to a single payer (non-profit). Doctors and hospitals will remain the same as they are now.

Less a bunch of administrative staff that they currently have to employ to accommodate the worst red tape of any heath care system anywhere in the world which has been brought to us by - you guessed it - the private enterprise insurance system we continue to serve.

TOO MUCH LOGIC!!

To be fair, I think Dale brought up an important issue - how will doctors and hospitals be able to negotiate fees for their services under a single-payer insurance system? What will stand in the way of this public insurance from dictating what they will pay to doctors and hospitals?

Indeed. Great points that can be addressed by the medical/insurance industries coming to terms with themselves. They(we) are not gods and do not need to be overcharging out of greed. Maybe the government can act as a conduit to convey that message on behalf of the citizens and residents of this nation?

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Ironically, take out the insurance costs that have been blown out of proportion by private carriers as well as frivolous lawsuits and right there you have a HUGE chunk of change as to why many MDs have such huge salaries.

The rest of the profession will have to come to grips with making a little bit less. Then that can help filter out those that are in it for the money instead of the calling to heal- which is what it should be from the beginning. Besides, they can still make QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT without being overly excessive. Nobody is taking their livelihoods away.

I went over the problem with insurance with my last big post.

Surely you don't believe that emotive jargon about the "calling to heal"? You can't believe that prospective doctors go through 8 years of the most daunting and stressful school, incur thousands in student loans just for an intangible inner desire to heal, can you? It's analogous to saying that automotive technicians should take a pay cut as their wage should be the internal gratification gained through fixing cars.

The problem with QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT and "overly excessive" is that these are based on your individual values. Since what you view as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT may or may not be more than what I view as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT, which again is different than what another person views as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT, thus making such a statement subjective.

A doctor's own values determine what wage he will voluntarily give up his labor for, not the views of an outside observer. Just as, ceteris paribus, a patient's own values determine what threshold he will voluntarily give up as wage in exchange for said labor.

The italicized is to emphazise that our current detached payer system doesn't enable such a direct exchange as the one I proposed to occur.

[dalegg 143]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

If you went into a restaurant, and could not pay, used to be, you could earn your meal by scrubbing pans, or washing dishes. Why not do the same thing for health care, scrubbing bed pans, and washing sheets?

Oh, I'll tell you what. That lump on my #### is going to get pretty damn big before I go in and start changing 90 year men's diapers! I'll let the thing explode and have the existing tax payers rebuid it in the emergency room.

...really? I can't write ####?

Edited March 28, 2009 by dalegg

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

If you went into a restaurant, and could not pay, used to be, you could earn your meal by scrubbing pans, or washing dishes. Why not do the same thing for health care, scrubbing bed pans, and washing sheets?

Oh, I'll tell you what. That lump on my #### is going to get pretty damn big before I go in and start changing 90 year men's diapers! I'll let the thing explode and have the existing tax payers rebuid it in the emergency room.

...really? I can't write ####?

I tell you! It really is a ###### ###### editor, isn't the ######?

[dalegg 143]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

If you went into a restaurant, and could not pay, used to be, you could earn your meal by scrubbing pans, or washing dishes. Why not do the same thing for health care, scrubbing bed pans, and washing sheets?

Oh, I'll tell you what. That lump on my #### is going to get pretty damn big before I go in and start changing 90 year men's diapers! I'll let the thing explode and have the existing tax payers rebuid it in the emergency room.

...really? I can't write ####?

I tell you! It really is a ###### ###### editor, isn't the ######?

Its totally bull ######

Edited March 28, 2009 by dalegg

[mawilson 2,133]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

They do under our current system. Nobody is turned away from getting medical treatment in emergency situations, which you and I pay for now.

If they already do, then the problem's solved. No need to insure them then.

[dalegg 143]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

They do under our current system. Nobody is turned away from getting medical treatment in emergency situations, which you and I pay for now.

If they already do, then the problem's solved. No need to insure them then.

I think the notion is that if we insure them, it will be cheaper than treating them in the emergency rooms. I'm not sold on this idea. It seems to me that most people in emergency rooms are there for things that preventative care can't help- like car accidents or gang stabbings. Of course I base that on absolutely no research.

[HannahP 119]

Y'all do know that the sheep really do think this is all going to be free and pay nothing at all, right?

Yeah, OK.

Are you telling me that you think there aren't people out there who think this won't cost them anything?

There ARE people out there who WILL use the system and WON'T pay a dime.

The same people who get "Earned Income" tax credits even though they didn't pay any taxes OR have any income - earned or otherwise.

They do under our current system. Nobody is turned away from getting medical treatment in emergency situations, which you and I pay for now.

If they already do, then the problem's solved. No need to insure them then.

I think the notion is that if we insure them, it will be cheaper than treating them in the emergency rooms. I'm not sold on this idea. It seems to me that most people in emergency rooms are there for things that preventative care can't help- like car accidents or gang stabbings. Of course I base that on absolutely no research.

It's obvious that you've never worked in an ER before.

ANY first-liners around? Anyone?

Most people ARE there for preventative care -- either ###### that should be happening or ###### that they should know.

I also find it absolutely hilarious that so many think that our problems with doctors are somehow new. Anyone read doctors' accounts from the turn of the century? No? Because conservatives don't believe in book learnin'?

It's the same. It'll always be the same.

[dalegg 143]

It's obvious that you've never worked in an ER before.

ANY first-liners around? Anyone?

Most people ARE there for preventative care -- either ###### that should be happening or ###### that they should know.

I also find it absolutely hilarious that so many think that our problems with doctors are somehow new. Anyone read doctors' accounts from the turn of the century? No? Because conservatives don't believe in book learnin'?

It's the same. It'll always be the same.

If its preventative care and not emergencies, why aren't they turned away?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale,

This might help answer your question...

Federal law is very clear. Hospitals are under a positive legal obligation to treat everyone who walks in through the door. It does not matter whether the emergency is real, in the sense of a traffic accident inflicting unexpected injury, or to some extent manufactured, where the condition only becomes an emergency because of a deliberate delay. People must be given treatment. The difficulty is that most of the uninsured cannot afford to pay their bills. The hospitals can and do issue invoices for the treatment given and drugs supplied. This is also a part of the law. People have a responsibility to pay for their treatment. But hospitals are realistic about their chances of collecting. Continued pursuit for payment usually results in bankruptcy and the creditors only get a few cents in the dollar. So, hospitals make a rational decision. They spread all the unpaid bills among all those who can pay. In other words, whether you are paying out of your own pocket or you are relying on your own health insurance to pay for your treatment, a percentage of every hospital's bill is a provision against bad debts from the uninsured. The irony is that everyone who is insured is also insuring all the uninsured for their emergency room visits. If you have been wondering why your own health insurance premiums have been going up so sharply of late, it's because there is a wave of uninsured people going to the emergency rooms around the country. The health insurers are having to pay more and this additional cost gets passed on in the premiums. Is it going to get any better? No. It's actually going to get worse.

http://www.articlesbase.com/insurance-arti...oom-640036.html

...

So at least in the eyes of the law, medical treatment is generally considered a human right. Unless someone advocates legislation that would allow hospitals to deny treatment to those who can't pay, we are all paying for the uninsured.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[MsMariah 0]

This topic gets me so frustrated, I tried twice to post but everything ends up being rant rant rant into infinity. I wrote a short essay on universal health care for my nursing class and found that facts prove out that of industrialized nations, US, is one of the only that doesn't have benefits for all. We also have the lowest nurse to patient ratios, among the lowest satisfaction rating, and the higest per capita spending on health care. We also have the youngest average death age, and the higest infant mortality rate. And we still have people like me, who are educated, working in an entry position and getting more than enough to survive in my area but not enough to afford health insurance. Since I am part time, I cannot take part in employer paid group health insurance for less than $480 a month. Hmm, what do I buy, a house to live in, or an overpriced insurance policy where 50 people are getting paid before the doctors, nurses and technicians lay a finger on me. Believe me, I know that the bigger a private insurance company is, the less likely they will pay for things that are included in your policy without wasting many of the man hours of those who are giving direct care.

I know tell me to get a full time job with health care benefits.. believe me I wish I could. If you say healthcare workers should take a paycut, I want to tell you that the pay is already not worthy of all the responsibility and dedication required, but luckily most of us are working in this industry because we care about people and we want to help. Other than that you'd all be dead, because most people don't want to work in blood and sh!t. And then get the scraps from the insurance robbers I mean companies.

Sheep are the ones who say, everything is fine the way it is, it must be worse to change things..... well in my nursing class, we were taught that we have to embrace the changes or we become antiquated and useless. So don't be so scared of change.... because it's coming. We have to work it out so it will be for the better.

[Reba 2]

This topic gets me so frustrated, I tried twice to post but everything ends up being rant rant rant into infinity. I wrote a short essay on universal health care for my nursing class and found that facts prove out that of industrialized nations, US, is one of the only that doesn't have benefits for all. We also have the lowest nurse to patient ratios, among the lowest satisfaction rating, and the higest per capita spending on health care. We also have the youngest average death age, and the higest infant mortality rate.

Not to mention also the highest maternity mortality rate in the developed world. Why? Because millions of pregnant women can't afford prenatal care because they don't have insurance.

[britty 1]

Sheep are enjoying the thought of eating at the trough for free. Can't wait till the sheep realize the bill from the bureaucracy becomes due.

Tex, you are being blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid. If you have medical insurance now, it is with a private insurance carrier. The proposal is to switch from private insurance (for profit) to a single payer (non-profit). Doctors and hospitals will remain the same as they are now.

Less a bunch of administrative staff that they currently have to employ to accommodate the worst red tape of any heath care system anywhere in the world which has been brought to us by - you guessed it - the private enterprise insurance system we continue to serve.

TOO MUCH LOGIC!!

To be fair, I think Dale brought up an important issue - how will doctors and hospitals be able to negotiate fees for their services under a single-payer insurance system? What will stand in the way of this public insurance from dictating what they will pay to doctors and hospitals?

Indeed. Great points that can be addressed by the medical/insurance industries coming to terms with themselves. They(we) are not gods and do not need to be overcharging out of greed. Maybe the government can act as a conduit to convey that message on behalf of the citizens and residents of this nation?

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Ironically, take out the insurance costs that have been blown out of proportion by private carriers as well as frivolous lawsuits and right there you have a HUGE chunk of change as to why many MDs have such huge salaries.

The rest of the profession will have to come to grips with making a little bit less. Then that can help filter out those that are in it for the money instead of the calling to heal- which is what it should be from the beginning. Besides, they can still make QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT without being overly excessive. Nobody is taking their livelihoods away.

what a ridiculous post. Why should medical professionals "come to grips with making a little less"? They didn't study for years, and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to have the likes of you try and hinder their income with your socialist leanings. You do not get to determine what is and what isn't an appropriate salary for anyone besides yourself. Stop hating on those who earn higher incomes - it isn't an admirable quality.

[HAL 9000 96]

Its only pertinent to address the items in red.

Sheep are enjoying the thought of eating at the trough for free. Can't wait till the sheep realize the bill from the bureaucracy becomes due.

Tex, you are being blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid. If you have medical insurance now, it is with a private insurance carrier. The proposal is to switch from private insurance (for profit) to a single payer (non-profit). Doctors and hospitals will remain the same as they are now.

Less a bunch of administrative staff that they currently have to employ to accommodate the worst red tape of any heath care system anywhere in the world which has been brought to us by - you guessed it - the private enterprise insurance system we continue to serve.

TOO MUCH LOGIC!!

To be fair, I think Dale brought up an important issue - how will doctors and hospitals be able to negotiate fees for their services under a single-payer insurance system? What will stand in the way of this public insurance from dictating what they will pay to doctors and hospitals?

Indeed. Great points that can be addressed by the medical/insurance industries coming to terms with themselves. They(we) are not gods and do not need to be overcharging out of greed. Maybe the government can act as a conduit to convey that message on behalf of the citizens and residents of this nation?

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Ironically, take out the insurance costs that have been blown out of proportion by private carriers as well as frivolous lawsuits and right there you have a HUGE chunk of change as to why many MDs have such huge salaries.

The rest of the profession will have to come to grips with making a little bit less. Then that can help filter out those that are in it for the money instead of the calling to heal- which is what it should be from the beginning. Besides, they can still make QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT without being overly excessive. Nobody is taking their livelihoods away.

I went over the problem with insurance with my last big post.

Surely you don't believe that emotive jargon about the "calling to heal"? You can't believe that prospective doctors go through 8 years of the most daunting and stressful school, incur thousands in student loans just for an intangible inner desire to heal, can you? It's analogous to saying that automotive technicians should take a pay cut as their wage should be the internal gratification gained through fixing cars.

The problem with QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT and "overly excessive" is that these are based on your individual values. Since what you view as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT may or may not be more than what I view as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT, which again is different than what another person views as QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT, thus making such a statement subjective.

A doctor's own values determine what wage he will voluntarily give up his labor for, not the views of an outside observer. Just as, ceteris paribus, a patient's own values determine what threshold he will voluntarily give up as wage in exchange for said labor.

The italicized is to emphazise that our current detached payer system doesn't enable such a direct exchange as the one I proposed to occur.

Yes, I believe the hippocratic oath speaks volumes about the call to heal. If a doctor doesn't have that as his or her philosophical North, then that person should not be a doctor. Coincidentally, this is what separates the good doctors from the rest- service before self benefit. I should know, I see scores of med students every day and work in a hospital complex.

[HAL 9000 96]

Sheep are enjoying the thought of eating at the trough for free. Can't wait till the sheep realize the bill from the bureaucracy becomes due.

Tex, you are being blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid. If you have medical insurance now, it is with a private insurance carrier. The proposal is to switch from private insurance (for profit) to a single payer (non-profit). Doctors and hospitals will remain the same as they are now.

Less a bunch of administrative staff that they currently have to employ to accommodate the worst red tape of any heath care system anywhere in the world which has been brought to us by - you guessed it - the private enterprise insurance system we continue to serve.

TOO MUCH LOGIC!!

To be fair, I think Dale brought up an important issue - how will doctors and hospitals be able to negotiate fees for their services under a single-payer insurance system? What will stand in the way of this public insurance from dictating what they will pay to doctors and hospitals?

Indeed. Great points that can be addressed by the medical/insurance industries coming to terms with themselves. They(we) are not gods and do not need to be overcharging out of greed. Maybe the government can act as a conduit to convey that message on behalf of the citizens and residents of this nation?

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Ironically, take out the insurance costs that have been blown out of proportion by private carriers as well as frivolous lawsuits and right there you have a HUGE chunk of change as to why many MDs have such huge salaries.

The rest of the profession will have to come to grips with making a little bit less. Then that can help filter out those that are in it for the money instead of the calling to heal- which is what it should be from the beginning. Besides, they can still make QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT without being overly excessive. Nobody is taking their livelihoods away.

what a ridiculous post. Why should medical professionals "come to grips with making a little less"? They didn't study for years, and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to have the likes of you try and hinder their income with your socialist leanings. You do not get to determine what is and what isn't an appropriate salary for anyone besides yourself. Stop hating on those who earn higher incomes - it isn't an admirable quality.

Another medical professional making idiot opinions? Oh no, its just Britty.

Check my previous post, foot-in-mouther. And re-read the one you react to like baking soda on vinegar.

[britty 1]

Sheep are enjoying the thought of eating at the trough for free. Can't wait till the sheep realize the bill from the bureaucracy becomes due.

Tex, you are being blatantly ignorant or just plain stupid. If you have medical insurance now, it is with a private insurance carrier. The proposal is to switch from private insurance (for profit) to a single payer (non-profit). Doctors and hospitals will remain the same as they are now.

Less a bunch of administrative staff that they currently have to employ to accommodate the worst red tape of any heath care system anywhere in the world which has been brought to us by - you guessed it - the private enterprise insurance system we continue to serve.

TOO MUCH LOGIC!!

To be fair, I think Dale brought up an important issue - how will doctors and hospitals be able to negotiate fees for their services under a single-payer insurance system? What will stand in the way of this public insurance from dictating what they will pay to doctors and hospitals?

Indeed. Great points that can be addressed by the medical/insurance industries coming to terms with themselves. They(we) are not gods and do not need to be overcharging out of greed. Maybe the government can act as a conduit to convey that message on behalf of the citizens and residents of this nation?

Forcing down wages will force those who consider themselves to be worth more than the wage ceiling out of the profession. Then you'll have a shortage of labor and of quality.

Ironically, take out the insurance costs that have been blown out of proportion by private carriers as well as frivolous lawsuits and right there you have a HUGE chunk of change as to why many MDs have such huge salaries.

The rest of the profession will have to come to grips with making a little bit less. Then that can help filter out those that are in it for the money instead of the calling to heal- which is what it should be from the beginning. Besides, they can still make QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT without being overly excessive. Nobody is taking their livelihoods away.

what a ridiculous post. Why should medical professionals "come to grips with making a little less"? They didn't study for years, and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to have the likes of you try and hinder their income with your socialist leanings. You do not get to determine what is and what isn't an appropriate salary for anyone besides yourself. Stop hating on those who earn higher incomes - it isn't an admirable quality.

Another medical professional making idiot opinions? Oh no, its just Britty.

Check my previous post, foot-in-mouther. And re-read the one you react to like baking soda on vinegar.

why? - has the intended message changed?