How would you fix the health care problem in the US?

[wolfab82]

Quote from pismo10:

Get the govt out of subsidizing healthcare, let market forces prevail again and costs will stop spiraling. The more money the govt pours in the more costs go up...

No offense sir, but this is dishonest logic and a bit simplistic. Free markets dont exist in America. Not in a world where Judges make their salary and twice that in bribes! Also, you are discounting the strength and power of the LOBBY in the US Govt. Lobbies intervene when market forces drive down the benefit of the rich and connected. (see Bailout, GM bailout, the subsidizing of failure is systematic and promoted!)

Insurance is a sheister business. Have you ever tried to collect on an honest claim? They dont have to pay on time, although you are hurt. Go ahead and DONT pay your insurance and see what happens to you!

Ask them to wait a while and see if they dont cancel your policy.

You cannot negotiate with thieves and liars!

 

[Mnphats]

Quote from hayman:

The key is to let doctors get back to doctoring, and getting ridding of the middle men: the insurance companies, the HMO's, etc. These middlemen, who flourished under the Bush Administration due to decreased regulation, are the single source of why costs have gone through the roof.

It will be very hard to fix this incredibly broken system. We must eradicate the power that these middlemen have been given during the Bush "gold rush".

Since we are the only industrialized nation not to have a socialized plan, we need a government-subsidized system that will streamline the patient <-> doctor/hospital relationship, and govern costs that do NOT push doctors out of the business. There is enough profit for them available, if we remove the insurance companies from the equation.

By the way, I really doubt anything tangible will come out of the currently proposed plan. My family coverage went from $ 650/month to $ 1,200/month under Bush, and my deductibles have risen to the maximum permittable. Although I understand that Obama wants to cover those without health insurance, any plan of his better include some relieft for this poster here in NY.

Right out of the liberal handbook. When you can't form a viable reasonable argument blame Bush.
It amazes me that people think when government gets involved health care costs will go down with all the bureaucracy, there is your ultimate middleman.

 

[wolfab82]

Quote from Mnphats:

Right out of the liberal handbook. When you can't form a viable reasonable argument blame Bush.
It amazes me that people think when government gets involved health care costs will go down with all the bureaucracy, there is your ultimate middleman.

Its a tough debate, mostly because we know how incompetent and corrupt some of our leaders are.

Oi Vey!

 

[Martinghoul]

I don't understand what all the endless back and forth is about. It's a simple choice of what you believe is a lesser of two evils:
1) Govt-administered universal healthcare. Potentially grossly inefficient and may introduce 'moral hazard' issues. On the other hand, if somehow you end up in circumstances where you or your family need the system, it's there and it's adequate. This is sort of the European model.

2) Private, mkt-oriented healthcare. Everyone buys their own. Probably very efficient, due to competition and incentives. On the other hand, if you can't afford it, you're dead, plain and simple. That's the mkt model.

Both have their pros and cons and people can argue interminably about which one is better. These arguments are a waste of time, IMHO. Might as well have a referendum, vote for one of the choices and just stick with it.

Again, my Z$2c...

 

[dtan1e]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I don't understand what all the endless back and forth is about. It's a simple choice of what you believe is a lesser of two evils:
1) Govt-administered universal healthcare. Potentially grossly inefficient and may introduce 'moral hazard' issues. On the other hand, if somehow you end up in circumstances where you or your family need the system, it's there and it's adequate. This is sort of the European model.

2) Private, mkt-oriented healthcare. Everyone buys their own. Probably very efficient, due to competition and incentives. On the other hand, if you can't afford it, you're dead, plain and simple. That's the mkt model.

Both have their pros and cons and people can argue interminably about which one is better. These arguments are a waste of time, IMHO. Might as well have a referendum, vote for one of the choices and just stick with it.

Again, my Z$2c...

what abt 1.5, basic universal healthcare, on top of that people purchase their own insurance, but i think the essence of it all is a lack of capital, they sh stop deploying whats little that's left to the bankers, which ultimately all flows into the stock market & make the wealthy even wealthier, sort of a reverse Robbinhood, but of course the ones in charge r too dull, weak, do not care enough or a combination of each, finally got off my chest !!!

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from obama-lama:

WOW! I would've never guessed.
Why in the world would "the doctors" debunk or not like the idea?

The concept it will save 10s of billions has been debunked. I have seen this in several different sources. Do some homework, before parroting something you read.

 

[spinn]

Quote from wolfab82:

Are you a doctor? Thank God for our legal shitty system that at least keeps these arrogant Quacks in CHECK!

My stepmother got a tube stuck into her pancreas by a greedy doctor who could have prescribed a chemical compound to dilute her ailment. Instead, since she had insurance he advocated the more expensive procedure and lacerated her inner organs.

Quacks are also in league with automobile insurance and stiff hard working people out of their claims by discrediting their personal injury lawsuits.

Why the hell should Quacks and good Doctors be immune to penalty for effing up?

Are they Gods?

If they did not mess up, they would not get sued. It goes like this for ALL OF US.

IF I BOTCH A TASK, I GET SUED. SIMPLE!

Arrogance is a serious problem in this country. Just because you wear 300 dollar glasses and memorized your Chemistry and Biology books does not make you a good doctor.

How about you cure people and stop working for big Pharma instead? Then maybe we can talk about being lighter legally on these doofuses.

Thank you....I am glad someone gets it. There are not enough lawsuits in America for malpractice because almost every time you see a DR, he treats you in the most profitable way possible, which may or may not coincide withe the correct treatment.

What the sheep on this board, and in America, have yet to realize, is that almost every DR in America should be sued into compliance. Initially it would be expensive, but DRs are getting away with murder, and whining about it.

Did I mention everyone on this board should sue their DR as soon as possible?

 

[DT-waw]

How would you fix the health care problem in the US?


very simply!

educate the people about raw food diet!

but it needs to be conducted on major TV networks, otherwise, the masses won't get it.

oh, but of course it is in direct opposition to big pharma interests....therefore it will never be advertised on a massive scale.

 

[wolfab82]

Quote from spinn:


Did I mention everyone on this board should sue their DR as soon as possible?

Dont even get me started on my aunt who died of cancer. This old lady was vibrant at 76, she had cancer for 6 LONG YEARS without anyone noticing...THEEEEN the chemo started...I had to go to hospice and watch her die in more pain than when she had the actual cancer.

Watching a human being waste away in the hands of a doctor is sad. At least they tried but i dont trust their practices.

Look up Dr. Raymond Fife...interesting ending to this man who was looking to cure cancer.

Even creepier is some poor Indian guru kid who was on 20/20...this kid claimed to have insight into the cure for cancer.

He was "adopted" by a doctor and university rather quickly...probably to make his research dissapear.

I understand population control but to do it via the guise of medicine is evil beyond comprehension.

Why not go the advocate less children, promote condoms/ masturbation and explain the adverse effects of overpopulation- route. It may help just a tad. I prefer that to killing people in cold blood with bad medicine and procedures.

 

[TheStudent]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I don't understand what all the endless back and forth is about. It's a simple choice of what you believe is a lesser of two evils:
1) Govt-administered universal healthcare. Potentially grossly inefficient and may introduce 'moral hazard' issues. On the other hand, if somehow you end up in circumstances where you or your family need the system, it's there and it's adequate. This is sort of the European model.

2) Private, mkt-oriented healthcare. Everyone buys their own. Probably very efficient, due to competition and incentives. On the other hand, if you can't afford it, you're dead, plain and simple. That's the mkt model.

Both have their pros and cons and people can argue interminably about which one is better. These arguments are a waste of time, IMHO. Might as well have a referendum, vote for one of the choices and just stick with it.

I think a blend of the two would be a third choice. Exactly how you blend them is the trick.

Some kind of catastrophic insurance fund for the ill but penniless is necessary. And some kind of increasing level of public subsidization is necessary as you go down the wealth/income scale. But a clever system must exact a meaningful co-pay before a state of total pennilessness is reached so participants will expend healthcare resources judiciously.

A kind of personal healthcare account might also be necessary, not only to keep politicians honest (they can't resist underfunding or raiding an anonymous common pool), but also to shift the psychological responsibility back to the people from the state.