Ron Paul says healthcare not a right

[village trader]

As a doctor, who has had first hand clinical experience in US, UK and India, I think the main reason for high health care costs in the US is very high standard of care. A lot of expensive investiagtions, specialist consultations and diagnostic interventions are done in the US, simply to protect against any future malpractice lawsuits. The other things like insurance companies, medical records handling, office work etc are quite efficient in the US, no matter what media may say.

The solution is probably to focus more on preventive medicine and to enact laws that give more independence to doctors in making medical decisions based on their clinical judgment. Also private and government healthcare can coexist with government system providing subsidized healthcare to all, but the government healthcare should cover only the most essential health needs with cheaper/generic treatment options wherever possible.
Regards.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from village trader:

As a doctor, who has had first hand clinical experience in US, UK and India, I think the main reason for high health care costs in the US is very high standard of care. A lot of expensive investiagtions, specialist consultations and diagnostic interventions are done in the US, simply to protect against any future malpractice lawsuits. The other things like insurance companies, medical records handling, office work etc are quite efficient in the US, no matter what media may say.

The solution is probably to focus more on preventive medicine and to enact laws that give more independence to doctors in making medical decisions based on their clinical judgment. Also private and government healthcare can coexist with government system providing subsidized healthcare to all, but the government healthcare should cover only the most essential health needs with cheaper/generic treatment options wherever possible.
Regards.

I agree with your first paragraph. I will, however, add that we have quite the obesity problem here in the United States that is significantly contributing to costs. Over 30% of the population is obese, compared to 12% in France and 10% in Japan. As a doctor, you understand the chronic health problems that accompany obesity from joint pain to sleep apnea and diabetes.

I don't think that a public option is viable without pushing out the private sector and preventative medicine (vs. preventative BEHAVIOURS) will simply add costs. In this country, costs don't run high because diseases are caught too late and medicine can't prevent most of the diseases that are expensive here (as opposed to India).

However, a very small percentage of people are involuntarily uninsured here. Decreasing state mandates will drop the cost of insurance. Allowing people to keep their insurance when they move from one state from another will eliminate the "prior condition" problem. For those who truly don't make enough money to buy insurance, we should provide a voucher (i.e. -give them the money) so that they may obtain insurance. For those people who can afford it, but choose not to buy insurance, it is a basic right not buy insurance in a free country.

I think that by "public option" you mean a publicly funded option - not necessarily government run. I have no problem with providing for the poor. I just have a problem with giving government that much power over medical decisions.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from paj:

Insurance is also available in the UK, so yes, people do have a real choice. They can also be sure they will never have to choose between treatment and bankruptcy.

Not true.

If the NHS does not pay for a treatment, then you can go to your private insurer and ask the insurer to pay.

The catch is that if the insurer pays for the treatment denied by the NHS, they NHS refuses to pay for ANY of the treatments associated with your illness (including the ones it does normally cover).

So, your choice is to either get the private insurer to pay for all of your treatments, go bankrupt or die.

 

[FireWalker]

I agree it's not a right. Let's leave it to the individual states to decide.

 

[paj]

Quote from Angrycat:

...
So, your choice is to either get the private insurer to pay for all of your treatments, go bankrupt or die.

So just like the US then?

But thank you for the clarification on NHS coverage. I was unaware of that.

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from paj:

So just like the US then?

But thank you for the clarification on NHS coverage. I was unaware of that.

Indeed, Paj. Just like the U.S. - with one giant exception.

Most of the stuff not covered by private insurance in the United States is Hail Mary medicine - extremely expensive treatments with extremely low success rates.

The NHS is notorious for not providing pretty run-of-the-mill treatments which are standard in American medicine.

The basic reality is this: modern medicine is a luxury by the standards of human history and it is expensive.

When government is tasked with the management of your health, it spreads its tentacles to every other part of your life. Poorer, politically driven health care and less freedom is the end result.

More people can have better access to better healthcare without government involved. The problem in the U.S. is that there is already too much government involvement driving up healthcare costs AND limiting access. After creating this mess, government insists that only total government control can fix it.

Are we a country of fools?

 

[Vista]

Q: How do you add 50M people into a healthcare system over night?

A: One word, Rationing

 

[Angrycat]

Quote from Vista:

Q: How do you add 50M people into a healthcare system over night?

A: One word, Rationing

I beg to differ with your answer.

Q: How do you add 50M people into a healthcare system over night?

A: By force

 

[Kassz007]

I've been reading some posts regarding freedom. It seems as though some people are afraid of losing their freedoms and having government control other aspects of their life if government becomes involved in healthcare. I disagree, as it does not necessarily have to be that way. Look at other countries where government is involved in healthcare. I don't think countries such as Canada, and many in Europe are any less "free" because of government involvment in healthcare, let alone less "free" than the USA. Why would government involvment in healthcare have that effect on the USA only?

 

[loza]

IN the US, where people worship money and money only everything is ass backwards. Consider this...most anywhere in the world (I mean civilized world) healthcare is not for profit, hence the cost is kept modest. The idiots running in circles in Congress and media has not seen this yet...go figure....

Quote from Kassz007:

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/281590/Healthcare-Is-"Not-a-Right"-and-Obama's-Plan-Will-Cost-Way-Beyond-1T-Ron-Paul-Says;_ylt=ApURWGPeDCYNzoPNw3eFAaC7YWsA?tickers=%5Edji,%5EGSPC,pph,jnj,mrk,pfe,unh&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=


Ron Paul says healthcare is not a right. What is more important than a person's health?! I find it strange how the USA considers bearing arms to be a right, yet something as important as healthcare is a privelage. Am I the only one who thinks this is totally ass backwards logic?

He also mentions the cost of Obama's plan to be $1T. I suspect most are put off by the cost of the program rather than whether or not healthcare is a right.

I'm not familiar with all of the details of Obama's plan and therefore am not advocating or bashing the plan specifically, but I certainly think healthcare should be a right.