A Wish

[rigney]

This country is not in the best or worst condition it has ever been in, but it in a struggle to maintain a good standing. The links are a good indication of where we came from, and it's up to the people of this nation to maintain that integrity, or hand it off to the winner.

 

Two different sittings, but the same version and message are in each. Some may need to hear them more than once before it sinks in, so give them a little time.

 

http://thecountryclassics.com/jukebox/music/americana-by-moe-bandy-revisited

 

[JustinW]

Why do we struggle to maintain that good standing? It doesn't seem like we ever cared as much about appearance before. Is our vanity worth more than our principles? I don't think so.

 

It seems that alot of the people feel that we hurt the world more than help it, instead of the other way around. I always feel sorrow when someone says to me that the American dream doesn't apply anymore because of growing global unity. I, personally, don't want to be unified with the rest of the world. I want America to stand on it's own like it always has. But I don't think these younger generations see it that way. I think there is a certain feeling spreading around the world that makes it politically incorrect to want to stand alone and at the forefront when it comes to greatness. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as saying that greatness alone is being looked at in a different light. I don't know if I could put any detailed description of why I think those last two statements, but it is still a feeling one gets when looking from the past to the present and imagining the future. I was raised in a very small town where most of us grew up with the sense of what it used to be like and what it meant to those who grew up in generations before us (because we pretty much still lived the same way). We can still see how the depression affected those who lived through it, in the way they bought, sold, or saved, even if the chance that they use what they saved was minimal.

 

We might can shrug it off to "different times call for different measures", but it is still sad to see good eras go by the weigh side. I don't know...maybe this is more perception than factual, but the feeling is there all the same.

[rigney]

Why do we struggle to maintain that good standing? It doesn't seem like we ever cared as much about appearance before. Is our vanity worth more than our principles? I don't think so.

 

It seems that alot of the people feel that we hurt the world more than help it, instead of the other way around. I always feel sorrow when someone says to me that the American dream doesn't apply anymore because of growing global unity. I, personally, don't want to be unified with the rest of the world. I want America to stand on it's own like it always has. But I don't think these younger generations see it that way. I think there is a certain feeling spreading around the world that makes it politically incorrect to want to stand alone and at the forefront when it comes to greatness. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as saying that greatness alone is being looked at in a different light. I don't know if I could put any detailed description of why I think those last two statements, but it is still a feeling one gets when looking from the past to the present and imagining the future. I was raised in a very small town where most of us grew up with the sense of what it used to be like and what it meant to those who grew up in generations before us (because we pretty much still lived the same way). We can still see how the depression affected those who lived through it, in the way they bought, sold, or saved, even if the chance that they use what they saved was minimal.

 

We might can shrug it off to "different times call for different measures", but it is still sad to see good eras go by the weigh side. I don't know...maybe this is more perception than factual, but the feeling is there all the same.

 

As I age, synicism seems to be my best but weakest point. This morning I received a link about the new health care bill. While the plan won't likely apply to me at all, my cynicism takes over when I think about baby boomers and new kids coming on the block. Then I wonder why Obama, Reed, Pelcoi and a democrat controlled congress and senate wanted to mandate such a plan? As I say, my cynicism doesn't just come from being sent to school with an acifidity bag tied around my neck on a string. I could easily take the thing off and hid it in the grass until after school. But if this bill is enacted with any force, even your toilet tissue might be rationed. Here are a few excerpts which are likely to have been doctored also, coming from the opposition? A cynic? Yes, guess I am.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=HcBaSP31Be8&vg=medium

Edited March 14, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Thanks for posting that video.

The way it states things is a bit questionable, but it seems that the US is finally getting healthcare sorted out.

Glad to hear it.

Now all you have to do is get rid of the death penalty and you will start to look like a civilised society.

 

Seriously, do you guys realise that most of the Western world has a healthcare system like the one proposed and we pay less for our healthcare and (depending on the way you measure it*) we get better services for that money?

 

* Heres' one measure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Here's another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

feel free to look for others.

 

and here's what you pay for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

[Phi for All]

Seriously, do you guys realise that most of the Western world has a healthcare system like the one proposed and we pay less for our healthcare and (depending on the way you measure it*) we get better services for that money?

The paying less part is documented and, I think, understood by most Americans. The better service part has been systematically denied by the spin-sters controlling our advertising. I think the spin goes something like, "We Americans don't mind paying more for the best doctors in the world!"

 

Convincing Americans that national healthcare elsewhere gives better service is the uphill battle. We're always told we're the best at everything.

 

There are some of us who can be proud of our country and still require reality in large, healthy doses.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I'm happy to try and help. Lets see if this brings any progress.

 

 

Hey! You Americans! You pay a lot for healthcare and don't get good value for it.

 

 

I mean, seriously, I'm planning to visit the US later this year and, for the first time ever, I will need to buy health insurance.

I don't need it here in the UK. I don't need it if I travel in Europe.

I didn't even need it to go to Africa.

The only place that I have ever been before where I needed health insurance was Romania under Ceausescu. *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu

Isn't that a tad embarrassing?

 

 

* I was a kid- my folks paid

Edited March 14, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Phi for All]

Isn't that a tad embarrassing?

Not at all. I don't have time to be embarrassed when I'm so frigging pissed off!

[rigney]

Not at all. I don't have time to be embarrassed when I'm so frigging pissed off!

 

Hey!, Don't be "pissed". Your buddy seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to health care, and sounds young enough to disregard the eventual need for it himself. But, if by some chance anyone thinks for a moment that equal health care benefits should apply to everyone at the expense of others, get over it. Someday everyone will understand that even a "Suck Assed" economy such as we are going through, must have arisen from somewhere. Edited March 14, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

Hey!, "Don't be "pissed". Everyone has an axe to grind when it comes to health care. You sound young enough to disregard the eventual need for it. But, if by some chance anyone thinks for a moment that equal health care benefits come at anothers expense, get over it. Someday everyone will understand that even a "Suck Assed" economy has to arise from somewhere.

I'm old enough to remember when health insurance was based on actuarial tables that charged premiums based on your age when you signed up with a company. The more loyal you were, the less you paid every month for the rest of your life.

 

Rather than increasing those premiums to meet rising costs, Nixon helped those insurers enact the HMO programs that have practically crippled middle income families. All because "choice" was so important. Now nobody is loyal to anybody.

 

Medical insurance is completely conflicted with normal business practices. You need your money to be there for you but there's this damn company in the way telling you your coverage is denied because they need the profit. Medical insurance is the perfect thing for a taxpayer risk pool. Maybe someday we'll get politicians who will change the system and then actually fund it so it works.

[iNow]

We pay more because we're free-er, so there!!1!2!!one!ch3ese!

[Joatmon]

I live in the UK and am very grateful for our healthcare system. I retired from work 20 years ago with heart disease. I have been hospitalised a few times, have a stent holding one of my arteries open and twice a day I take a mixture of five drugs. Goodness knows what this would have cost me in America! Of course I contributed via the tax system when I was able to work but there are "winners" who live a decent long life and "losers" who die young. The "winners" need the benefit and the "losers" unfortunately don't.

[Moontanman]

Hey!, Don't be "pissed". Your buddy seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to health care, and sounds young enough to disregard the eventual need for it himself. But, if by some chance anyone thinks for a moment that equal health care benefits should apply to everyone at the expense of others, get over it. Someday everyone will understand that even a "Suck Assed" economy such as we are going through, must have arisen from somewhere.

 

yes, it originated from greedy bankers being allowed to play with no rules, want some more of this suck assed economy? Vote republican and see how much help you'll get, well unless of course you are rich or a politician. Before you try to blame all this mess on Obama think about Bush, he f**ked this crap up by trying to make the rich richer on the backs of everyone else. While it's true that everyone cannot be rich in a successful economy everyone cannot be poor either... Trickle down economics, the art of pissing on people and convincing them it's rain...

 

Republican politics... the art of pissing on everyone and making them pay for it with a smile....

[John Cuthber]

Hey!, Don't be "pissed". Your buddy seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to health care, and sounds young enough to disregard the eventual need for it himself. But, if by some chance anyone thinks for a moment that equal health care benefits should apply to everyone at the expense of others, get over it. Someday everyone will understand that even a "Suck Assed" economy such as we are going through, must have arisen from somewhere.

What buddy? if you mean me then yes, I have an axe to grind- specifically that our government is trying too introduce the same expensive bad healthcare system that they have in the US, but that's not really the point.

I'm 46 which is probably old enough to worry about health and, since my mother has recently been diagnosed with cancer, it's fairly important to me.

 

 

Did you look at the numbers?

The US really does pay over the odds for a bad service.

Are you happy with that?

 

But still my real issue with the system in the US is that, as I understand it, if you are ill the hospital's first concern is not "How can we cure him?" but " How can he pay?".

Perhaps it's just me but I find that morally offensive. It says that poor people are less important than the rich so they can be left to get ill and die.

I'm not saying any other system is perfect but at least in principle they try to avoid that notion.

 

 

" But, if by some chance anyone thinks for a moment that equal health care benefits should apply to everyone at the expense of others, get over it. "

That's what I think and, to a reasonable approximation, it's what I see.

Anyone who turns up in a hospital here in the UK will get treated.

Their treatment will not cost them anything because (simplistically) others pay.

 

" Someday everyone will understand that even a "Suck Assed" economy such as we are going through, must have arisen from somewhere."

Yes, but it's almost certainly not due to something that's been going on for half a century or more.

It's quite possible that it's related to deregulation of the money markets in order to let those who are already rich take even more money from those who are not. But, again, that's hardly the point here.

 

If, instead of paying money to private healthcare insurance you paid it into a national fund it is likely that you could enjoy the same benefits that most of the West does i.e. better care at lower cost.

What's not to like?

[JustinW]

If, instead of paying money to private healthcare insurance you paid it into a national fund it is likely that you could enjoy the same benefits that most of the West does i.e. better care at lower cost.

What's not to like?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

 

 

There is at least one downside that I think some are forgetting. The number of college grads fell too if I'm not mistaken. So we're talking about a doctor shortage if a government run program takes over. These doctors don't want to work for the government, and I believe that is the reason the US can't just jump from one to the other. European countries are used to this type of system, but it would take the US some time to acclimate, and during that time people would suffer. Millions would lose their jobs along with the others who won't have a physician. The medical community is smart, and they do what they do to make money. If they can no longer make money they will find another way.

[iNow]

Justin - Just a tip: The Wall Street Journal is not a credible source any more. It's effectively like the daily inquirer, and has been wrong on practically every major issue for at least the last 7 years. If you see them say something that you want to use in an argument, try to find a supplemental source to bolster what you're saying... or don't. Whatever.

 

 

The number of college grads fell too if I'm not mistaken. So we're talking about a doctor shortage if a government run program takes over.

This is wrong on several fronts. First, correlation is not causation, and any reduction in college graduation rate is much more likely tied to the economic slump than to "government provided healthcare" laws. Second, there are numerous countries out there with government run programs and they absolutely do not experience shortages of doctors. In fact, evidence suggests that they have even more qualified doctors because they are allowed to focus on what they enjoy (the medicine component) and don't have to worry about where the patient will find money or what procedures they must give up because the patient cannot afford it. The central point, however, is that your premise is deeply deeply flawed, and not supported by reality. Government run programs do not have a shortage of doctors anywhere else. What makes you think the US is so vastly different that would happen here?

 

These doctors don't want to work for the government, and I believe that is the reason the US can't just jump from one to the other.

Rubbish. Support your argument with evidence or stop using it as the foundation of your comments.

 

European countries are used to this type of system, but it would take the US some time to acclimate, and during that time people would suffer.

This is another fascinating assertion, and is so one dimensional to be useless. Yes, some people would experience a bit of suffering during such a transition, but you're failing to account for 1) the scale of that suffering (is it that they cannot buy their third mercedes that year or are people losing limbs?), 2) the audience of that suffering (is it the super rich or the poverty ridden), and 3) how that quote unquote suffering scales against the benefit that implementation of such a system would bring. In short, you're not doing a cost benefit analysis and weighing the different sides. Hell, you're not even doing just a true cost analysis. You're merely repeating someone elses canard, assuming it to be true, and failing to realistically look at the situation.

 

Let me clarify with a silly example. Insulin causes some people to suffer. It doesn't automatically scale with the amount of food you eat or your level of activity. If you take too much, you get very low blood sugar, your brain starts to shut down, you pass out, and people often die. Would it be appropriate to argue that insulin should not be introduced in the way you're arguing about healthcare coverage above? It is, after all, going to cause suffering... No, of course not. That's fucking stupid. The benefit far outweighs the costs.

 

Millions would lose their jobs along with the others who won't have a physician.

The only people who would lose their jobs are the doctors who are not treating patients well enough. The only people who would suffer are those who are getting rich off of bunk medical claims and unnecessary tests. Stop believing the bullshit that the spin doctors are feeding you, Justin. Do some damned research and learn for yourself that universal healthcare is not the abhorrent dystopia you've been led to believe.

 

The medical community is smart, and they do what they do to make money. If they can no longer make money they will find another way.

Another bullshit argument. Nobody would be working for free. Doctors would be incentivized based on outcome, not the number of tests. Quality of results would be rewarded. Also, it would encourage people to enter the profession who genuinely want to help others, instead of just getting rich on someone elses misery. Your argument is the same one we heard when it came to the massive bonuses paid to wall street executives. That if we don't pay them a shit ton of money (even though they practically destroyed the company and the entire economy) they will go elsewhere and won't want to do the job. You never struck me as the type to support massive bonuses in the banking industry despite pathetic performance, yet that's precisely what you're arguing based on here... It's the same logic, but instead you're applying it to doctors... as if they must work for free, and the ones who join the profession solely to get rich might not be able to buy a fourth house in the Hamptons...

 

I despair at the depth of the lies you've come to believe. We pay more and get less for healthcare than other countries who offer universal systems. We have people dying by the thousands solely because they are not as rich as some others. We have higher infant mortality rates than some third world countries, and mothers deciding whether to treat a sick infant or pay their mortgage. We're wasting money, wasting huge benefits, wasting lives, and wasting our time debunking the myths of Fox News and WSJ. Yay... Go us. The only reason we're not doing better is because otherwise intelligent men like you seem to accept the bullshit and lies you're being spoonfed, so you stand in opposition to progress and improvement. Yay again...

 

 

FYI - Sunday night on CNN, Farheed Zakaria is doing some sort of special on healthcare in the US. It looks like it might be a good special worth watching. Link below.

 

http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/fareed-zakaria-launches-quarterly-series-on-american-renewal-on-cnn-and-in-time-magazine/

 

 

Here are two programs from years ago on Frontline that are also quite informative:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/

 

 

Wish to remain ignorant? Ignore these. Want to learn more? Then watch.

[Phi for All]

http://online.wsj.co...2778328019.html

 

 

There is at least one downside that I think some are forgetting. The number of college grads fell too if I'm not mistaken. So we're talking about a doctor shortage if a government run program takes over. These doctors don't want to work for the government, and I believe that is the reason the US can't just jump from one to the other. European countries are used to this type of system, but it would take the US some time to acclimate, and during that time people would suffer. Millions would lose their jobs along with the others who won't have a physician. The medical community is smart, and they do what they do to make money. If they can no longer make money they will find another way.

OMG, read the post you quoted. "If, instead of paying money to private healthcare insurance you paid it into a national fund..." The doctors would continue in their private practice, they won't be working for the government. It will simply be the government we pay premiums to, at a lower rate because the national fund doesn't require the profit margin private insurance does. And the doctors will get paid by the government instead of private insurers.

 

The medical community would love it if we had a national healthcare fund. They have to overcharge for everything to make up for the delay in payment that private insurers impose on them (I'm serious, ask your doctor, ask your dentist, they often have to wait 120 days to get paid!).

 

Here's a great article from Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazi...ts-what-ails-us

 

This bit is particularly relevant:

Yet universal health care is in place throughout the industrialized world. In most cases, doctors and hospitals operate as private businesses. But government pays the bills, which reduces paperwork costs to a fraction of the American level. It also cuts out expensive insurance corporations and HMO's, with their multimillion-dollar CEO compensation packages, and billions in profit. Small wonder "single payer" systems can cover their entire populations at half the per capita cost. In the United States, people without insurance may live with debilitating disease or pain, with conditions that prevent them from getting jobs or decent pay, putting many on a permanent poverty track. They have more difficulty managing chronic conditions—only two in five have a regular doctor—leading to poorer health and greater cost.

[Joatmon]

There seems to an important point nobody has mentioned. That concerns the attitude of the young who feel they are invincible and eternal and therefore have no need to provide for either health care or pension (not yet anyway - I'll leave it until I have become well off). With a system like we have in the UK everyone has to contribute from the start of their working lives. Is this sensible or do some of you see it as limiting freedom of choice?

Edited March 16, 2012 by Joatmon

[Phi for All]

There seems to an important point nobody has mentioned. That concerns the attitude of the young who feel they are invincible and eternal and therefore have no need to provide for either health care or pension (not yet anyway - I'll leave it until I have become well off). With a system like we have in the UK everyone has to contribute from the start of their working lives. Is this sensible or do some of you see it as limiting freedom of choice?

Well, our private insurers have lobbied to make the payout for medical insurance from employers mandatory. If you have a job that pays for part of your medical insurance, they don't give you the option of taking more cash and dropping the insurance. If they did, I'm sure a lot of young people would do just that.

[iNow]

http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,2109128-1,00.html

 

The most striking aspect of America’s medical system remains how much of an outlier it is in the advanced industrial world. No other nation spends more than 12% of its total economy on health care. We do worse than most other countries on almost every measure of health outcomes: healthy-life expectancy, infant mortality and - crucially - patient satisfaction. Put simply, we have the most expensive, least efficient system of any rich country on the planet. Costs remain high on every level. Recently, the International Federation of Health Plans released a report comparing the prices in various countries of 23 medical services, from a routine checkup to an MRI to a dose of Lipitor. The U.S. had the highest costs in 22 of the 23 cases. An MRI costs $1,080 here; it costs $281 in France....

 

The Swiss and Taiwanese found that if you’re going to have an insurance model, you need a general one in which everyone is covered. Otherwise, healthy people don’t buy insurance and sick ones get gamed out of it. Catastrophic insurance - covering trauma and serious illnesses - isn’t a solution, because it’s chronically ill patients, just 5% of the total, who account for 50% of American health care costs....

 

The Obama bill expands access to 30 million Americans. That’s good economics and also the right thing to do. But it does little in the way of controlling costs. Medicare’s costs have stopped rising as fast as in the past. But for broader costs to decline, there is no alternative to having some kind of board that decides what is covered by insurance and what is not - as exists in every other advanced country. This has been demagogued as creating “death panels” when it is really the only sensible way to make the system work.

 

When listening to the debate about American health care, I find that many of the most fervent critics of government involvement argue almost entirely from abstract theoretical propositions about free markets. One can and should reason from principles. But one must also reason from reality, from facts on the ground. And the fact is that about 20 foreign countries provide health care for their citizens in some way or other. All of them - including free-market havens like Switzerland and Taiwan - have found that they need to use an insurance or government-sponsored model. All of them provide universal health care at much, much lower costs than we do and with better results....

[JustinW]

Justin - Just a tip: The Wall Street Journal is not a credible source any more. It's effectively like the daily inquirer, and has been wrong on practically every major issue for at least the last 7 years. If you see them say something that you want to use in an argument, try to find a supplemental source to bolster what you're saying... or don't. Whatever.

 

I was just using that provide info that supported my thoughts. And anyway were they wrong? Did doctors not start dropping medicaid and medicare patients at a much higher rate?

 

Second, there are numerous countries out there with government run programs and they absolutely do not experience shortages of doctors.

Did those countries switch from a private system in a short period of time? You think that might be the only reason that makes your statement true?

 

 

In fact, evidence suggests that they have even more qualified doctors because they are allowed to focus on what they enjoy (the medicine component) and don't have to worry about where the patient will find money or what procedures they must give up because the patient cannot afford it.

What evidence? And doesn't this statement further prove my point that the profession in this country is profit driven? I also think you're dead wrong about the qualification also. We produce leading technologies, drugs, and facilities. I have a nagging suspicion that has something to do with the competitiveness that results from a profit driven system.

 

 

What makes you think the US is so vastly different that would happen here?

Because our system is founded on capitalism. It's a business, and most doctors view it as such. So when the opportunity for profit leaves, so do those that view their practice as a business.

 

 

Rubbish. Support your argument with evidence or stop using it as the foundation of your comments.

http://heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/08/01/study-doctors-dropping-medicaid

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/255120-doctors-increasingly-dropping-medicaid-medicare-some-even-private-insurance-too/

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/health/policy/02medicaid.html

 

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-14-Sat-2002/news/19630314.html

 

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/24/news/economy/doctors_ditching_medicare_patients/

 

Want more? Do you not think that I have a basis for my arguement?

 

 

The only people who would lose their jobs are the doctors who are not treating patients well enough.

How is this? How does universal healthcare affect doctors based on performance?

What about the people who work for those doctors? Seems like they would lose their job too.

 

The only people who would suffer are those who are getting rich off of bunk medical claims and unnecessary tests.

And the people who work for them, and the insurance companies, and the people who work for them, and companies that provide their offices with supplies, and the people that work for them, and so on and so forth... oh wait, I guess all of those people wouldn't mind because they're just the cost that has been outweighed by the benifits.

 

 

It's the same logic, but instead you're applying it to doctors... as if they must work for free, and the ones who join the profession solely to get rich might not be able to buy a fourth house in the Hamptons...

What the hell are you talking about? I was arguing that the profession would see a decrease in doctors if it was ran by the government. I have already showed that doctors started dumping medicaid and medicare patients because the government wasn't reimbursing them their fees. That should be enough warning needed to tell what will happen if the whole system is run by the government.

 

 

Phi,

 

And the doctors will get paid by the government instead of private insurers.

 

And this was the reason for them dumping medicaid and medicare patients. Why will it be any different once the whole thing is ran by the government?

 

The medical community would love it if we had a national healthcare fund.

I don't think so. I haven't spoken to alot who like the notion. Maybe they're living in the same fantasy land as me.

 

 

(I'm serious, ask your doctor, ask your dentist, they often have to wait 120 days to get paid!).

I have. Ask them how long they have to wait to get a reimbursment from a government program. This is why most that have dropped medicaid and medicare still accept private insurance. They may have to wait in some cases, but not nearly as long.

[Phi for All]

And this was the reason for them dumping medicaid and medicare patients. Why will it be any different once the whole thing is ran by the government?

You're making the mistake of assuming only one side of the equation would change. When does THAT ever work out right? And your statistics about doctors dropping Medicare patients are only from Texas (where everything is BIG, even their mistakes ). Right now, Medicaid and Medicare have suffered under so many years of budget cuts and bills passed to hobble their buying power that it's plain to anyone with eyes and ears that they're being set up to fail, a lot like our public education, to make way for more privatization.

 

I don't think so. I haven't spoken to alot who like the notion. Maybe they're living in the same fantasy land as me.

Since it would be a public fund, we should probably get our representatives to guarantee payment on a net 30 or 60 day basis, like the rest of the business world. NOW ask your doctors if they like the notion.

 

Seriously, it gets really tiring to talk about fixing the system, only to have detractors keep comparing it to the old system in order to keep it from getting fixed. Aren't you looking at the evidence? We score lower on everything to do with healthcare except cost than 20 other countries that have a national program. Do you not trust the evidence, or do you not trust our politicians to set it up correctly? And if it's the latter, why are you trusting them with the rest of what they're doing with our money?

[JustinW]

You're making the mistake of assuming only one side of the equation would change. When does THAT ever work out right? And your statistics about doctors dropping Medicare patients are only from Texas

A study by the Merritt Hawking and Associates found that 100% dermotologists in Atlanta accepted medicaid and by 2009 had dropped to 0. Same thing with cardiologists in Philly. It went from 80% in 2004 down to 8% in 2009. Just a couple of examples. And yes, the biggest doctor uprising did come from a group in Texas, and that is what brought it my attention(other than the signs hanging on the doors that said"we no longer accept medicaid"), people have been dropped in every state in the country.

 

 

Since it would be a public fund, we should probably get our representatives to guarantee payment on a net 30 or 60 day basis, like the rest of the business world. NOW ask your doctors if they like the notion.

Damn, you got me. I didn't the government was so keen on keeping to their timelines. Or living up to guarantees.

 

 

Aren't you looking at the evidence? We score lower on everything to do with healthcare except cost than 20 other countries that have a national program.

 

Really? Why don't you try looking at mortality rates for heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc... I'm pretty sure there's more. I had the funny feeling while looking up some of those stats, that only some were included while other examples may have given a plus to the US healthcare system.

 

And if it's the latter, why are you trusting them with the rest of what they're doing with our money?

Who says I am? That's another reason I would prefer a flat tax. Then we could equally share in atrocity.

[John Cuthber]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html

 

 

There is at least one downside that I think some are forgetting. The number of college grads fell too if I'm not mistaken. So we're talking about a doctor shortage if a government run program takes over.

 

economics 101

If there's a shortage of doctors (and the evidence seems thin) the the salary for doctors will rise in order to get enough of them.

So, obviously, if you are right our doctors will be clearly better paid than yours.

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

 

"Did those countries switch from a private system in a short period of time? You think that might be the only reason that makes your statement true?"

Yes, in 1948 IIRC

 

"Because our system is founded on capitalism. It's a business, and most doctors view it as such. So when the opportunity for profit leaves, so do those that view their practice as a business. "

What do you think the rest of the Western world is founded on?

 

Incidentally, I made the point earlier but nobody seems to ha addressed it.

Do you want your doctor to see you as a patient or as a business opportunity?

Edited March 17, 2012 by John Cuthber

[rigney]

economics 101

If there's a shortage of doctors (and the evidence seems thin) the the salary for doctors will rise in order to get enough of them.

So, obviously, if you are right our doctors will be clearly better paid than yours.

 

Meanwhile back in reality...

 

 

"Did those countries switch from a private system in a short period of time? You think that might be the only reason that makes your statement true?"

Yes, in 1948 IIRC

 

"Because our system is founded on capitalism. It's a business, and most doctors view it as such. So when the opportunity for profit leaves, so do those that view their practice as a business. "

What do you think the rest of the Western world is founded on?

 

Incidentally, I made the point earlier but nobody seems to ha addressed it.

Do you want your doctor to see you as a patient or as a business opportunity?

 

What worries me most, is when we all become patients again, instead of business oportunities, it will be too late. Prior to 1965 when President Johnson created Medicare and Medicaid, things weren't too bad. Even totally indigent people could be admitted to a hospital if they were critically ill, injured, or to a soup kitchen if they were hungry. Since that time, things in the "medical fields" have been going down hill. I believe everyone deserves a slice of the pie, just not the size that might go to T. Boone Pickens, Trump, Bill Gates and several other big movers and shakers.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/medicare-medicaid/

Edited March 17, 2012 by rigney

[John Cuthber]

Except for those who have a life of perfect health followed by a sudden death, we are already all patients.

What did you mean?