Socialized Health Care Thoughts

[Spider-Dan]

If the Gov. or the people to satisfy Fau, decided that a retirement was a necessity/right for everyone & in order to fund it then would you be alright if they seized 15% of your fund in order to pay out to everyone in retirement?

They already decided this in the 1930s.  It's called Social Security.  I've been paying into it since I was 17.

I do not view healthcare for every citizen as making them "lazy and dependent," any more than I see public schools as making parents "lazy and dependent."

You may not see if, but its there.   HC in itself may not be but its just another item for people to get from them.

We are talking about healthcare.  The other possibilities are not relevant to this discussion.

Going to have to show me how the prices go down when Gov enters the market.   My cable bill went up when they started regulating it.

a) The gov't regulates the healthcare industry now.
b) Cable bills go up whether the gov't enters the market or not.

However, that's not what we're talking about.  We're not discussing gov't regulation; we're discussing the gov't as an insurance provider.  The better analogy would be if the gov't decided to provide their own cable services.

  Back to the point.  Why would anyone pay the cost of medical school to have the Gov. tell them what they can charge?

So are prices going to spiral up out-of-control due to increased demand, or spiral down to nothing due to gov't price restrictions?  Please decide which extreme you are anticipating.

The answer to your question is that being a doctor will still be a well-paying profession.  Average doctors in the UK earn £110k ($154k) per year.

And again, if being told what they can charge the gov't is such a heinous and untenable restriction, I am forced to wonder how/why defense contractors exist.

However, a doctor is wrong or does not order the right test he is open to a malpractice claim.  So they are putting more of a burden on the system.

[...]

If a condition is advancing that a couple of weeks is deadly.  Then I'd say the odds are against you making it.  This is another reason HC is so costly.  Doctor are now ordering unnecessary test to cover their arses from a malpractice claim.

It is necessarily true that more visits to an office = more chances for malpractice, in the same sense that the more customers a store has, the more complaints and product returns they will experience.

This is not a credible argument against a healthcare system.  It is a perversion of logic to claim that seeing more patients is somehow bad for doctors because of the extra potential liability.

[Dphins4me]

As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

  Do want to add to this.  See the difference between what you consider prevention & what I do?

To go with my comment that American are lazy when it comes to their health.  Here is something some of my co-workers are looking at

Vitatrim

Lets get a shot that will help us lose weight.  No concern with what might be in it.  Just as long as it helps them lose weight.

The cost?  Not concerned with it.  I think its something like $125 a shot.

[Spider-Dan]

See the difference between what you consider prevention & what I do?

Your idea of "prevention" is outside the scope of this thread, since you are talking about avoiding sickness altogether while I am discussing taking care of a minor problem before it becomes a major problem (which is relevant to a discussion on how to implement a healthcare system).  Unless you have a plan for forcing or otherwise directly incentivizing people to avoid getting sick at all, you are simply off-topic.

As for my idea of "prevention"... I consider maintenance to be a form of prevention.  The human body is not impervious to illness, no matter what your lifestyle is.  If I replace my brake pads when they start squeaking, I may be preventing a catastrophic brake failure and potential crash.  Similarly, if I visit the doctor when I have a discoloration of my skin, I may be preventing skin cancer from getting a serious and costly hold on my body.

[Dphins4me]

They already decided this in the 1930s.  It's called Social Security.  I've been paying into it since I was 17.

Two things. 
1: Remember that Social Security is going broke.
2: What if it wasn’t & they still wanted to even up the difference between you & the less fortunate who might not have worked at a job where they could have had a 401K or not worked at all..  By how you say you feel.  It would be in the best interest of the country to provide more with a better retirement plan.

So would you be opposed to this idea?

  We are talking about healthcare.  The other possibilities are not relevant to this discussion.

True we are.  However you cannot deny its simply another step.

 
a) The gov't regulates the healthcare industry now.
b) Cable bills go up whether the gov't enters the market or not.

Pretending to regulate the drug companies is not the same regulation we are talking about.

That they do, but there was a noticeable jump just because of the regulation back in the day.

 
However, that's not what we're talking about.  We're not discussing gov't regulation; we're discussing the gov't as an insurance provider.  The better analogy would be if the gov't decided to provide their own cable services.

Fair enough.

  So are prices going to spiral up out-of-control due to increased demand, or spiral down to nothing due to gov't price restrictions?  Please decide which extreme you are anticipating.

You already know.  I expect both. First the increase in price because of increase demand.  Second the Gov to step in a nationalize HC.

 
The answer to your question is that being a doctor will still be a well-paying profession.  Average doctors in the UK earn

  What does the avg Brit make to compare that too.

 

  And again, if being told what they can charge the gov't is such a heinous and untenable restriction, I am forced to wonder how/why defense contractors exist.

  Fewer defense contractors than there are doctors. Deeper pockets also.

Do you think Halliburton was not the company they had in mind when they went to war? 

 
It is necessarily true that more visits to an office = more chances for malpractice, in the same sense that the more customers a store has, the more complaints and product returns they will experience.
This is not a credible argument against a healthcare system.  It is a perversion of logic to claim that seeing more patients is somehow bad for doctors because of the extra potential liability.

It is credible, because that was not what I was saying.  Doctors order useless test to cover themselves in today’s  sue happy world.  The cost of these useless test is another driving part of HC cost..

Lil B is talking about people running to the doctor for a headache.  Brain scans are not cheap.

 When John Ritter died in a emergency situation from something that would have been way down the list of things that could be causing his problem.  They tried to sue.   Luckily those doctors won, but they had to cover the cost of the case which we all know was not cheap.  Doctors play the lets jump to the worst case scernio much more than they ever have.

[Dphins4me]

Your idea of "prevention" is outside the scope of this thread, since you are talking about avoiding sickness altogether while I am discussing taking care of a minor problem before it becomes a major problem (which is relevant to a discussion on how to implement a healthcare system).  Unless you have a plan for forcing or otherwise directly incentivizing people to avoid getting sick at all, you are simply off-topic.

As for my idea of "prevention"... I consider maintenance to be a form of prevention.  The human body is not impervious to illness, no matter what your lifestyle is.  If I replace my brake pads when they start squeaking, I may be preventing a catastrophic brake failure and potential crash.  Similarly, if I visit the doctor when I have a discoloration of my skin, I may be preventing skin cancer from getting a serious and costly hold on my body.

A stronger body & stronger immune system helps prevent illnesses.

When you start testing minors as major on everyone then the cost go up.

The key is to allow your body a chance to heal itself.  Rushing to the doctor for every little headache because it might be a brain tumor ( Kindergarden Cop ) is not cost effective.

[Dave Gray]

When you start testing minors as major on everyone then the cost go up.

Actually, that's not the case.  I've seen you say this many times, but things actually get less expensive when they are used more.  You get to take advantage of economies of scale.

If we ran a lot more preventative tests, they'd get cheaper.  The overall cost would be more, of course, but the per-person cost would, without a doubt, go down considerably.

[Dphins4me]

Actually, that's not the case.  I've seen you say this many times, but things actually get less expensive when they are used more.  You get to take advantage of economies of scale.

If we ran a lot more preventative tests, they'd get cheaper.  The overall cost would be more, of course, but the per-person cost would, without a doubt, go down considerably.

  It may get less expensive on operating cost.  I do not see how higher demand for limited number of MRI machines would decrease the actual cost of getting the usage of one of the machines. 

[Dave Gray]

  It may get less expensive on operating cost.  I do not see how higher demand for limited number of MRI machines would decrease the actual cost of getting the usage of one of the machines. 

Because you're assuming that the number of machines wouldn't increase.  Of course it would.  That number would not stay stagnant.  If more people were going to get MRIs, there's be more machines, cheaper to produce, etc.

It works that way with any technology.  As it's used more, companies can sell the products for cheaper.

[Dphins4me]

Because you're assuming that the number of machines wouldn't increase.  Of course it would.  That number would not stay stagnant.  If more people were going to get MRIs, there's be more machines, cheaper to produce, etc.

It works that way with any technology.  As it's used more, companies can sell the products for cheaper.

Wouldn't you have to have the facilities to accommodate the new machines?  Those machines are not small.  Meaning you would have to expand the building or build a new facility to houses them.  Which would be a cost they would want to recoup.