188 replies to this topic

[Robert Giacometti]

Here are a few rhetorical questions for y'all:

If you had a drug that would make a person immune from every disease for 30 years in a single dose, would you distribute it for free? or would you only give it to the people that had the money to pay? Would you want access to the pill if you were a person that had no money?

Do we, as a society, have a moral obligation to ensure that everyone has access to the same resources in life (water, food, medicine, shelter, clothing)?

In a capitalist society, should morals ever take priority over profit?

I appreciate the opportunity to have philosophical discussion, rather that the typical debate.

Before answering your question above, I think we need to step back and ask ourselves some other questions first or reach some sort of consesus on some parameters.

First, If we are all faced with serious life threatening medical condition and we could go anywhere in the world for the best possible treatment and cost wouldn't matter, that the supermajority of us would believe we would get the best possible treatment in the USA.

This is the result of many factors including hundreds of millions of dollars the private sector spends on R & D, leading to discovery of the best medication, equipment and procedures to provide this state of the art care and treatment. We as a society benefit from these hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent on R & D, by having access to the best possible treatment anywhere in the world.

This magic pill you talk about being discovererd, will never happen without private companies having the ability to make a profit, enabling them to take the risk on investing the hundreds of millions of dollars of R & D to discovering this pill.

If this pill cost X amount and only 10% of the population could afford it, I believe society as whole would be better off with 10% of the population having access to this pill, than no one!

I believe we all have an equal opportunity to be able to go out and earn that X amount to buy this pill.

For some, it appears they can't get beyond the concept of companies profiting from people suffering from medical conditions, yet it is this profit that affords us the opportunity for the best Health Care Treatment in the world.

Taking away the profit from Health Care, won't improve the access care for some, it will only reduce the quality for all.

[SmartMoney]

the lazy sit-on-your-arse and pretend it's all okay way of doing things isn't working.

I'll tell ya this...you don't trash what we have and start over, and that is basically what is going to happen. You want to talk about "horribly broken"....just give ObamaCare a few years and let me know how that's going for ya!! It ain't goona be good, I'll tell ya that. And most doctors concur with that.

But go for it. Govt does everything else so well...and single-payer is their untimate goal. Your wife will like that, right??

[mando]

I appreciate the opportunity to have philosophical discussion, rather that the typical debate.

Before answering your question above, I think we need to step back and ask ourselves some other questions first or reach some sort of consesus on some parameters.

First, If we are all faced with serious life threatening medical condition and we could go anywhere in the world for the best possible treatment and cost wouldn't matter, that the supermajority of us would believe we would get the best possible treatment in the USA.

This is the result of many factors including hundreds of millions of dollars the private sector spends on R & D, leading to discovery of the best medication, equipment and procedures to provide this state of the art care and treatment. We as a society benefit from these hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent on R & D, by having access to the best possible treatment anywhere in the world.

This magic pill you talk about being discovererd, will never happen without private companies having the ability to make a profit, enabling them to take the risk on investing the hundreds of millions of dollars of R & D to discovering this pill.

If this pill cost X amount and only 10% of the population could afford it, I believe society as whole would be better off with 10% of the population having access to this pill, than no one!

I believe we all have an equal opportunity to be able to go out and earn that X amount to buy this pill.

For some, it appears they can't get beyond the concept of companies profiting from people suffering from medical conditions, yet it is this profit that affords us the opportunity for the best Health Care Treatment in the world.

Taking away the profit from Health Care, won't improve the access care for some, it will only reduce the quality for all.

I don't see why for-profit health options - for those that can afford it - couldn't co-exist with non-profit universal health options. This exists now in other countries.

The problem here now isn't with a few wealthy people not receiving cutting edge therapies. It is with many millions of others who can't get more run-of-the-mill care.

[Robert Giacometti]

I don't see why for-profit health options - for those that can afford it - couldn't co-exist with non-profit universal health options. This exists now in other countries.

The problem here now isn't with a few wealthy people not receiving cutting edge therapies. It is with many millions of others who can't get more run-of-the-mill care.

Do you know of a single person who has ever gone to the ER for care and been denied? There are many people alive today because of the advances in care brought about by the profit of Companies. Care is available for all, so lets not twist this into something it isn't. Granted, ER's are the worst possible way to deliver care from a cost perspective, so there needs to be changes made.

I've NOT heard of a single person disputing there needs to be changes made. The biggest concern most have now is the recent legislation will make things worse for the supermajority and possibily better for some, until the cost of the programs causes it to collapes, making it worse for everyone in the long run.

I too like the idea of exploring creating a NON Profit to be involved in providing options. I would want this non profit to get some additional protections against litigation and be structured in a way to offer different levels of care. If everyone had some run of the mill care, through a non profit, with options to buy additional levels, I think we would be on the right track with finding a BETTER solution to reforming Health Care.

[mando]

Do you know of a single person who has ever gone to the ER for care and been denied? There are many people alive today because of the advances in care brought about by the profit of Companies. Care is available for all, so lets not twist this into something it isn't. Granted, ER's are the worst possible way to deliver care from a cost perspective, so there needs to be changes made.

Exactly... this is not run-of-the-mill care.

The funny thing is that folks end up getting very expensive ER care instead - at insured people's expense.

Agree with the basic idea of your last paragraph.

[mando]

One more thought... I think that we could cut much much more cost out of healthcare by eliminating the extra people needed to keep track of "business" (put these resources to actually providing care), vs. simply minimizing exposure to litigation (nothing against that either).

The energy required to keep track of hugely disparate payment schemes and individual coverage limits is astounding. It sucks a lot of productivity out of patients as well - speaking from experience spending many hours following up on medical authorizations and billing.

IT infrastructure can help (cue privacy concerns), but probably not enough.

[SmartMoney]

Well, I guess millions of people will just opt to pay the relatively low fine and then buy insurance when they need it. Sounds like a typical Govt mandate where they didn't quite think it through. Oh well, at least we all know how efficient and cost-effective single-payer will be. And make no mistake, we will be in single-payer once the insurance companies go insolvent/bankrupt and shut down.

I think we all know how this movie will end, and it ain't good. It'll be disasterous.

Think it through, folks. Think it through.

[The Average Joe]

Here is more "change"

Florida doc posts message on door telling people health care changes begin now, not in four years. Tells them if they voted for Obama to seek service elsewhere. Interesting that on the poll on the article page, 85% agree with the doctor's position.

Doc tells Obama voters to go somewhere else

[rpo]

Interesting that on the poll on the article page, 85% agree with the doctor's position.

That is because nearly all of the traffic to that page is coming from Drudge's link to it. Highly biased viewership.....

[SmartMoney]

That is because nearly all of the traffic to that page is coming from Drudge's link to it. Highly biased informed viewership.....

I fixed that for ya...no charge, as usual!!

[The Average Joe]

That is because nearly all of the traffic to that page is coming from Drudge's link to it. Highly biased viewership.....

Well, I didn't link to it from drudge...care to cite any facts to your assumption? I would be willing to concede that a large majority of that paper's readers are older which typically means more conservative, but your premise is rooted in demagoguery and immediate dismissal of that which you disagree with.

So are you saying you don't think it is the doctor's right to encourage people to seek help elsewhere?

[rpo]

Well, I didn't link to it from drudge...care to cite any facts to your assumption? I would be willing to concede that a large majority of that paper's readers are older which typically means more conservative, but your premise is rooted in demagoguery and immediate dismissal of that which you disagree with.

So are you saying you don't think it is the doctor's right to encourage people to seek help elsewhere?

I read the exact same article earlier this morning after linking to it from Drudge. Then I found the same article posted here a couple hours later, and wrote my comment above. Any time a link to an article is on Drudge and there is a poll/comments section on the article's web page, it gets highly skewed to the ideology (conservative) of Drudge's readers. Since he has millions of hits daily, just him linking to an article increases its traffic by an immense amount.

[SmartMoney]

it gets highly skewed to the ideology (conservative) of Drudge's readers.

Yes, just like polls on CNN or MSNBC.

This is nothing new, but your tone seemed to indicate it is.

[Chris]

That is because nearly all of the traffic to that page is coming from Drudge's link to it. Highly biased viewership.....

So you are biased....? Glad to see you finally come clean....! Drudge is good as he has lots of links to news from the left and the right. Please keep that open mind you libs are so fond of saying you have.....! Check out all the links on Drudge and you will be able to form your own opinion. After all if he posts links up to the NY newspapers so he must have a sense of humor to say the least....! Chris