Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189220 - 07/17/07 05:33 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
Please provide any logical explanation of why an insurance company would have an incentive to pay for care.





Dude, what do you expect? Some sort of magical system in which you pay $50 every month, and expect a payout of $50,000 in five years? Obviously there is all sorts of stipulations, they are gambling on your life dude. That's the name of the game that YOU choose to play.

That's why I don't play it. :shrug:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7189277 - 07/17/07 05:45 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

One more angle on the better doctors thing, in a government run system they would have to focus on curing patients, rather than simply chronically treating them as MANY doctors do now, (check ODD for source) the best way to save the system money would be to make sure patients are treated quickly and completely, so they won't be unhealthy again for a long time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7189293 - 07/17/07 05:49 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Taking my argument and applying it to me as an individual makes absolutely no sense.  The system is about cooperation from the entire nation.  Of course I don't expect to need 50,000 dollars in 5 years, but someone else will, and with the entire American public paying into the system they won't have to worry about loosing their life to an insurance company.  And when I need my 50,000 30-40 years down the line, I'll be covered too, and so will every other American.  Everyone pays taxes, Everyone gets equal care.  Unless 100% of the public gets terminally ill at once, it won't be an issue of making 50 dollars into 50,000.  :smile:

Does this clarify things?

edit: oops, i see you were agreeing that insurance companies make money off of our lives, ill leave this post up, it doesn't apply to you, but it probably applies to some other arguement someone will make, heh.

Edited by xFrockx (07/17/07 05:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189442 - 07/17/07 06:23 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
Please provide any logical explanation as to why doctors would loose their incentive to be better doctors under a socialized system. I

n other countries doctors receive pay bonuses to encourage their patients to quit smoking and have lower cholesterol. In the US doctors are paid by drug companies to prescribe their medicines, such incentives are only beneficial to the corporations that make the money from those who are ill, not the patients.




A retarded monkey can encourage his patients to quit smoking and eat healthier food. I sincerely hope that's not your idea of doctoring.
Quote:



Please provide any logical explanation for a system that would allow the denial of care in a socialized system.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770
Are you joking? Care is RATIONED in socialized medicine. Allow it? It's mandated.
Quote:




Malpractice would still be an issue, but there would be no difference with how it is handled today. The doctor could be sued, how is the government responsible for the fuck up of a doctor? If you really are 50, you know very, very little about how the 'system' actually works...




No, child, it is much much harder to sue the government than it is to sue a deep pockets doctor. And, as a government employee, the doctor himself would be immune from all but criminal malpractice. This will bring costs down but big losers will just be fucked. No more giant judgments, no more individual liability, the state is everything and the state is not amused.
Quote:



Please provide any logical explanation of why an insurance company would have an incentive to pay for care.




And yet, amazingly, they pay billions and billions. Who knew? Maybe because they have to. Gummint? Not so much.
Quote:



Is it out of the goodness of their hearts? I doubt it. The threat of lawsuits? Well, they can pick their marks, people who don't have the money for a hospital bill don't have the money for a lawyer. And what if the bill is around the 1-2000 dollar range, certainly a burden for most, but still in the 'grey area' when it comes to seeking legal action. Is it that they make profit by giving care? Well, that's laughable, because when old Aunt Mabel needs dialysis she's allready paid the company thousands of dollars, keeping her healthy would be a debt, her death, a stop-loss measure. Pretty sick isn't it?




The sickness is your incredibly distorted perception of reality. If you have a good malpractice suit you don't have to pay anything, they knock down your door. $1,000-$2,000 bill? Are you fucking kidding? They pay them all the time. Now, you're botox injection isn't covered, nor are sex change operations, but if the insurance companies routinely did what you say they do why would anybody be stupid enough to keep paying them? Unbelievable. No, really, unbelievable, as in your just making shit up.
Quote:



Sure, they can't deny EVERYONE, then no one would use them, but the fact of the matter is many, many, people get screwed when they least expect it, because old uncle greenback has gotta come from somewhere.




And what makes you think this will change when it's the gummint in charge?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189521 - 07/17/07 06:41 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

xFrockx writes:

Quote:

The difference is pretty obvious, healthcare costs are astronomical, bread and water, not so much.




The difference is not obvious at all.

First of all, healthcare costs are not "astronomical". I've spent far more during my lifetime on food than I have on medical care, and I was born in the early Fifties. I ain't no spring chicken. The vast majority of humans will spend far more on food than they will on medical care. Hell, over the last twenty years of my life, I've actually spent more on WATER than I have on medical care, but I admit my situation might be different than that of most of you -- I have been living in a third world country for nearly twenty years now. It's not a great idea to drink the tap water here.

Quote:

And BTW, ever heard of Food Stamps, Welfare, Social Security, Meals on Wheels, ect?




Yes, and I don't believe any of those things should be paid for out of tax dollars either. Why do you believe they should be?

And of course, there is an obvious (to use correctly the word you introduced but used incorrectly) difference between those things and government-run universal health care -- they are not universal. Have you ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid, and the fact that hospitals cannot by law refuse essential medical care to anyone requesting it, regardless of their insurance coverage?

If you want to have a serious discussion, compare apples to apples -- universal "free" health care vs universal "free" housing, food, etc.

Quote:

A poor family can get on welfare to support their children's need for food and water, however, if their child gets sick they have nothing to turn to.




I can never remember the difference between Medicare and Medicaid -- one of them is for old folks and one for poor folks. The poor folks have Medicaid (or Medicare) to turn to.

From the tone of your argument, you do believe tax dollars should pay for food, water, housing, clothing, etc. That makes you a Collectivist of one stripe or another, so it is not surprising you see it as the reponsibility of government to provide medical care.

I ask again... WHY should you be forced to pay (through your taxes) for my medical care... and my food, water, clothes, energy, housing etc.? Give me the philosophical grounding for this, please.


Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7189568 - 07/17/07 06:54 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Zappa, your comments are so off base I can't believe I'm going to waste my time with you.

"A retarded monkey can encourage his patients to quit smoking and eat healthier food. I sincerely hope that's not your idea of doctoring."

Nice debate strategy, greatly exaggerate the non-existent futility of something that is very important and rational to have in a heath system. It is not somthing that the health system should entirely be composed of, but it is just idiotic to say its not important that doctors urge their patients to be healthier, and be rewarded for actual results. As the system stands now doctors make their money by treating the shit out of people, but not because they need it. When I had to go to the hospital to get an ultrasound for a lump I thought could be cancerous (the tech said it was obviously just a cyst) I was going to be tossed around like a Siamese whore to whoever else they could refer me to.

Whenever you involve money in someone's health there are bound to be abuses, gouging, and all sorts of other problems that simply aren't found in a socialized system, where the primary motivation of doctors is to keep the patient healthy and out of the hospital, not sick and paying out thousands of dollars for dead-end treatment.

"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770
Are you joking? Care is RATIONED in socialized medicine. Allow it? It's mandated."

Were you hoping I didn't click your link? It has nothing to do with your argument. Smoking can be detrimental to someone's recovery after an operation, why is it unreasonable to ensure that people have the fastest recovery post-op? Pull the "freedom" card, I dare you, but honestly, its just idiotic to put yourself at risk after a major surgery because you couldn't lay off cigarettes for a month. There isn't any mention of "rationing" or "denial of care" in your link at all, smokers still can be treated, but, as I think rightfully so, are put behind those who decide that they would rather not put themselves at risk for no reason. Its not socialism, its Darwinism.


"No, child, it is much much harder to sue the government than it is to sue a deep pockets doctor. And, as a government employee, the doctor himself would be immune from all but criminal malpractice. This will bring costs down but big losers will just be fucked. No more giant judgments, no more individual liability, the state is everything and the state is not amused."

No, son, the government is held accountable for fucking things up, thats why we vote. Insurance companies are making so much money now that it doesn't mean shit to them to settle for millions of dollars to the brave few who challenge them in court. All the current malpractice system does is allow an easy avenue for lazy people to make money suing doctors, which then raises the cost of insurance, and more people being denied to make the company's bottom line. In a capitalistic system poor doctors make money for the hospital, making patients require more care, prescribing needless Rxes, ect.

In a government system this doesn't happen because the government can punish poor doctors, make them train more before they can work again, ect. And they have REAL incentive to do so because poor doctors cost the system money. Its in the best interest of a socialized medicine system to have the best physicians and most thorough care, because it saves them money.

"The sickness is your incredibly distorted perception of reality. If you have a good malpractice suit you don't have to pay anything, they knock down your door. $1,000-$2,000 bill? Are you fucking kidding? They pay them all the time. Now, you're botox injection isn't covered, nor are sex change operations, but if the insurance companies routinely did what you say they do why would anybody be stupid enough to keep paying them? Unbelievable. No, really, unbelievable, as in your just making shit up."

So what you're saying is that insurance companies don't deny anyone the care they need to make a profit? Are you serious? I mean, the movie Sicko alone had several examples, and thats just one movie.

The government can't play ball like this because in a socialized medicine system, they MUST treat everyone. Any system that did otherwise would be unacceptable. Your arguements all seem to make the assumption that any government system would have to be insufficient and corrupt, and this line of thought is great, it helps to find anything that needs to be made sure of when they do create a socialized system. But using that line of thinking as proof that you are correct is just, well, illogical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: Phred]
    #7189623 - 07/17/07 07:09 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

"First of all, healthcare costs are not "astronomical". I've spent far more during my lifetime on food than I have on medical care, and I was born in the early Fifties. I ain't no spring chicken. The vast majority of humans will spend far more on food than they will on medical care. Hell, over the last twenty years of my life, I've actually spent more on WATER than I have on medical care, but I admit my situation might be different than that of most of you -- I have been living in a third world country for nearly twenty years now. It's not a great idea to drink the tap water here."

The difference lies in the fact that food and water are relatively small expenses that add up over time, medical bills are huge expenses that come all at once, socialized medicine solves this problem by having people pay the taxes for it when they are able to shell out the cash for it, instead of being slammed with a $50,000 medial bill when they're 80.

"Yes, and I don't believe any of those things should be paid for out of tax dollars either. Why do you believe they should be?
And of course, there is an obvious (to use correctly the word you introduced but used incorrectly) difference between those things and government-run universal health care -- they are not universal. Have you ever heard of Medicare and Medicaid, and the fact that hospitals cannot by law refuse essential medical care to anyone requesting it, regardless of their insurance coverage?
If you want to have a serious discussion, compare apples to apples -- universal "free" health care vs universal "free" housing, food, etc."


You see it as you paying for others, I see it as me paying for the luxury of having such necessities should I need them later on. If I somehow end up poor, or elderly (imagine that) I would like to know that I won't end up starving because I have no one to support me. I take comfort in the fact that our government has programs that will support me in my time of need, and all I have to do is pay some insignificant amount out of my paycheck to ensure of it. Its easy to say "I'll never need this shit, I'm just paying for all those poor people" but thats just the inherit arrogance of people looking at society from the top down.

To be honest, I'd LOVE to be able to pay some shitty little amount out of each paycheck to ensure that I'll not have to worry about things so fucking trivial as money and insurance when I should be concentrating on recovery and keeping healthy.

"From the tone of your argument, you do believe tax dollars should pay for food, water, housing, clothing, etc. That makes you a Collectivist of one stripe or another, so it is not surprising you see it as the reponsibility of government to provide medical care."

Wow, so I guess I'm a slippery-slope communist and I never even knew it. Give me a break. I believe that when people are in need, those who can should help them. When the poor are treated well there are a multitude of other benefits that result, lower crime, a better economy, better property values, and it goes on. I want those poor people to live as comfortably as they possibly can, so I can profit from their business.

" I ask again... WHY should you be forced to pay (through your taxes) for my medical care... and my food, water, clothes, energy, housing etc.? Give me the philosophical grounding for this, please. "

I have allready explained why this line of thought is idiotic. I am not paying for your medical care, I am paying my own taxes to ensure that I get my own medical care. Should I not need the tax money that I put into it, I see no problem that it is used to treat whatever life threatening illness you may have.

I guess it's akin to giving blood, right now I am healthy, I can give as much blood as the people at the clinic will let me, and later on when I or one of my friends needs blood, I will feel very happy to have other people like myself giving when they can to help me in my time of need.

Do you give blood, or are all those sick poor fucks not worthy of your plasma?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189676 - 07/17/07 07:24 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
Zappa, your comments are so off base I can't believe I'm going to waste my time with you.

"A retarded monkey can encourage his patients to quit smoking and eat healthier food. I sincerely hope that's not your idea of doctoring."

Nice debate strategy, greatly exaggerate the non-existent futility of something that is very important and rational to have in a heath system. It is not somthing that the health system should entirely be composed of, but it is just idiotic to say its not important that doctors urge their patients to be healthier, and be rewarded for actual results. As the system stands now doctors make their money by treating the shit out of people, but not because they need it. When I had to go to the hospital to get an ultrasound for a lump I thought could be cancerous (the tech said it was obviously just a cyst) I was going to be tossed around like a Siamese whore to whoever else they could refer me to.

Whenever you involve money in someone's health there are bound to be abuses, gouging, and all sorts of other problems that simply aren't found in a socialized system, where the primary motivation of doctors is to keep the patient healthy and out of the hospital, not sick and paying out thousands of dollars for dead-end treatment.




There's always money involved one way or the other. The greatest single reason patients get the whole routine for bullshit is trial lawyers and malpractice insurance. The hospitals can't afford not to cover every possibility to within a 1% chance or they get their ass sued in the 1% eventuality, and it is an eventuality. And your naivete about any socialized system would be youthfully charming if it wasn't so viciously dangerous. Like those cute little monsters in Galaxy Quest that had such horrible teeth.
Quote:



"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770
Are you joking? Care is RATIONED in socialized medicine. Allow it? It's mandated."

Were you hoping I didn't click your link? It has nothing to do with your argument. Smoking can be detrimental to someone's recovery after an operation, why is it unreasonable to ensure that people have the fastest recovery post-op? Pull the "freedom" card, I dare you, but honestly, its just idiotic to put yourself at risk after a major surgery because you couldn't lay off cigarettes for a month. There isn't any mention of "rationing" or "denial of care" in your link at all, smokers still can be treated, but, as I think rightfully so, are put behind those who decide that they would rather not put themselves at risk for no reason. Its not socialism, its Darwinism.




Not at all, I fully expect everybody to read my links. But that is rationing nonetheless. But your OK with denying care to the stupid and the weak (those who can't or won't quit smoking). Putting them behind (this is exactly rationing) those who toe the party line and are good little patients. Who's next on your list of unworthies? Fatties? The "Darwinism" was a nice touch. Thanks. I couldn't have exposed you better myself.
Quote:




"No, child, it is much much harder to sue the government than it is to sue a deep pockets doctor. And, as a government employee, the doctor himself would be immune from all but criminal malpractice. This will bring costs down but big losers will just be fucked. No more giant judgments, no more individual liability, the state is everything and the state is not amused."

No, son, the government is held accountable for fucking things up, thats why we vote. Insurance companies are making so much money now that it doesn't mean shit to them to settle for millions of dollars to the brave few who challenge them in court. All the current malpractice system does is allow an easy avenue for lazy people to make money suing doctors, which then raises the cost of insurance, and more people being denied to make the company's bottom line. In a capitalistic system poor doctors make money for the hospital, making patients require more care, prescribing needless Rxes, ect.
Quote:



There is nothing on this planet more immune from accountability than a gummint bureaucrat. We don't elect them and it's damn near impossible to fire them. The rest is more paranoid fantasy. Simply not true.




In a government system this doesn't happen because the government can punish poor doctors, make them train more before they can work again, ect. And they have REAL incentive to do so because poor doctors cost the system money. Its in the best interest of a socialized medicine system to have the best physicians and most thorough care, because it saves them money.



Where on earth does this fantasy come from? It's straight out of Marx. It has never worked and never will.
Quote:



"The sickness is your incredibly distorted perception of reality. If you have a good malpractice suit you don't have to pay anything, they knock down your door. $1,000-$2,000 bill? Are you fucking kidding? They pay them all the time. Now, you're botox injection isn't covered, nor are sex change operations, but if the insurance companies routinely did what you say they do why would anybody be stupid enough to keep paying them? Unbelievable. No, really, unbelievable, as in your just making shit up."

So what you're saying is that insurance companies don't deny anyone the care they need to make a profit? Are you serious? I mean, the movie Sicko alone had several examples, and thats just one movie.

The government can't play ball like this because in a socialized medicine system, they MUST treat everyone. Any system that did otherwise would be unacceptable. Your arguements all seem to make the assumption that any government system would have to be insufficient and corrupt, and this line of thought is great, it helps to find anything that needs to be made sure of when they do create a socialized system. But using that line of thinking as proof that you are correct is just, well, illogical.




No they do not have to treat everyone with everything that the patient may want. Somebody is going to decide who gets what and by whom and for how long. And it won't be a doctor. It will be an unaccountable gummint beancounter who is not elected and is almost immune from being fired and is definitely immune from being sued. You have created a fictitious nightmare that doesn't exist and proposed a fictitious dream that can't exist to replace it. And, and this is my favorite part, you can always just PAY for your healthcare yourself. Fuck insurance companies, just pay yourself, then you can decide everything. Of course you might consider a cost/benefit analysis but hey, that's up to you. I did. I went out of network. Cost me $11,000. That's cool. My choice.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189678 - 07/17/07 07:25 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

xFrockx said:
Yeah, their beer is higher proof, have you ever been there? Seriously. Other than their general mental well being being significantly less on edge than the general American's, they eat, sleep, and do pretty much the same stuff we do.




Blacks have a much lower life expectancy. Are they just an inferior race? Have you ever seen blacks? Sure, they they eat, sleep, and do pretty much the same stuff we do, but for the love of the children, look at the numbers. They must be exterminated, it is our only hope for better health care.

Life expectancies means shit; comparing nations with them, even less

And Zappa it's an injustice that one mentions the criteria the WHO used in that study or your thorough destruction of them. It is ridiculous, this "37" bullshit is pulled by nearly everyone as some kind of trump card in health care debate when it's a farce.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: d33p]
    #7189702 - 07/17/07 07:32 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

d33p said:


And Zappa it's an injustice that one mentions the criteria the WHO used in that study or your thorough destruction of them. It is ridiculous, this "37" bullshit is pulled by nearly everyone as some kind of trump card in health care debate when it's a farce.




I apologize if it offends your tender sensibilities but whenever I see a baby seal I just have to get the truncheon out and ......WHACK the living shit out of the poor innocent thing.  I can't help it, I can't stop myself and, well, I'm not sure I want to.  So if you know I'm around and you see one of those precious little seals popping it's  head up, well, you might just want to avert your eyes cause it won't be pretty and it won't be MY FAULT.:cool:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7189728 - 07/17/07 07:37 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

"Not at all, I fully expect everybody to read my links. But that is rationing nonetheless. But your OK with denying care to the stupid and the weak (those who can't or won't quit smoking). Putting them behind (this is exactly rationing) those who toe the party line and are good little patients. Who's next on your list of unworthies? Fatties? The "Darwinism" was a nice touch. Thanks. I couldn't have exposed you better myself."

Obesity and smoking are both things that could potentially be helped by a socialized system that would benefit from helping people be healthier instead of keeping them sick so they can continue to treat them and milk money from them.

"No they do not have to treat everyone with everything that the patient may want. Somebody is going to decide who gets what and by whom and for how long. And it won't be a doctor. It will be an unaccountable gummint beancounter who is not elected and is almost immune from being fired and is definitely immune from being sued."

My response to this comes form your next sentence:

"You have created a fictitious nightmare that doesn't exist and proposed a fictitious dream that can't exist to replace it"

Did the government beat you when you were little? It doesn't have to be incompetent just because you say so.

Edited by xFrockx (07/17/07 07:39 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: d33p]
    #7189740 - 07/17/07 07:42 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

I haven't seen his argument against the WHO report, but if it is as 'holy' as some of the shit he has thrown at me in this thread I'm sure its a riot.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7189776 - 07/17/07 07:49 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

"No they do not have to treat everyone with everything that the patient may want. Somebody is going to decide who gets what and by whom and for how long. And it won't be a doctor. It will be an unaccountable gummint beancounter who is not elected and is almost immune from being fired and is definitely immune from being sued."

My response to this comes form your next sentence:

"You have created a fictitious nightmare that doesn't exist and proposed a fictitious dream that can't exist to replace it."




As someone who has dealt with the state-run Medicaid program in the past, let me assure you that this is not a fictitious nightmare.  I doubt whether Federal-level involvement in providing health care will NOT improve the situation.  Very little is covered.  The doctors who agree to accept Medicaid get paid a percentage of their usual fee, and their attitude tends to reflect this.  The best doctors do not accept Medicaid patients, because they don't have to.  They are the same doctors who would probably leave the country if they couldn't make a great living as a doctor anymore.

While having Medicaid available to those who absolutely can't afford any other option is better than nothing, forcing this standard of health care on the entire country would be a travesty.  :thumbdown:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinexFrockx
Male User Gallery


Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 51 minutes
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: Veritas]
    #7189867 - 07/17/07 08:11 PM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Assuming that a universal health care system would be as bad as the Medicaid system is just not logical. The medicaid system fails because its not universal, you said in your own post that the reason these doctors don't treat the patients as well is because they can make more serving non-Medicaid patients. Its like how vouchers screw up public education by diverting the funds needed to make public education worthwhile.

I highly doubt that all of our nations doctors will suddenly decide "Hey, you know what, I've always wanted to live in Aruba, fuck the US I'm out of here." The ones that would do so I don't want treating me anyway. The answer to making sure the socialized system maintains the same standard as the private one is taking the money out of the insurance companies pockets, and putting it into the pockets of heath care professionals who deserve it. There's no good reason we can't pay doctors just as well in a socialized system either, seeing as how a little less than half of health care expenses are already paid for by the government. Some believe that a socialized system would actually result in a cheaper system overall, because of the removal of the insurance company middle-man who really does nothing but make money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared#_note-13
Canadians pay 9% of GDP to insure 100% of citizens, compared with 14% of GDP to insure 85% of Americans.

Edited by xFrockx (07/17/07 08:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7192008 - 07/18/07 09:02 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

xFrockx writes:

Quote:

Well, Canada ranks higher than we do, have you ever been to Canada? Pretty fucking similar. Whats the difference? Socialized medicine.




I was born in Canada and lived there for the first three and a half decades of my life, then moved to the Dominican Republic, where I live today. I am very familiar with the Canadian medical system, thank you, as are my friends and relatives. Much more familiar than you are.

If you want to argue the advantages of socialized medicine, you'd do well not to use Canada as a shining example thereof. It's irreparably broken, as study after study has emphasized. You can't go five years in Canada without hearing about yet another government study of the Canadian health care crisis. Canada's idea of fixing the system is to commission massive government studies of the problem every five or ten years. The findings are always the same --

-- fewer and fewer students choosing to go into medicine
-- more and more medical professionals leaving the country
-- longer and longer wait times for everything from simple appointments with referring physicians to treatment for cancer
-- understaffing increasing -- to the point where tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians cannot find a family physician
-- appalling lack of diagnostic equipment (MRI machines, CT scanners, even ultrasound)
-- new treatments available elsewhere not available in Canada
-- more stuff I could remember if I took more time, but these will do for starters.

Socialized medicine has inherent negative characteristics that CANNOT be altered by its very nature, no matter how much tinkering is attempted. Not surprisingly, these flaws were predicted from the very beginning of the socialization of Canada's health care system in the early Sixties, and not surprisingly, those flaws appeared right on schedule.

The deadliest of these flaws is the inevitable rationing of medical care, leading to truly ridiculous wait times, but some of the other flaws as almost as deadly -- lack of medical imaging equipment and lack of newer treatments being probably second and third on the list.

Quote:

Pretty fucking similar. Whats the difference? Socialized medicine.




Here you refer to the difference in lifespan. There are other factors far more pertinent. I'll name just a few --

-- far fewer blacks in Canada.
-- far fewer babies in Canada born to crack-addicted and junky mothers
-- far fewer junkies, meth heads and crackheads per capita in Canada
-- fewer single-parent families in Canada
-- fewer immigrants from third world countries
-- much lower per capita prison population
-- far lower rate of AIDS in Canada
-- lower homicide rate
-- fewer smokers
-- fewer obese citizens

You also have to realize that the US measure of post-natal infant deaths is by far the strictest in the world, and extraordinary efforts are made to keep barely-viable babies alive if even for a day. This means babies which would in almost any other country be left to die at birth (hence not figure into life-expectancy figures at all) are counted by the US, and when they die a day (or even an hour) later, they are counted as a death.

You can't use contextless raw life expectancy figures as the sole (or even the major) indicator of quality of health care provided by a given country.



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: Phred]
    #7192310 - 07/18/07 10:56 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

So what is your solution to the health care crisis in America? To be consistent with you I will bullet point America's health care problems and provide no links

-Increasing Premiums
-Increasing numbers of uninsured men, women and children
-Increasing number of deaths as a result of a lack of insurance
-Decreasing number of Americans seeking preventative care due to an inablity to afford it (and I'm not talking about the flu I am talking about everything from Diabetes to AIDS)
-Decreasing number of employers who provide/are able to provide health insurance to their employees.

The bottom line: Every day the number of Americans who need to see a doctor but are unable to increases. The response I keep hearing to this is:

A) So what? This does not constitute a problem, that is their problem(e.g. Zappa)
B) I hate communists.
C) Well, I've never had any problems with health care, and hey its just a coincidence that I happen to be in my 20s and have no considerable health problems.
D) Well there may be a problem but there is no philosophical justification for why my tax dollars should pay for someone else's care.

Argument D is maybe the most well thought out but is also clearly an example of "cognitive dissonance." In other words, you have a knee jerk reaction against the idea of using more tax money to try and fix the system and your intellect tries to find a reason why so you bring philosophy into play. But ask yourself this, do you always stop to base your political decisions on philosophical grounds or do you usually just go with what makes sense for the most people?

My philosophical grounds for supporting socialized health care is that this is a democracy and if most of the citizens support something it should become reality. If you prefer a country that caters to the wealthy few and ignores the will of the people than maybe America is not for you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 18 days
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: gluke bastid]
    #7192363 - 07/18/07 11:10 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

> EVERY DAY THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO NEED TO SEE A DOCTOR BUT ARE UNABLE TO INCREASES

Oh joy, capital letters... thanks for shouting... :rolleyes:


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 5 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: Seuss]
    #7192378 - 07/18/07 11:15 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Seuss said:
> EVERY DAY THE NUMBER OF AMERICANS WHO NEED TO SEE A DOCTOR BUT ARE UNABLE TO INCREASES

Oh joy, capital letters... thanks for shouting... :rolleyes:




I'll edit the orignal post, ok?

I felt it was warranted to bring a certain amount of attention to that sentence as I have yet to hear someone who is anti-health care reform address this problem in a constructive manner. Anyone care to comment?


--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: gluke bastid]
    #7192468 - 07/18/07 11:45 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

So what is your solution to the health care crisis in America?




First of all, there is no health care crisis in the United States.

However, the best way to make health care in the US better than it is now is for the government to disengage from it entirely. Knowing that will never happen, the second best thing would be for the government to cut back its involvement substantially. Knowing THAT will never happen, the third best thing would be for government to freeze its involvement where it is today.

The fact of the matter is that it is up to YOU to pay for your own health care every bit as much as it is up to YOU to pay for your own food, water, clothing, energy, transportation, housing, tools and more.

Quote:

Argument D is maybe the most well thought out but is also clearly an example of "cognitive dissonance." In other words, you have a knee jerk reaction against the idea of using more tax money to try and fix the system and your intellect tries to find a reason why so you bring philosophy into play.




First of all, you don't understand the meaning of the term "cognitive dissonance". Second, you have my reasoning process exactly backwards. It's not that I observe a broken system, then try to find a way to justify philosophically not throwing tax dollars at it, it's that I recognize the system is broken because government is involved in it in the first place. If one adheres to a rational philosophy, it is immediately apparent that Government has no right to involve itself in the provision of health care to its citizens. The greater the government involvement, the worse off "the system" becomes. Logic tells us it cannot be otherwise, and real world experience demonstrates it cannot be otherwise. All one must do is observe the most draconian of the socialized medicine plans -- i.e. those of Canada and the UK. The greater the involvement of government, the more the system deteriorates. The best way to fix "the system" is to get government out of it.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, I'm not the one flailing around attempting to show why government should have anything at all to do with providing health care to its citizens. The only "answer" I have received so far boils down to "because it's expensive". Well, guess what? So is a car. Or a house. Should government provide us all cars? Or housing? If not, why not?

When one tries to validate this fervent belief that government should be the font of all that is good, it ultimately leads back to nothing more than:

Government should coerce humans because there are humans.

That is not an explanation, it is an arbitrary assertion.

Quote:

My philosophical grounds for supporting socialized health care is that this is a democracy and if most of the citizens support something it should become reality.




In other words, might is right. The biggest gang is all powerful. Well, I cannot deny that is a philosophy. A piss poor one, but a philosophy nonetheless.

Quote:

If you prefer a country that caters to the wealthy few...




The "wealthy few"? What percentage of Americans don't have medical insurance again? I seem to recall the figure of 14% being accepted as close to accurate. Since when does 86% equal a "few"?





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: i just saw Sicko [Re: xFrockx]
    #7192493 - 07/18/07 11:56 AM (16 years, 8 months ago)

Phred's response to you was far more detailed than mine could possibly have been, so I will not bother to respond to your assumptions regarding the improved quality and availability of health care under socialized medicine.

The only comment I have beyond what Phred has already eloquently expressed is this: if doctors only got paid when people were well (as it was in China at one time), we would not have a problem with health care. 

I refuse to save people from their outrageous lifestyle choices.  I already have no choice about contributing to a Social Security system that will likely be bankrupt by the time I retire, and I have little confidence that the U.S. government will be able to manage our 'contributions' to universal health care any better than they have our national pension system.  :thumbdown:

Free and low-cost health care is already available for those who truly cannot afford it, via state Medicaid programs.  Any actual life-threatening medical problems are covered, as is pre-natal care, labor & delivery services, Well baby and Well Child check-ups, and so on.  It's not the coverage you could get under private insurance, but we are not leaving people dying in the streets, either.

Additional assistance is available for those who make "too much" for Medicaid, via state Insurance Subsidy programs.  With these programs, you pay a percentage of your private insurance premium (between 5% and 50%), and you can choose whatever policy or company you like.  The state covers the rest of the cost of your premium.

For those with income and resources between Middle Class and Upper Class, it has to come down to priorities.  If their priority is to take fabulous vacations every year, they won't have the $ left over for health insurance.  Shall we bail them out?  I really don't feel sorry for them.  They are choosing where to put their money, just as we all do, and they are responsible for the consequences.

The bottom line for me is, if you want excellent health, it is UP TO YOU.  No doctor is going to "fix" what has occurred because of neglect and abuse, they just help you suppress the symptoms & keep on living for a while longer.  This is not something I see as worthwhile to fund for the entire nation, especially since we are already funding it for those who really cannot afford health care.  (As opposed to those who would like more $$ left over for that vacation in Aruba. :tongue:)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   North Spore Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Sick US Healthcare System
( 1 2 3 4 all )
DiploidM 5,857 67 06/16/07 11:09 AM
by Redstorm
* single payer only healthcare
( 1 2 3 4 ... 21 22 )
JT 17,707 430 09/11/09 05:48 PM
by Yrat
* Canoodlia's Healthcare system Luddite 3,036 19 07/07/07 09:30 AM
by RandalFlagg
* The Infamous Obama Healthcare
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Jryan 7,028 179 08/12/11 09:25 PM
by Jryan
* Badnarik and Libertarians "Sickos"? JesusChrist 2,413 14 09/10/04 01:20 PM
by Ancalagon
* Healthcare Bill & Student Loans
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
CycleThoughts 6,972 94 04/02/10 11:30 AM
by zappaisgod
* Bill for ending Healthcare Mandate
( 1 2 3 all )
Mr.Al 3,224 52 05/22/10 03:43 AM
by Mr.Al
* Self-reliance And Healthcare lines 314 1 09/07/11 12:45 PM
by zappaisgod

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
5,192 topic views. 3 members, 3 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.