Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 13 of 16
Quote:OK. I'm getting your vocabulary. For you, accusing scientists of not being scientifically rigorous about a scientific matter is NOT talking science. When those IPCC people present their stuff, now that's science and you oughta judge them hard and fast and be so absolutely certain that they're not using good science so that you can call it pseudo-science and that means that when you knock their science you're not talking science and you need not solidly back anything because it's not really science.
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So now you're all scientific rigor. It does seem to come and go.
Let me explain it using small words.
If I am talking about science, I use science.
If I am talking about something that is not science, I don't use science.
Of course, except that you know that their science is bad because you're a trained scientist talking science, except remember that it's not really science in the sense that you need no science to support your view of how much the climate change -- scratch that, GW -- science sucks other then to say how you've heard some things here and there, and that certainly knocks down all the GW science -- scratch that, all the GW pseudo-science -- and besides there's this web page that tells about the bad science in full scientific detail that you don't need to take the time to explain because...
...wait for it...
you're not talking science.
Check.
(God that was fun.)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki
I don't think they're inconsistent beliefs.
1. If there were no govt. there would be no licensing, and no regulation, and there would be no AMA.
2. I don't have to guess that these things are the very things which make healthcare expensive, because I remember when healthcare was not expensive, and I'm guessing that most of the people on this board do. When I was a kid, a trip to the doctor cost around $3. My mom just went to the hospital for pneumonia, and the visit was routine, probably above par, but less attention and accuracy than you would have gotten even 30 years ago, for around $1500.
3. Given 1) and 2) the government has created a situation in which healthcare is not something that people can afford. If this is the case, then there has to be something which protects the people from having to pay it.
Think of this from another angle. My 2nd amendment right to have my own personal nuclear weapon is being infringed upon. Fortunately, my govt. works to protect me from nuclear attack. Okay, granted, the govt. created the problem by creating the bomb in the first place, and then making enemies, etc. but still, now the problem is here, and it needs dealing with.
Sure, no govt or limited govt. is an end goal, but not one to be hailed tomorrow morning, because there are a lot of american citizens with their own social security numbers and papers in order and they pay taxes and everything, oh boy, and yet I still feel uneasy with some of them toting around nuclear missiles, especially some of them being the sorts who might blow themselves up with nukes just to spite their parents and every form of sentient life for many miles around. (ah yes, nuclear teen angst)
So, yes, govt. performs a function in protecting you from a govt. created situation. Yeah, ultimately, I would much rather go to the doctor myself and pay regular cash, whatever it really merits, the result of the devaluation of three bucks, probably the $60 my local clinic charges, not $1500. When they prescribe me medicine, it should cost a couple dollars, not $200. If I want to completely opt out of the system, treat myself with herbs that I grow myself, that should be an option, and no one should fine my family $750 a head for doing so.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I completely agree with the gist of what you're saying. My take: suppose I break my arm. Suppose my neighbor is a doctor with full training in setting bones. Why is there no easy path to getting us together at a mutually agreed on price? Even damned chickens.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
So, yes, govt. performs a function in protecting you from a govt. created situation. Yeah, ultimately, I would much rather go to the doctor myself and pay regular cash, whatever it really merits, the result of the devaluation of three bucks, probably the $60 my local clinic charges, not $1500. When they prescribe me medicine, it should cost a couple dollars, not $200. If I want to completely opt out of the system, treat myself with herbs that I grow myself, that should be an option, and no one should fine my family $750 a head for doing so.
Why does the patient/doctor relationship go through so many middlemen?So I see this healthcare bill as having two general possibilities: either the govt is being added as another useless middleman to be paid off, or it is the first step in breaking the choke-hold that the HMOs and big hospital conglomerations have on our medical care.
I don't think there's a clean answer to that, because I think interests on both sides have their hands in this bill. It could go either way. But I think - cautiously hopeful - that it's closer to the second.
Because HMOs are there to make profit, while govt is - or should be - there to serve the people. We have more control over govt. then we do over the small table of CEOs.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal
I suspect the bill will pull us in deeper in locking the industry to the practice.
Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere like I do. We had a small town doctor who died some years back. Another doctor came here from Slovakia to take over. It lasted a couple of years, but the regulations required him to have certain equipment, that equipment was under patent, those patents demanded high licensing fees that only a hospital could afford, the hospital was only willing to loan it out if the operation turned a profit. It didn't, because there weren't enough patients, because there wasn't enough population... so...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Good lord. Reminds me of trying to get any cable internet company other than the Comcast out in VT. I called every one company in the phonebook - Federal laws prevented them from laying and using lines in my part of the state.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mal
I suspect the bill will pull us in deeper in locking the industry to the practice.
Maybe you live in the middle of nowhere like I do. We had a small town doctor who died some years back. Another doctor came here from Slovakia to take over. It lasted a couple of years, but the regulations required him to have certain equipment, that equipment was under patent, those patents demanded high licensing fees that only a hospital could afford, the hospital was only willing to loan it out if the operation turned a profit. It didn't, because there weren't enough patients, because there wasn't enough population... so...
Should have figured the same bullcrap happens with doctors.
But with the bill, I have to ask: what route is there to fixing this messed up system? Anything giving people a choice so we can vote that way - choose not to use the big companies, is the right direction.
OK, and now I'm dreaming that the public option had passed.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Public option should be passed by states now. That would free us from the insurance companies grips. Also, I'm in favor of removing the requirement that corporations pay for health care, that just puts a fat cow to give perpetual food to the insurance industry. Instead, have corporations pay tax, then have the tax pay for the public option, then have the govt. negotiate with the healthcare providers and the drug companies.
Okay, I see the flaw in this plan: They'd just take over the govt.
Slight twist: Make several recipient non-profit corporations, no screw that, for profit corporations (if there's no profit in the company, they'll find it in corruption.) Then these companies can make competitive bids to pay for healthcare.
Whatever it is, the long term goal has to be bringing the price down to normal, and then cutting it free, except for the people so poor they can't afford a $60 visit.
Right now I think a decent rough estimate is around 90% of healthcare costs are absolute air, and would require no change. After that, I think you could trim it by maybe two thirds by being logical.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As I read it, that was kind of the idea of the public option, wasn't it? The government wasn't going to PROVIDE the healthcare, just charge the actual cost of the healthcare, eliminating profit, skyrocketing administrative costs, high salaries for insurance CEOs, etc., and negotiate lower costs for healthcare. I could be wrong.
Make several recipient non-profit corporations, no screw that, for profit corporations (if there's no profit in the company, they'll find it in corruption.) Then these companies can make competitive bids to pay for healthcare
As to nonprofits "finding" it through corruption, I believe the worst corruption in things like Medicare is from the PROVIDERS and the PATIENTS, not the nonprofit Medicare system itself, or am I wrong? I've worked with a lot of nonprofits; aside from over-paying their heads (in my opinion), I've seen little or no corruption making anyone rich. Just my experience.
I reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health insurance, or health care. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
... and besides there's this web page that tells about the bad science in full scientific detail that you don't need to take the time to explain because...
you're not talking science.
Wow. That diatribe was downright mean. I must say, I'm surprised. I didn't expect that from you, Mal.
When I'm talking about science, I use science. I don't necessarily want to go into the complex details of the science right now, right on demand. Esp with someone who doesn't understand the meaning of the word, "later."
I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, that somehow you just have a different definition of "later." Now I'm convince you don't know what "later" means.
So, no more "later." I AM writing you off now, Mal. Have a good life.
-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health insurance, or health care. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
I don't think the enormous cost of clinical trials and licensing of drugs/physicians and malpractice lawsuits/insurance, which are ultimately absorbed by the consumer, can be disputed.
When you reject the idea that the government is to blame for the higher cost of health care, do you mean these costs are justified and unavoidable?
What DO you blame for the higher costs of health care? Or do you think current health care costs are fair and cannot be reasonably lowered?
-----
“Don't ask yourself what the world needs. Ask yourself what makes you come alive and then go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive." --- Dr. Wayne Dyer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Niki,
ya missed my point, a few times, i'll try again
1) Corruption comes from the existence of power, not from any structural form of organization. Any corporation can be corrupt. Medicare possesses no power, the healthcare industry has a lot..
2) Competition between contractors for the provision of the *insurance*, not the healthcare. I thought I made that clear. The public option creates a govt. agency that would handle how the system should be paid. That *handing* is power. If there is power, there will be corruption. In this case, the corruption is that the healthcare providers would take over the regulatory agency which made those decisions to ensure that they spent more money.
3) You can choose to disagree, but it's not a matter of opinion, I was simply stating and clarifying a fairly obvious fact. Sure, most everything we say is opinion. Sometimes there is one thing which is right, and another which is wrong, such as that Hu Jintao is the leader of China, and not the leader of Japan.
Specifically, the fact here is the advent of the intervention of *our* govt. into *this* healthcare system, which was accompanied by soaring prices, sort of like the coincidence of college tuition and the trading of student loans. It's sort of obvious that one caused the other, even though, yes, correlation does not prove causality, because when you have enough statistical data, and any reason, then it makes sense, failing something else.
If you have any competing theory on what drove up the cost of US medical care and not that of the rest of the free market medical world feel free to share. Personally, I cannot logically conclude anything other than a US regulation would be the potential cause, and was postulating a possible mechanism for the relationship.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME