Maybe now is the right time to organize

[bacha29]

And you seem to believe that if everyone has medicare, these doctors will maintain their practice of denying service to medicare clients and willingly give up on most potential customers. Foolish!!!!!!!

I don't think that Fred M realizes that whether you're PCP or a specialist as long as you are on Medicare assignment you will accept Medicare patients. And if you choose not to be on Medicare assignment far fewer public hospitals if any will grant you patient admission rights.

Then again if you've got the money to build your own hospital and thereby go independent accepting only those patients who can pay cash that's if you can find them more power to you . I sure Fred m will be one of their most valued patients.

 

[59 Dano]

I disagree.

A wealthy 90 year old should not have priority over a poor 10 year old.

A bachelor should not have priority over a mother caring for 3 small children.

You're looking at it wrong, as a case of A vs B. Neither of your arguments are wrong (or right).

A doctor, with all of his resources at his disposal -his knowledge and training, his equipment, his staff, etc.- can save seven of ten lives. More money gives him the ability to improve/upgrade his resources to the degree that faced with a similar situation in the future, he can save eight of ten lives.

From an ethical standpoint, his obligation is to do as much as can be reasonably be expected to save as many lives as possible. Treating the seven patients who are going to put him in a better position to save more lives in the future is the most ethical option.

The inherent problem with this dilemma is, who gets to decide. There is no perfect answer. A lottery, however, would be preferable to a balance sheet in making the determination.

A lottery? That means that people who are willing and able to pay through the nose for care don't get it because something random didn't happen in their favor. What good is that?

 

[Fred's Myth]

You're looking at it wrong, as a case of A vs B. Neither of your arguments are wrong (or right).

A doctor, with all of his resources at his disposal -his knowledge and training, his equipment, his staff, etc.- can save seven of ten lives. More money gives him the ability to improve/upgrade his resources to the degree that faced with a similar situation in the future, he can save eight of ten lives.

From an ethical standpoint, his obligation is to do as much as can be reasonably be expected to save as many lives as possible. Treating the seven patients who are going to put him in a better position to save more lives in the future is the most ethical option.

I still feel you're looking at it from a fiscal viewpoint, not an ethical one. While in many cases the choice would be the same, saving Jeff Epstein isn't more ethical than saving Mother Teresa.

 

[59 Dano]

Go back and read the post again. Where does it say anything about it being free? It was this nation's first real attempt at a national healthcare plan, It was 20 years in the making and the repugs fought it tooth and nail every step of the way..

The GOP opposed it because it would cost too much money. Here we are, 50-something years later, and federal government spending on Medicare has exceeded even the most bold predictions.

 

[59 Dano]

Medicare overhead is approximately 1/4 the cost of private insurers, and that is for a population that uses more services per person than younger people.

Proponents of Medicare love to cite that. They aren't smart enough to realize that it's because medical expenses for old people are higher, thus the administrative expenses are going to consume a smaller percentage of the costs.

 

[59 Dano]

I still feel you're looking at it from a fiscal viewpoint, not an ethical one. While in many cases the choice would be the same, saving Jeff Epstein isn't more ethical than saving Mother Teresa.

I'm looking at it from a viewpoint of saving the most lives in the long-term, not pitting a saint vs a scoundrel.

 

[dmac1]

I'm looking at it from a viewpoint of saving the most lives in the long-term, not pitting a saint vs a scoundrel.

If you cared about saving the most lives, you would be begging for a national healthcare plan even if it cost a few dollars extra. It is clear you don't care.

 

[59 Dano]

If you cared about saving the most lives, you would be begging for a national healthcare plan even if it cost a few dollars extra. It is clear you don't care.

If you really thought it would work as you claim, you'd be posting empirical data that proves it does.

Giving everyone "free" care increases the number of people seeking care. It does nothing to increase the number of people providing care and increases the cost of providing care. A policy doesn't get a pass on the realities of economics simply because some nutjob thinks it's a good policy.

 

[Nolimitz]

or a nut job that says it cant be done

 

[vantexan]

If you cared about saving the most lives, you would be begging for a national healthcare plan even if it cost a few dollars extra. It is clear you don't care.

And when the system crashes under it's own weight?

 

[dmac1]

If you really thought it would work as you claim, you'd be posting empirical data that proves it does.

Giving everyone "free" care increases the number of people seeking care. It does nothing to increase the number of people providing care and increases the cost of providing care. A policy doesn't get a pass on the realities of economics simply because some nutjob thinks it's a good policy.

You have some mental problem, it is obvious. No one ever mentioned free, yet, like a parrot that knows only one word, you keep repeating it over and over. Why can't you get it out of you head that no one ever claimed it would be free???????

 

[bacha29]

And when the system crashes under it's own weight?

And when the system crashes under it's own weight?

Why would you care? Don't you remember? You're moving to a foreign country and chances are it will have a national healthcare plan . Something you will probably not live long enough to ever see happen here in the states when Barrett& Co. get done with the ACA .

 

[vantexan]

Why would you care? Don't you remember? You're moving to a foreign country and chances are it will have a national healthcare plan . Something you will probably not live long enough to ever see happen here in the states when Barrett& Co. get done with the ACA .

Unlike you I care about what happens to the U.S. The world is a better place with a strong United States. Capitalism will feed, clothe, and house more people than any other system but if you have your way we'll end up like Venezuela. Thank God for people like Amy Coney Barrett who'll keep us strong and prevent the rot of socialism taking hold. Huzzah!!

 

[59 Dano]

or a nut job that says it cant be done

Let's see...

There's a guy who says it can't be done because it hasn't been done and there's two centuries of economic study to explain why it can't be done and hasn't been done. You call him a nut.

There's a guy who thinks it can be done because it can be done, he thinks. You don't see him as a nut.

Alrighty.

 

[dmac1]

Let's see...

There's a guy who says it can't be done because it hasn't been done and there's two centuries of economic study to explain why it can't be done and hasn't been done. You call him a nut.

There's a guy who thinks it can be done because it can be done, he thinks. You don't see him as a nut.

Alrighty.

Except universal health care has been done in places where greed and political donations don't carry as much weight.

 

[59 Dano]

You have some mental problem, it is obvious. No one ever mentioned free, yet, like a parrot that knows only one word, you keep repeating it over and over. Why can't you get it out of you head that no one ever claimed it would be free???????

OK, not free. Regardless, it creates a significant increase in demand for a system that is, by some accounts, already strained. It does nothing to increase the number of providers or the capacity of the system to administer this additional care.

But hey, why discuss such inconsequential facts when there are minor semantic points to be made? It's as if the fundamental workings of such a system are over your head or something.

 

[It will be fine]

OK, not free. Regardless, it creates a significant increase in demand for a system that is, by some accounts, already strained. It does nothing to increase the number of providers or the capacity of the system to administer this additional care.

But hey, why discuss such inconsequential facts when there are minor semantic points to be made? It's as if the fundamental workings of such a system are over your head or something.

Simplifying billing and administration would be a benefit to increase supply. It’s anecdotal but I know a few doctors that retired earlier than they would have because fighting with insurance companies to collect was too burdensome.

 

[59 Dano]

Except universal health care has been done in places where greed and political donations don't carry as much weight.

The argument isn't that universal care can't exist in the United States. It can. The argument is that it won't be an improvement over what we have now, either in terms of cost or efficiency.

 

[bacha29]

Unlike you I care about what happens to the U.S. The world is a better place with a strong United States. Capitalism will feed, clothe, and house more people than any other system but if you have your way we'll end up like Venezuela. Thank God for people like Amy Coney Barrett who'll keep us strong and prevent the rot of socialism taking hold. Huzzah!!

When you go to that other country chances are it's healthcare system will be to a considerable degree socialist in it's design. Sort of the like the socialist healthcare system we currently have....It's called Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security. These are all very much "socialist" in their design.

Trouble is you keep trying to cherry pick and separate out the "socialist" programs that stand to benefit you from the ones that won't ..Now what's the sense in that?

 

[59 Dano]

Simplifying billing and administration would be a benefit to increase supply. It’s anecdotal but I know a few doctors that retired earlier than they would have because fighting with insurance companies to collect was too burdensome.

That wouldn't amount to enough to matter. The problem is that the population is growing at a faster rate than the number of doctors, and people are living longer.