Why do we need universal healthcare?

[DjTj]

The project was too big for one contractor. You are missing the point.

I found a timeline for the space shuttle bidding process: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

Do you buy the cheapest TV, car....etc. Is there anything you are willing to pay a premium for? Like a heart surgeon if needed? :whoknows:

I bought a Samsung TV instead of a Sony because of the price. I drive a Honda instead of a Lexus because of the price ... I have never switched doctors because of price.

[portisizzle]

I found a timeline for the space shuttle bidding process: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

I bought a Samsung TV instead of a Sony because of the price. I drive a Honda instead of a Lexus because of the price ... I have never switched doctors because of price.

Thanks for shuttle education.

Have you had major surgery in your past? Are you saying that the doctors background in the type of surgery, reputation, and by extension cost, would not come into affect at that point? Or are you saying that you would not even consider this because you do not think you have to power to make that decision?

[TheKurp]

And that's exactly why the free market system has failed in health care.

If people are not comparison shopping, costs will continue to rise. The product-to-customer relationship in health care has no downward pressure on price. When people are sick, they are willing to pay any price to get healthy. Nobody shops around for the cheapest doctor; we try to find the best doctor at any price.

If cost doesn't factor into our market decisions, costs will continue to rise. :2cents:

That's a pretty naive viewpoint. How many people do you trust to set a price for a product or service that won't earn them a decent profit?

Whether you believe it or not, doctors need patients. If patients can't afford a particular doctor then you better believe they'll either go without or go elsewhere. By what criteria do you believe people choose between different health care packages offered by companies? I guarantee you monthly costs are a factor.

How do you think a doctor sets his price? He adds up the costs of the loans on his medical schooling, the costs of the diagnostic equipment and other office equipment, the costs of supporting personnel, the costs of his medical mal-practice insurance, and all other costs associated with his practice, and then sets a price that will not only turn a profit, but a price that will make him competitive in the marketplace. Remember, no patients = no business. No business = no profit.

If you simply look at the cheapest doctor you better ask yourself why he is the cheapest? Is his diagnotic equipment paid off and thus very likely antiquated? Are his medical school loan payments low? If so, why? Is it because he went to a less expensive school and thus his education less than top-notch? Is he paying his staff low wages? Why do they accept low wages? Is it because no one else is willing to pay them more because of their skill level?

Do you really want to put your health in the hands of someone who has sub-par schooling, sub-par assistants, and sub-par equipment? If so, good luck to you.

[Zguy28]

Why do we need another thread on universal healthcare?

Why do you need to post in it?

I bought a Samsung TV instead of a Sony because of the price. I drive a Honda instead of a Lexus because of the price ... I have never switched doctors because of price.

Neither have I.

[DjTj]

Thanks for shuttle education.

Have you had major surgery in your past? Are you saying that the doctors background in the type of surgery, reputation, and by extension cost, would not come into affect at that point? Or are you saying that you would not even consider this because you do not think you have to power to make that decision?

I have never had any surgery other than having my wisdom teeth out, and I did go to a big fancy dentist for that.

My mom had major surgery a few years ago, and the doctor's background and reputation certainly factored in. Cost wasn't much of a concern, and that's my point:

When people are choosing doctors, they want the best, and they are willing to pay high prices to get healthy. There is a strong upward pressure on medical costs because people value quality so highly. There are few downward pressures on cost because few people are switching doctors to save a few bucks. That's why medical costs are rising and will always rise: because people are very willing to pay.

[JMS]

First off it's not about doctor visits, or doctors. It's about hospital visits.

• Doctor fees are not the problem.
  
• Lawsuits are not a significant contributor to the problem.
  

The problem is that we collectively pay for healthcare today. Communities pay for the bulk of the expenses for Hospitals, not the patients who recieve the treatments. If you walk in the door of a hospital and get an .02$ asprin you pay 100$ or more for the visit. If you get a 10$ proceedure you could pay 500$ or more. Cause you are paying for the Hospitals equipment even though you didn't benifit from that equipment during these visits. It's long ago been decided that Hospitals could pass along their costs in this manor.

This ability for the Hospital to pass along costs to the entire community unrelated to service means that every piece of equipment that Hospital purchases becomes a profit center for that hospital. The hospital literally has every incentive to purchase expensive new equipment regardless of utility, because it all gets paid for and all turns a profit in the end.

It's what happens in any economic model when their is no downward pressure placed on spending. That's the reason we had more MRI machines (8) at 10 million dollars a pop in the Washington DC area than all of Canada in the early 1980's. Because regardless of need, those machines all were expected to turn a profit for the folks who purchased them. That's why we have almost as many MRI machines just in Reston today as we had in all of the DC area two decades ago. ( between Reston Hospital and Fair Oaks. )

That's why you can't afford to go to the doctor today. ( actually hospital )...

Ronald Reagan bless his sole believed that introducing big business into the American healthcare industry through deregulation would result in curbing out of control spending. Reagan theorized that American business was better at making things run more efficiently than any other force in the nation. Problem is Reagan got it wrong. American business first second and always is about making money. If they can do it by making things run more efficiently then they will do that. If they can do it by simple charging more; then they'll do that. In the healthcare industry were they were free to write most of their own regulations, they created a system with no downward pressure from the consumer.

Why do we need universal coverage.

(1) Because we can get it for half the price of our current system.

(2) Because Universal models like France's provide better service than the American Model.

(3) Because we already have a collective system today, just a bad one.

(4) Because sharing collective costs while not being organized collectively is the primary reason for out of control costs.

[Zguy28]

Do you really want to put your health in the hands of someone who has sub-par schooling, sub-par assistants, and sub-par equipment? If so, good luck to you.

And do you really want to put your health in the hands of someone whose only in it for profit?

[portisizzle]

And do you really want to put your health in the hands of someone whose only in it for profit?

They do not make a profit if they are not good. As a rule of course.

[JMS]

Canada has always had very high gas prices on top of several other heavily taxed items to help pay for their government programs.

Can you imagine the outrage when we are paying $5.00+ for a gallon of gas, on top of increased income and sales taxes.

Americans pay more than twice what Canadians pay for our healthcare per capita and Cananadians have Universal coverage and the United States leaves out 50 million people.

Universal coverage is a economic net gain, when compared to our current system.

[JMS]

They do not make a profit if they are not good. As a rule of course.

What are you talking about.. They always make a profit.

[portisizzle]

First off it's not about doctor visits, or doctors. It's about hospital visits.

• Doctor fees are not the problem.
  
• Lawsuits are not a significant contributor to the problem.
  

The problem is that we collectively pay for healthcare today. Communities pay for the bulk of the expenses for Hospitals, not the patients who recieve the treatments. If you walk in the door of a hospital and get an .02$ asprin you pay 100$ or more for the visit. If you get a 10$ proceedure you could pay 500$ or more. Cause you are paying for the Hospitals equipment even though you didn't benifit from that equipment during these visits. It's long ago been decided that Hospitals could pass along their costs in this manor.

This ability for the Hospital to pass along costs to the entire community unrelated to service means that every piece of equipment that Hospital purchases becomes a profit center for that hospital. The hospital literally has every incentive to purchase expensive new equipment regardless of utility, because it all gets paid for and all turns a profit in the end.

It's what happens in any economic model when their is no downward pressure placed on spending. That's the reason we had more MRI machines (8) at 10 million dollars a pop in the Washington DC area than all of Canada in the early 1980's. Because regardless of need, those machines all were expected to turn a profit for the folks who purchased them. That's why we have almost as many MRI machines just in Reston today as we had in all of the DC area two decades ago. ( between Reston Hospital and Fair Oaks. )

That's why you can't afford to go to the doctor today. ( actually hospital )...

Ronald Reagan bless his sole believed that introducing big business into the American healthcare industry through deregulation would result in curbing out of control spending. Reagan theorized that American business was better at making things run more efficiently than any other force in the nation. Problem is Reagan got it wrong. American business first second and always is about making money. If they can do it by making things run more efficiently then they will do that. If they can do it by simple charging more; then they'll do that. In the healthcare industry were they were free to write most of their own regulations, they created a system with no downward pressure from the consumer.

Why do we need universal coverage.

That same system guarantees service EVEN IF YOU CAN NOT PAY. What more "downward" pressure do you need?

And we do not need universal coverage because

(1) Because it will cost twice that of our current system.

(2) Because Universal models are proven to KILL you when you need emergency surgery.

(3) Because we already have a collective system today, and a governmental entity controlling it would only make it worse.

(4) Because sharing collective costs is exactly what will happen when universal healthcare is implemented. Except we will have a whole new AND EXPENSIVE middle man, with a record of corruption and an inability to manage money, running the show with ZERO incentive to control cost or overhead.

5)Added bonus. No intelligent person in their right mind would DARE spend the years learning this difficult craft and subject himself/herself to the same treatment that we give to TEACHERS.

[portisizzle]

What are you talking about.. They always make a profit.

always?

[JMS]

It is not about money. And it makes as much sense as our government feeling the need to be involved in the mail business, or the education business.

It is about money.

It is about a philosophy. A philosophy that says the government is the cure for all our ills. Both literally and figuratively.

Only an idiot could look at the American healthcare industry and see a free market system. The American system is riddled with collectivism and government regulations. It's the most heavily regulated sector of the American economy.

Why? Because when equipment costs eclipse the monitary value they can reasonable be expected to generate during the length of their servicable lifespan; the free market system does not work. Hospitals must be allowed to pass the costs of this equipment on to the community. That's called socialism, or collectivism. And when you create a system like this with no downward pressure on purchasing new equipment other than what the community can afford; costs go out of control.

The only solution is to match the government regulations on the monitary side to keep the system from flying away from all fiscal responsibility on the profit system.

The system we have today rewards any an all investment without any note for utility for the patient or merrit. It's untenable.

[Thiebear]

Originally Posted by DjTj

I bought a Samsung TV instead of a Sony because of the price. I drive a Honda instead of a Lexus because of the price ... I have never switched doctors because of price.

I have the same above items for the same reason to include the WII.

I say its great because i don't have the PS3.

When i got GBS i went to a specialist that ran 2 different offices in Arlington and some other place with a TON of people working for him. When i complained about the walk to his office considering the condition he said " your the only person that walks on this floor" and i shut my mouth.

Being the best and paid more is one of the greatest things ever!

[JMS]

always?

The ability for a hospital to make a profit is not associated with the effectiveness of the treatments they provide.

It is solely based upon the communities ability to pay.

That in a nutshell is the problem with our healthcare system.

Hospitals in prosperous communities turn a profit 100% of the time. The cost of any high priced gadget the Hospital purchases can be passed along to the community along with their profit margin regardless of whether that gadget helps the majority of the community and in the absense of any type of cost benefit analysis.

[portisizzle]

The ability for a hospital to make a profit is not associated with the effectiveness of the treatments they provide.

It is solely based upon the communities ability to pay.

That in a nutshell is the problem with our healthcare system.

Hospitals in prosperous communities turn a profit 100% of the time. The cost of any high priced gadget the Hospital purchases can be passed along to the community along with their profit margin regardless of whether that gadget helps the majority of the community and in the absense of any type of cost benefit analysis.

If you see failure in the system from a community level I simply can not fathom why you can not see this amplified in an immeasurable way when/if the federal government gets involved.

When has the government been known to drive down cost? Even when there is a cut in the budget all they are really talking about is a cut in the percentage increase guaranteed in prior year budgets.

And you have not addressed the concern that doctors will be treated like teachers in such a system. Can you say tenureship without accountability in all but the most severe circumstances? How about the removal of capitalistic motivations for doctors to do a good job and by treating patients nicely?

[helptheSKINS]

That same system guarantees service EVEN IF YOU CAN NOT PAY. What more "downward" pressure do you need?

And we do not need universal coverage because

(1) Because it will cost twice that of our current system.

(2) Because Universal models are proven to KILL you when you need emergency surgery.

(3) Because we already have a collective system today, and a governmental entity controlling it would only make it worse.

(4) Because sharing collective costs is exactly what will happen when universal healthcare is implemented. Except we will have a whole new AND EXPENSIVE middle man, with a record of corruption and an inability to manage money, running the show with ZERO incentive to control cost or overhead.

5)Added bonus. No intelligent person in their right mind would DARE spend the years learning this difficult craft and subject himself/herself to the same treatment that we give to TEACHERS.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner

[JMS]

That same system guarantees service EVEN IF YOU CAN NOT PAY. What more "downward" pressure do you need?

Wrong. Hospitals are not legally bound to treat anybody if they can not pay. They are legally bound only to "stabalize" people regardless of ability to pay.

And we do not need universal coverage because

(1) Because it will cost twice that of our current system.

:doh: , actually Americans pay twice the cost of any other nation in the world. Actually America is the only industrialized country in the world which doesn't have Universal coverage.

(2) Because Universal models are proven to KILL you when you need emergency surgery.

:doh: Actually, all the collective systems operated by industrial nations offer superior care when put up against America's system.

ALL OF THEM!!!

The World Health Organization for instance ranks America's system 37th in the world behind some third world countries, even though Americans pay twice what some of those ranked ahead of us pay per capita, and ten times the amount of others ranked near us.

(3) Because we already have a collective system today, and a governmental entity controlling it would only make it worse.

Here you are right. We do have a collective system today. One who's regulations were written by the industry itself. Thus the government doesn't control it, rather it's the other way around.

(4) Because sharing collective costs is exactly what will happen when universal healthcare is implemented. Except we will have a whole new AND EXPENSIVE middle man, with a record of corruption and an inability to manage money, running the show with ZERO incentive to control cost or overhead.

We already share collective costs, and we already have a middle man who's profits and expenses are growing two and three times the rate of inflation for thirty years.

If Costa Rica can have Universal Coverage without government corruption harming them, and offer better care than the US system; then Americans should be able to expect our government to be at least that effective..

5)Added bonus. No intelligent person in their right mind would DARE spend the years learning this difficult craft and subject himself/herself to the same treatment that we give to TEACHERS.

? All other industialized countries in the world have universal coverage while paying half or significantly less than half of what Americans pay per capita. Are you saying the the United States with our 37th ranked healthcare system is the only country with Doctors? I guess I missed your point.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[portisizzle]

While temporarily ignoring you point by point response to the above. Please tell me what that ranking really means? 37th. If we were #1 how would this impact ME as a consumer of health care? Both financially and in terms of what I am getting for my increased cost.

[JMS]

While temporarily ignoring you point by point response to the above. Please tell me what that ranking really means?

It means that unrelated to price per capita Amercans healthcare system provides inferior care than 37 other countries. It means that countries with Universal Coverage like France, Itally, Germany, and Spain offer better service not inferior service.

37th. If we were #1 how would this impact ME as a consumer of health care? Both financially and in terms of what I am getting for my increased cost.

You misunderstand. If we adopted Frances socialized universal healthcare system your costs would drop in half. You wouldn't be spending more, you would actually save money; while service would go up.

That's why it makes so much sense.

[portisizzle]

Wrong. Hospitals are not legally bound to treat anybody if they can not pay. They are legally bound only to "stabalize" people regardless of ability to pay.

Wrong. Hospitals are required to perform service regardless of you ability to pay. We are talking about emergency situations and not coming into the hospital with the flu.

:doh: , actually Americans pay twice the cost of any other nation in the world. Actually America is the only industrialized country in the world which doesn't have Universal coverage.

Even if true I still fail to see how adding another layer (more like fifty layers) of federal government is going to cut this number in half. If that is what you are expecting and what you are trying to sell me on then on word for you. FAIL.

:doh: Actually, most collective systems actually offer superior care when put up against America's system. The World Health Organization for instance ranks America's system 37th in the world behind some third world countries, even though americans pay twice what some of those ranked ahead of us pay per capita, and ten times the amount of others ranked near us.

And you think adding further governmental control of our system will actually LOWER this cost. lol.

Here you are right. We do have a collective system today. One who's regulations were written by the industry itself. Thus the government doesn't control it, rather it's the other way around.

Good.

We already share collective costs, and we already have a middle man who's profits and expenses are growing two and three times the rate of inflation for thirty years.

If Costa Rica can do it without government coruption harming them, and offer better care than the US system; Then Americans can expect our government to do the same.

No comment that i have not already made

? All other industialized countries in the world have universal coverage while paying half of what Americans pay per capita. Are you saying the the United States with our 37th ranked healthcare system is the only country with Doctors? I guess I missed your point.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[portisizzle]

It means that unrelated to price per capita Amercans healthcare system provides inferior care than 37 other countries. It means that countries with Universal Coverage like France, Itally, Germany, and Spain offer better service not inferior service.

You misunderstand. If we adopted Frances socialized universal healthcare system your costs would drop in half. You wouldn't be spending more, you would actually save money; while service would go up.

That's why it makes so much sense.

Proof is what I need right now. Can you do it without using data from the WHO? I am talking about quality and cost. Considering the nature of this country and the sheer number of people that we have in relationship to, say, France.

[JMS]

If you see failure in the system from a community level I simply can not fathom why you can not see this amplified in an immeasurable way when/if the federal government gets involved.

I can certainly see and am well aware of the evils of big government. I just disagree that big governemnt is the only evil our people need to be protected from. I as a student of history am well aware that the government is the only entitety which can effectively protect the people from trusts and monopolies and that's what our healthcare industry has become.

I would further state that if 37 other nations can adopt socialized medicine and beat the US on price point and service; The US system is in crisis. A crisis we must address.

When has the government been known to drive down cost? Even when there is a cut in the budget all they are really talking about is a cut in the percentage increase guaranteed in prior year budgets.

Railroad transportation costs in the 1890's

Steel in the 1900's.

Banking in the 1900's

Aluminum in the 1950's.

The government has effectively dealt with trusts and out of control profiteering in passed centuries.

And you have not addressed the concern that doctors will be treated like teachers in such a system. Can you say tenureship without accountability in all but the most severe circumstances? How about the removal of capitalistic motivations for doctors to do a good job and by treating patients nicely?

Socialized Medicine in europe did not really reduce doctor fee's or the attractiveness of the medical profession for doctors. Your concern for doctors seems irrational considering the United States is the only industrialized country in the world which doesn't have universal coverage, and even third world countries are beating us in service.

[helptheSKINS]

Found this online. Makes points for both side. I think #12 under "no" is pretty scary. I just can't see it happening .

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm

[portisizzle]

JMS I did a little research on France's healthcare system. Of course the first thing that I found is that there seems to be little litigation in that country. So I can absolutely see how a system without legal accountability could drastically reduce cost.

Of course THAT system will never happen here in the U.S. purely based upon this difference.

I was unable to determine what the cost of this system is with reference to levies and taxes. But it does seem as though the employer is responsible for the collection of that tax. It is also a reason why business is reluctant to hire based upon this cost.

Thoughts?