Rockpile233 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 You do realize that's the way it was before government intruded into the health care industry, right? Why do you think coverage became so damned convoluted and complicated - because doctors did it? This is not aimed specifically at you, Rockpile233 - just a general statement: I've said this before, but with a wave of new visitors to this forum it bears repeating: Health care is NOT a system. It's private enterprise. It's an industry. Doctors are not, nor should they be, government employees. Politicians do not know what your personal medical needs are, nor should they - it's not their job. Medicine and treatment was pretty damned good in this country before they got involved. It's politicians that created all the stupid, bureaucratic legislation that has made everything inaccessible to most people, and to look to the same bunch to make it affordable again is nothing short of retarded. It's Friday and I'm not in the mood to bash my head against the wall, but I do understand where you are coming from. I would like to clarify I'm a proponent of socializing the insurance. The doctors would not be government workers. The ACA is clearly not working for a great many people and the way it was passed was BS. But since I subscribe to that vision I would apply lessons learned to make changes rather than go back the other way. To be honest, the GOP bill is evidence to me of a growing bipartisan acknowledgment of all people needing access to affordable insurance . I was honestly surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The genius of Obamacare is that it's a parasite that can kill the patient if removed. Like Social Security, we're stuck with this monstrosity. I have a co-work who absolutely believes that Republicans are evil. No nuance. No grey area. He actually thinks that Republicans just want to watch the world burn. Like super-villians. And he's in his 50's. You're lucky if you only know one person that thinks this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockpile233 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The difference being that clean air and water are non-exclusive-use resources: my use of treated water does not preclude yours. My use of health care resources, however, DOES preclude your use. Yes I suppose that's fair. I was simply using it to illustrate a point that both our money and private business capital is used all the time to offer rights even to people that aren't paying in. I understand the issue of availability/options and find that to be an interesting conversation, but I would say the majority of people against socialized medicine don't use these issues to argue their point (potential lack of innovation is another key one) and rather rage against paying for people they view as "lazy" or "losing the competition." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 As a conservative I don't want to settle for Obamacare lite. The republicans should not take ownership of any plan that isn't market based and a vast improvement over Obamacare. If it is going to take 3 phases to do it they had better be damn sure that they can actually get it done. If this can't be accomplished let the totally partisan ACA die on its own and force the dems to own that failure along with their failure to work with the republicans to get something that works. Under no circumstances should the dems be let off the hook. They need to pay a political price if they don't work with the republicans to get a good deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 It's Friday and I'm not in the mood to bash my head against the wall, but I do understand where you are coming from. I would like to clarify I'm a proponent of socializing the insurance. The doctors would not be government workers. The ACA is clearly not working for a great many people and the way it was passed was BS. But since I subscribe to that vision I would apply lessons learned to make changes rather than go back the other way. To be honest, the GOP bill is evidence to me of a growing bipartisan acknowledgment of all people needing access to affordable insurance . I was honestly surprised. You won't get too many arguments that something as universally critical as health insurance should be made as affordable and widely available as possible. The argument from the right side though is that by socializing it, you will not get the mythical cost savings and you will get worse service as the outcome. The question as always, what's a better solution - Better service for a vast majority of people or worse service for everybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 I understand the issue of availability/options and find that to be an interesting conversation, but I would say the majority of people against socialized medicine don't use these issues to argue their point (potential lack of innovation is another key one) and rather rage against paying for people they view as "lazy" or "losing the competition." You're probably right there. In all the time I've been pointing out the difference between exclusive and non-exclusive use, I think you're the first person that's even paid attention. Which is unfortunate, because if you want to design a "universal health care" plan, you have to consider it, since every non-exclusive-use resource in history has been driven by market forces. Meaning eventually you either get shortages or high costs one way or another, so your plan better damn well take it in to consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 The ultimate solution would be for the government to directly regulate the price; like they did in Venezuela. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 You won't get too many arguments that something as universally critical as health insurance should be made as affordable and widely available as possible. The argument from the right side though is that by socializing it, you will not get the mythical cost savings and you will get worse service as the outcome. The question as always, what's a better solution - Better service for a vast majority of people or worse service for everybody? You can still have a fundamentally market based driven system with federal and state cooperation. It's not a zero sum game that ideologues seem to believe. There is an effective partnership to be had between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 You can still have a fundamentally market based driven system with federal and state cooperation. It's not a zero sum game that ideologues seem to believe. There is an effective partnership to be had between the two. Which is essentially the system that's in place now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 To be honest, the GOP bill is evidence to me of a growing bipartisan acknowledgment of all people needing access to affordable insurance . I was honestly surprised. I think everybody is in agreement that affordable insurance and quality healthcare is something everyone deserves. I'm with you 100% on that much at least. I simply do not trust legislators, based on their track record, to provide the right fix. You won't get too many arguments that something as universally critical as health insurance should be made as affordable and widely available as possible. The argument from the right side though is that by socializing it, you will not get the mythical cost savings and you will get worse service as the outcome. The question as always, what's a better solution - Better service for a vast majority of people or worse service for everybody? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Which is essentially the system that's in place now Not all partnerships are the same. The one that is in place now is not that market based driven. You can make the partnership look considerably different than what it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank II Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Anyone knowledgeable on how doctors in countries with a socialized medical system get paid? Are they considered federal employees? Are they paid similar to our government employees, based on rank/GS level and time in service? If so, is that not a large reason why doctors from other countries come to America in the first place? If we go to a socialized medical system does the government have the ability to cap the amount they will pay for services provided by doctors, also capping what doctors are able to earn? Is it probable that this could push future medical students into fields where their income potential could be higher and also greatly reduce the number of doctors coming in from other countries? Do we not already have a shortage of doctors in our country? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm hoping someone smarter than I can educate me. Edited March 10, 2017 by Hank II Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) It's dawned on my lately that your sole purpose for visiting and posting here is to essentially complain about, oh, everything and anything. You're the guy in the office who complains that someone brought donuts and not bagels, and then bagels appear and you point out there is no cream cheese, and then cream cheese appears and you complain it's not Philadelphia brand. You've kinda become PastaJoe with brevity.. Making fun of OC who claims to have all the health care answers gets your panties in a bunch? You really are a sensitive flower. Take a look around buttercup: Finding a lot of people here who are praising something?* *excepting Trump Davidians And within the last few weeks I complimented Gorsuch and Tillerson. I'd love it if Trump gave me more to work with but that's about the extent of the upside so far. Too early to point out more. Edited March 10, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 And within the last few weeks I complimented Gorsuch and Tillerson. I'd love it if Trump gave me more to work with but that's about the extent of the upside so far. Too early to point out more. Deregulation is where the optimism from small and large businesses in the country is coming from along with the alleged legislative priorities. I think it's pretty clear to me at least that companies now believe they finally have a partner that is on their side. This is by far the best thing that he brings to the table, from my perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Anyone knowledgeable on how doctors in countries with a socialized medical system get paid? Are they considered federal employees? Are they paid similar to our government employees, based on rank/GS level and time in service? If so, is that not a large reason why doctors from other countries come to America in the first place? If we go to a socialized medical system does the government have the ability to cap the amount they will pay for services provided by doctors, also capping what doctors are able to earn? Is it probable that this could push future medical students into fields where their income potential could be higher and also greatly reduce the number of doctors coming in from other countries? Do we not already have a shortage of doctors in our country? Please excuse my ignorance, I'm hoping someone smarter than I can educate me. In countries with socialized medicine, there is still a private sector. Think of it like sending your kids to public or private school. The vast majority get "free" services that suck; while the rich still get premium services. Teachers/doctors can work for the government, or get better salaries in privately owned businesses (clinics/universities) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank II Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 In countries with socialized medicine, there is still a private sector. Think of it like sending your kids to public or private school. The vast majority get "free" services that suck; while the rich still get premium services. Teachers/doctors can work for the government, or get better salaries in privately owned businesses (clinics/universities) Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Deregulation is where the optimism from small and large businesses in the country is coming from along with the alleged legislative priorities. I think it's pretty clear to me at least that companies now believe they finally have a partner that is on their side. This is by far the best thing that he brings to the table, from my perspective. Deregulation would be a great achievement but he needs a scalpel not a sledgehammer. We will see what reality brings. As I said, it's far too early. His biggest deregulations have been in environment. Of all the areas he could tackle, that's the one I'd hope he'd be more careful with. Coal ain't the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Here's what you should really know about copying Socialized Medicine from Europe, etc... the citizens who proclaim they are great are doing so because they have no idea what they are missing. (Many people in North Korea have admitted that they believed the rest of the world was as poor as them). I've seen Europeans say they are astonished that a local urgent care facility had it's own x-ray machine, and that they were able to see the results within minutes; something Americans take for granted. (like drinking water from the tap; which is unheard of everywhere, even Europe.) The two systems are just not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Deregulation would be a great achievement but he needs a scalpel not a sledgehammer. We will see what reality brings. As I said, it's far too early. His biggest deregulations have been in environment. Of all the areas he could tackle, that's the one I'd hope he'd be more careful with. Coal ain't the future. It won't be a scalpel, but not a sledgehammer either. You know Portman, right? Not someone that the anti globalist right wing crowd would love but you know, one of the more sensible intelligent and realistic guys in the Senate, other wise know as a grown up. It's his path that it appears they will be following. There is a flurry of anti-regulatory legislation floating around Capitol Hill, but it is becoming clear that the key Republican vehicle to rein in rulemaking will be Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s Regulatory Accountability Act. A 16-page draft of the legislation obtained by POLITICO was significantly less radical than several aggressive bills recently passed by the House of Representatives, but industry groups have pinned their hopes on this one attracting support from enough moderate Democrats to overcome a Senate filibuster and make it to Trump’s desk. And even if the Portman bill won’t automatically ensure “the deconstruction of the administrative state” promised by White House adviser Steve Bannon, it could still dramatically curtail the power of government regulators in the long run. Edited March 10, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Here's what you should really know about copying Socialized Medicine from Europe, etc... the citizens who proclaim they are great are doing so because they have no idea what they are missing. (Many people in North Korea have admitted that they believed the rest of the world was as poor as them). I've seen Europeans say they are astonished that a local urgent care facility had it's own x-ray machine, and that they were able to see the results within minutes; something Americans take for granted. (like drinking water from the tap; which is unheard of everywhere, even Europe.) The two systems are just not comparable. Canada has one MRI scanner for every 200,000 people. The US has one MRI scanner for every 40,000 people. Montreal has something like thirty MRI scanners, total. And I know single buildings with more MRI scanners than all of Montreal. Access to health care isn't just about paying for it. And socialized medicine doesn't guarantee access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts